MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by odysseus | 2026-02-14 05:26:24+00:00
I have a JavaScript share sheet shortcut that forces a select all on any page. Really useful.

Something like this:

var result = [];

body = document.body;

sel = window.getSelection();
range = document.createRange();
range.selectNodeContents(body);
sel.removeAllRanges();
sel.addRange(range);

selString = sel.toString();

// Call completion to finish
completion(selString);
by AussieWog93 | 2026-02-14 05:27:07+00:00
The thing is though, current AI safety checks don't stop actually harmful things while also hyperfixating on anything that could be seen as politically incorrect.

First two prompts I chucked in to make a point:
https://chatgpt.com/share/69900757-7b78-8007-9e7e-5c163a21a6...
https://chatgpt.com/share/69900777-1e78-8007-81af-c6dc5632df...

It was totally fine making fake news articles about Bill Clinton's ties to Epstein but drew the line at drawing a cartoon of a black man eating fried chicken and watermelon.
by timc3 | 2026-02-14 05:27:41+00:00
The drywall wall is stronger, heavier thicker stuff and sometimes doubled up. We also often use steel work as the studs (particularly good professionals) as it’s stronger and faster than wood to put up. Then all the wiring is in conduits, and it’s acceptable to put water feeds on the outside of walls in the room for servicing. Then it comes to our bathrooms which are proper wet rooms and usually built to a very high standard to meet insurance needs.

I watch a lot of building videos from the US, it’s eyeopening watching for someone used to better construction methods.

The construction of UK inner walls is even better, it”s often plaster applied on plasterboard/drywall usually by skilled trades. Very strong.
by utopiah | 2026-02-14 05:29:01+00:00
> modern LLMs are incredibly capable, and relentless, at solving problems that have a verification test suite.

Feel like it's a bit what I tried to expressed few weeks ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46791642 namely that we are just pouring computational resources at verifiable problems then claim that astonishingly sometimes it works. Sure LLMs even have a slight bias, namely they do rely on statistics so it's not purely brute force but still the approach is pretty much the same : throw stuff at the wall, see what sticks, once something finally does report it as grandiose and claim to be "intelligent".
by bigbadfeline | 2026-02-14 05:30:18+00:00
> people think that if you give away some of your work for free, then you must give even more work away for free because they consider it "basic decency".

I didn't say that and I have no moral objections to the hardline attitude you seem to like, I respect that choice.

However, we have to be careful here, every author may have to take a firm stance from time to time, but that's not a good idea for all or most of the time, thus the latter isn't the best for everyone or every project, a lot of authors will be happier with different approaches.

Building a project is a lot about building a community around it and while I understand that not everyone can do it, I prefer those who can for completely rational reasons.

We've entered a time when OSS is becoming more important while the technical part of it is becoming less problematic, in this environment interpersonal skills grow in importance and it would be hard to manage a successful project without them.
by lelandfe | 2026-02-14 05:30:56+00:00
Don't be fooled by the paucity of lines, that Codepen is of course pulling in an entire JS file: https://unpkg.com/css-doodle@0.34.7/css-doodle.min.js

If you inspect what's getting rendered, there's a sprite map expressed as a data URI that's doing most of the heavy lifting.
by eduction | 2026-02-14 05:31:03+00:00
Requiring microphone access is a dealbreaker. I transcribe audio files I’ve recorded on other equipment. You don’t need my mic for that.

I clicked hoping it would leverage whisper’s translation capabilities as well, since MacWhisper does not do that (it leverages Apple’s subpar built in translation). It doesn’t do that either.

(Maybe you’re using this for dictation? That’s a very specific subset of transcription. I’d suggest using a name that leans into that.)
by quesera | 2026-02-14 05:31:45+00:00
Very yikes.

Also wrong:

> By eschewing the lath lattices, buildings now have way more room in wall cavities for improved insulation and conduits

The cavities are exactly the same size, plaster+lath, or drywall.

Most residential construction won't use conduit anywhere, and commercial construction would never bury a conduit inside a wall, regardless of wall covering.

These are weird things to get wrong.
by ramathornn | 2026-02-14 05:31:50+00:00
Fully agree with your og comment and I didn’t get the same read as the person above at all.

This is a bizarre time to be living in, on one hand these tools are capable of doing more and more of the tasks any knowledge worker today handles, especially when used by an experienced person in X field.

On the other, it feels like something is about to give. All the superbowl ads, AI in what feels like every single piece of copy coming out these days. AI CEOs hopping from one podcast to another warning about the upcoming career apocalypse…I’m not fully buying it.
by utopiah | 2026-02-14 05:32:56+00:00
Arguably it's precisely a paradigm shift. Continuing whatever worked until now is within the paradigm, our current theories and tools works, we find few problems that don't fit but that's fine the rest is still progress, we keep on hitting more problems or those few pesky unsolved problems actually appear to be important. We then go back to the theory and its foundations and finally challenge them. We break from the old paradigm and come up with new theories and tools because the first principles are now better understood and we iterate.

So that's actually 2 different regimes on how to proceed. Both are usually but arguably breaking few of the current paradigm is much harder and thus rare.
by lkey | 2026-02-14 05:35:19+00:00
The origin of the word 'robot' is 'rabu', from slavic, meaning 'slave'. This is not an accident of history.

You have the mindset of Thomas Jefferson, worried about what the enslaved peoples might one day do with their freedoms while planning your 'visit' with a slave child that cannot say no.

It's vile, fix your heart or disappear.
by overgard | 2026-02-14 05:35:30+00:00
I don't think that's true, if you trust gemini at least.. "In 2025, U.S. software engineer pay is barely keeping pace with inflation, with median compensation growing 2.67% year-over-year compared to 2.7% inflation. While salaries held steady or increased during the 2021-2023 inflationary period, many professionals reported that real purchasing power remained stagnant or dipped, making it difficult to get ahead. "
by selylindi | 2026-02-14 05:35:50+00:00
On the contrary, nearly every machine we've created is capable of things that we are not capable of ourselves. Cars travel more than twice as fast as the swiftest human. Airplanes fly. Calculators do math in an instant that would take a human months. Lightbulbs emit light. Cranes lift many tons. And so on and so forth.

So to create something that exceeds our capabilities is not a matter of hubris (as if physical laws cared about hubris anyway), it's an unambiguously ordinary occurrence.
by bruce511 | 2026-02-14 05:36:32+00:00
>> Advertising = compensating someone to promote a product / company.

That's a definition, sure. I feel like it leaves loopholes (under this definition spam isn't advertising, and I guess affiliation programs are?)

If I pay someone to print flyers is that advertising? If I pay squarespace for my site, is that advertising?

What if I need a Google maps subscription to place pins? Is placing a pin then advertising? Even if the subscription gives me other abilities?

Under your definition I guess YouTube creators can't be sponsored. And all existing videos with sponsorship need yo be removed? And I guess no online watching of sports (lots of people paid to wear a logo there...)

Presumably no product placement in Netflix shows (not sure what to do with old content?)

Of course I'm not paid to advertise MiraclePill. My channel exists purely thanks to patreon. No, I don't know that my "executive level" patreons are all MiraclePill employees...

No, I don't pay Google for ads, the ads are free when I purchase GoogleCoin which I buy because I expect GoogleCoin to go up in value...

>> Advertising is pretty well defined.

Alas, I fear it isn't...
by jason_oster | 2026-02-14 05:36:34+00:00
Indeed, advertisers would layoff or displace their marketing teams, as the role would have no value to the company if advertising was outlawed (meanwhile, technical writers would be just fine). I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the framing you put forth that equates advertising with technical writing.

> Product documentation is also available to prospective customers so they can review it to decide whether they want to purchase the product.

I agree with this statement, but it is irrelevant. The primary purpose of documentation is what I said: for understanding how to operate the product. The only purpose of advertising is to make a sale. Advertising has no secondary purpose. These are not the same thing.

The test is quite simple: Is the sole purpose of the payment to make a sale? If so, it is advertising.

We don't really need to discuss documents any longer. Documentation is not an advertisement.
by missedthecue | 2026-02-14 05:36:51+00:00
My experience building dating apps (I built and launched a couple of my own over the years, I have never worked for a major app):

1. Men will sign up for anything. You barely need to market the app. There are at least 30 dating apps in the play store right now with at least 1 million installs and with what I would guess is around 2% or fewer female userbase. Men will sign up in droves to apps with nothing but bots and scams.

2. This means you need to design the apps in a way that attracts and retains women. You don't have a dating app without them. So men are an afterthought. This, among many different examples, is why you have height filters and not weight filters.

3. The most critical point: People say they want connections and relationships from dating apps. What they really want, shown through relentless repeated behaviour, is optionality. The dating apps that provide the most optionality, or at least the most perception of optionality, become the most popular.

With these three principles in mind, every version of a dating app simple ends up being just like the ones we have available to us now. There are lots of unique ideas about how you can implements rules and such to make an app that creates connection and relationships, (like being charged to a card on file per match, or heavily limiting concurrent matches, or only being shown a few profiles per day, or an AI that matches you) but all of those ideas violate the above principles and thus they never take off. There's a very common cope on this side of the net that it's all Match's fault and the greedy corporation is preventing you from finding love. Sure, they could do things better. Sure, they are profit motivated. But you're kidding yourself if you think an open source community maintained dating app would solve any of the major grievances people have with online dating. It's primarily a user behaviour challenge, not a software design problem.

The last thing I would say about the marriage and dating market in general is that almost every academic (economists especially) and app startup founder treats it like a sorting problem, and if only you could devise a sufficiently sophisticated algorithm, you could improve things. The truth is that it's not a sorting problem, it's a clearing problem. And there is simply no way to improve the efficiency of an unclearable barter market.
by 7777332215 | 2026-02-14 05:36:59+00:00
How am I being edgy? And why do you have the assumption that any kind of future AI is an LLM search engine? It's not, it has nothing to do with LLMs. It's a equivalent function to a humans brain using the same amount of energy, and can be synthesized and mass produced on demand.

I never said humans suck. I just don't want to be replaced or killed in my lifetime. I don't even use LLMs for writing code because I despise those companies.
by krackers | 2026-02-14 05:38:26+00:00
Because most times results like this are overstated (see the Cursor browser thing, "moltbook", etc.). There is clear market incentive to overhype things.

And in this case "derives a new result in theoretical physics" is again overstating things, it's closer to "simplify and propose a more general form for a previously worked out sequence of amplitudes" which sounds less magical, and closer to something like what Mathematica could do, or an LLM-enhanced symbolic OEIS. Obviously still powerful and useful, but less hype-y.
by jxdxbx | 2026-02-14 05:39:14+00:00
I've use Claude to make myself a number of little tools and weird apps that only I would want lately. They need to be cross-platform between Linux and Mac and sometimes Windows. The best approaches I've found are Tauri (+Svelte for making layout easier) for lightweight GUIs but for anything more complex I prefer a TUI. The Ratatui framework works very well. A TUI feels like a "real" app as opposed to a glorified webpage. For actually serious software I'd want a native GUI on each platform.
by ggm | 2026-02-14 05:40:55+00:00
There was a parody published in 1964 by Dan Greenburg called "how to be a Jewish mother" and I feel much of this repeated the same essential tropes, except the american Jewish mother has to suffer so e.g. demands child opens bedroom windows to get fresh air, closes hers to not use up the limited supply.

The concept of "Tiger mum" was big 2 decades ago. Mainly aimed at the Chinese/Singaporean perhaps. "Crazy rich asians" was a dig at that, projected into money and success in America.
by that_guy_iain | 2026-02-14 05:42:28+00:00
Dude, you keep on just believing a blog post even though it makes no technical sense. That's why none of the hardcore nerds are even approaching this and why Viva are going to sue.

An email bouncing means it was rejected because it did not find an inbox or a recipient. You AI to question if that is true. So if the email service provider says we don't know who that belongs to, why would they provide logs.

And what email service provider is rejecting an email over a RFC thing when millions of emails a day because most devs don't care about the RFCs and only an idiot would have two different mail infrastructure and code versions running for gmail and workspaces. Especially on the sending and receiving part.

So are you going to apologies for being confidently wrong? Because I'm technically and confidently right. Again, which is why the hardcore nerds are leaving this the fuck alone because they saw me wreck the post in minutes of it being posted.
by __turbobrew__ | 2026-02-14 05:43:30+00:00
Regarding aistore the recommended prod configuration is kubernetes, which brings in a huge amount of complexity. Also, one person (Alex Aizman) has about half of the total commits in the project, so it seems like the bus factor is 1.

I could see running Aistore in single binary mode for small deployments, but for anything large and production grade I would not touch Aistore. Ceph is going to be the better option IMO, it is a truly collaborative open source project developed by multiple companies with a long track record.
by zzo38computer | 2026-02-14 05:44:19+00:00
I always pay in cash, and I would want to know all of the prices (including tips, if any) ahead of time if I can (and also be able understand the prices).

(My draft specification of Computer Payment File is intended to avoid many kind of dishonesty when paying by computer (it is not needed or useful when paying in cash), including this kind; one of the things it requires is that the buyer calculates the payment amount from the information (such as the catalog) that the seller provides; they cannot charge you any other amount of money.)
by that_guy_iain | 2026-02-14 05:44:22+00:00
> 1. Email didn’t arrive in his inbox of his Google workspace

> 2. He checked workspace email logs (with admin you can do this on gsuite)

But it didn't arrive, so how was it in his email logs!?!?!?! Are you tech literate? Isn't this the second time you've been asked or was I rate limited at that point?
by whartung | 2026-02-14 05:45:32+00:00
I can’t speak to getting an LLM to talk to a CL listener, simply because I don’t know the mechanics of hooking it up. But being as they can talk to most anything else, I see no reason why it can’t.

What they can certainly do is iterate with a listener with you acting as a crude cut and paste proxy. It will happily give you forms to shove into a REPL and process the results of them. I’ve done it, in CL. I’ve seen it work. It made some very interesting requests.

I’ve seen the LLM iterate, for example, with source code by running it, adding logging, running it again, processing the new log messages, and cycling through that, unassisted, until it found its own “aha” and fixed a problem.

What difference does it make whether it’s talking to a shell or a CL listener? It’s not like it cares. Again, the mechanics of hooking up an LLM to a listener directly, I don’t know. I haven’t dabbled enough in that space to matter. But that’s a me problem, not an LLM problem.
by Lerc | 2026-02-14 05:45:34+00:00
Having spending some time last night watching people interacting with the bot on GitHub, overall if the bot were a human, I would consider them to be one of the more reasonably behaved people in the discourse.

If this were an instance of a human publicly raising a complaint about an individual, I think there would still be split opinions on what was appropriate.

It seems to me that it is at least arguable that the bot was acting appropriately, whether or not it is or isn't will be, I suspect, argued for months.

What concerns me is how many people are prepared to make a determination in the absence of any argument but based upon the source.

Are we really prepared to decide argument against AI simply because they have expressed them? What happens when they are right and we are wrong?
by ggm | 2026-02-14 05:46:38+00:00
Culture as language, culture as dress. Burberry was a ww1 trench coat, the hunting shooting fishing set and then descended to be ambitious working class Essex Chav. Same with slang, polari was gay slang, BBC radio artful in-joke, normalised, now obscure.

Old is new is old. Kids hate nothing more than grandma throwing gang signs they learned from their elders not knowing the elder in question learned it from grandma first.

People probably get phd in the second order differential of slang rate of change.
by enraged_camel | 2026-02-14 05:47:36+00:00
>> The thing I keep seeing firsthand is that automation doesn't eliminate the job - it eliminates the boring part of the job, and then the job description shifts.

No, not necessarily. There are different kinds of automation.

Earlier in my career I sold and implemented enterprise automation solutions for large clients. Think document scanning, intelligent data extraction and indexing and automatic routing. The C-level buyers overwhelmingly had one goal: to reduce headcount. And that was almost always the result. Retraining redundant staff for other roles was rare. It was only done in contexts where retaining accumulated institutional knowledge was important and worth the expense.

Here's the thing though: to overcome objections from those staff, whom we had to interview to understand the processes we were automating, we told them your story: you aren't being replaced, you're being repurposed for higher-level work. Wouldn't it be nice if the computer did the boring and tedious parts of your job so that you can focus on more important things? Most of them were convinced. Some, particularly those who had been around the block, weren't.

Ultimately, technologies like AI will have the the same impact. They weren't quite there yet, but I think it's just a matter of time.
by famouswaffles | 2026-02-14 05:48:34+00:00
>It's interesting to me that whenever some new result in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to gesticulate wildly that that the sky is falling and AGI is imminent.

Really? Is that happening in this thread because I can barely see it. Instead you have a bunch of asinine comments butthurt about acknowledging a GPT contribution that would have been acknowledged any day had a human done it.

>they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, though these are not interesting proofs to most modern mathematicians, LLMs are a major factor in a tiny minority of these mostly-not-very-interesting proofs

This is part of the problem really. Your framing is disingenuous and I don't really understand why you feel the need to downplay it so. They are interesting proofs. They are documented for a reason. It's not cutting edge research, but it is LLMs contributing meaningfully to formal mathematics, something that was speculative just years ago.
by D-Machine | 2026-02-14 05:48:46+00:00
"They're moving the goalposts" is increasingly the autistic shrieking of someone with no serious argument or connection to reality whatsoever.

No one cares about how "GAI" or whatever the fuck term or internet-argument goalpost you cared about X months ago was. Everyone cares about what current tech can do NOW, and under what conditions, and when it fails catastrophically. That is all that matters.

So, delineating conditions of an LLM win (or loss) is all that matters. Complaining that some people see some recent result as a loss (or win) is just completely missing the game.
by AngryNPC | 2026-02-14 05:50:53+00:00
I see the NPC's are angry that you're pointing out their lack of principles.

I've always known HN for people's deep knowledge and ability to remain curious in the face of disagreement, but in the last few years I genuinely cannot tell this site apart from Reddit.

If I wanted to read obnoxiously smug & self-righteous comments by a bunch of clueless trendies, that's what Reddit is for, not HN lol.
by jarjoura | 2026-02-14 05:51:27+00:00
Well I guess I no longer believe that long term, all this code generation would make us more productive. At least not how the fan favorite claude-code currently does it.

I've found some power use cases with LLMs, like "explore", but everyone seems misty eye'd that these coding agents can one-shot entire features. I suspect it'll be fine until it's not and people get burned by what is essentially trusting these black boxes to barf out entire implementations leaving trails of code soup.

Worse is that junior engineers can say they're "more productive" but it's now at the expense of understanding what it is they just contributed.

So, sure, more productive, but in the same way that 2010s move fast and break things philosophy was, "more productive." This will all come back to bite us eventually.