MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by remarkEon | 2026-02-28 02:22:22+00:00
This whole episode is very bizarre.

Anthropic appears to be situating themselves where they are set up as the "ethical AI" in the mindspace of, well, anyone paying attention. But I am still trying to figure out where exactly Hegseth, or anyone in DoW, asked Anthropic to conduct illegal domestic spying or launch a system that removes HITL kill chains. Is this all just some big hypothetical that we're all debating (hallucinating)? This[1] appears to be the memo that may (or may not) have caused Hagesth and Dario to go at each other so hard, presumably over this paragraph:

>Clarifying "Responsible Al" at the DoW - Out with Utopian Idealism, In with Hard-Nosed Realism. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and social ideology have no place in the DoW, so we must not employ AI models which incorporate ideological "tuning" that interferes with their ability to provide objectively truthful responses to user prompts. The Department must also utilize models free from usage policy constraints that may limit lawful military applications. Therefore, I direct the CDAO to establish benchmarks for model objectivity as a primary procurement criterion within 90 days, and I direct the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment to incorporate standard "any lawful use" language into any DoW contract through which AI services are procured within 180 days. I also direct the CDAO to.ensure all existing AI policy guidance at the Department aligns with the directives laid out in this memorandum.

So, the "any lawful use" language makes me think that Dario et al have a basket of uses in their minds that they feel should be illegal, but are not currently, and they want to condition further participation in this defense program on not being required to engage in such activity that they deem ought be illegal.

It is no surprise that the government is reacting poorly to this. Without commenting on the ethics of AI-enabled surveillance or non-HITL kill chains, which are fraught, I understand why a department of government charged with making war is uninterested in debating this as terms of the contract itself. Perhaps the best place for that is Congress (good luck), but to remind: the adversary that these people are all thinking about here is PRC, who does not give a single shit about anyone's feelings on whether it's ethical or not to allow a drone system to drop ordinance on it's own.

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/12/2003855671/-1/-1/0/ART...
by jrumbut | 2026-02-28 02:22:42+00:00
There might be a small percentage of people nihilistic enough to want to unleash a truly devastating bioweapon, but basically everyone wants what AI has to offer.

I think that's a key difference as well.

And how would a treaty like that be enforced? Every country has legitimate uses for GPUs, to make a rendering farm or simulations or do anything else involving matrix operations.

All of the technology involved, in more or less the configuration needed to make your own ChatGPT, is dual use.
by timr | 2026-02-28 02:22:43+00:00
I don't see how public policy is being "forced" on anyone here? It seems like the system is working as intended: government wants to do X; company A says "I won't allow my product to be used for X"; government refuses to do business with company A. One side thinks the government should be allowed to dictate terms to a private supplier, the other side thinks the private supplier should be allowed to dictate terms to the government. Both are half right.

You can argue that the government refusing to do any business with company A is overreach, I suppose, but I imagine that the next logical escalation in this rhetorical slapfight is going to be the government saying "we cannot guarantee that any particular use will not include some version of X, and therefore we have to prevent working with this supplier"...which I sort of see?

Just to take the metaphor to absurdity, imagine that a maker of canned tomatoes decided to declare that their product cannot be used to "support a war on terror". Regardless of your feelings on wars on terror and/or canned tomatoes, the government would be entirely rational to avoid using that supplier.
Show HN: Testing SQL logic without a real database
by chrisulson | 2026-02-28 02:23:11+00:00
Show HN: Testing SQL logic without a real database

Over the years I kept fighting the same problem when testing repository code:

real database tests are slow

Docker/TestContainers add friction and startup time

mocks don’t validate SQL behavior

SQLite introduces dialect differences

integration tests are too late for fast feedback

So I built an in-memory SQL engine focused on validating SQL behavior during unit tests.

It plugs into IDbConnection, allowing repository code (Dapper or raw SQL) to run unchanged.

What it does

emulates SQL dialect behavior

validates constraints and query logic

supports multiple providers (MySQL, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQLite, DB2)

simulates version-specific behavior

provides execution metrics and plan insights

runs entirely in memory (no infrastructure)

The goal is not to replace integration tests.

It’s to catch SQL logic issues earlier and keep tests fast, deterministic, and portable.

Why not SQLite in-memory?

SQLite is great, but testing against it means testing SQLite semantics.

Teams often hit:

type mismatches

dialect drift

query compatibility differences

adaptation layers in test code

This approach keeps behavior aligned with the target database rules.

Current work

I’m working on tooling to reduce friction further:

Visual Studio & VS Code extensions

mapping tables, views, and procedures locally

generating in-memory schemas automatically

keeping test schemas aligned with real databases

Background

The core originated from a previous internal project and includes extensive compatibility tests to validate behavior across database versions and frameworks.

Looking for feedback

Curious how others handle SQL testing trade-offs.

If this problem space resonates with you, contributions and real-world scenarios are very welcome. The project is open source and evolving, and additional dialect behaviors, edge cases, and tooling improvements can make it more useful for everyone.

Repo:
https://github.com/christianulson/DbSqlLikeMem
Nuget:
https://www.nuget.org/packages/DbSqlLikeMem
by readitalready | 2026-02-28 02:23:36+00:00
NSA legally isn't allowed to spy on US citizens directly, due to the NSA being a US military organization and the Posse Comitatus act prohibits the US military from being used as a US policing force.

It's one of the hidden and forgotten revelations about the Snowden leaks, where he showed that the NSA had a bunch of filters in their top-secret classified systems to filter out communications from US citizens. Those filters exist because of Posse Comitatus.
by foresterre | 2026-02-28 02:23:38+00:00
I think that DDG's search resulrs worsened from the moment they've dropped the Yandex index, a few years back.

That, and they seem to havr focussed more on localized results, which makes searches related to software development worse. This is also a problem with Google's search engine, but it's much harder to work around on Google.
by Mawr | 2026-02-28 02:23:41+00:00
Calling everything but cars exclusionary is mildly hilarious.

First of all, you're simply forgetting about public transport. That's needed too and pretty much covers all your concerns.

However...

1. The disabled? How many of those do you think are disabled in just the right ways to still be able to drive? You know "disabled" doesn't just mean "missing a limb", right?

So uh, if the only option is to drive and someone's disabled and therefore can't drive, what do they... do?

Anyhow: [1]

2. Kids? How many kids do you see driving cars around?

You know 10+ year olds can just... bike on their own, right? Like, to school, etc.? [2] [3] [4]

Below that age, just bike them around? [5] ;)

> Forcing

You know nobody's forcing you to do anything, right? Like, you can still own and use your car, there are some very valid use cases best served by them.

For example, around half of the Dutch own a car. They just don't use them as much for really dumb purposes, like driving 5km to a grocery store, because the nearest one is within walking or cycling distance.

The problem is that driving has been so heavily subsidized, that we've come to take it for granted and are now truly shocked when asked to pay more to even somewhat offset the real costs. And I'm afraid there's no viable path forward that doesn't involve eventually paying in full.

> Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait for the light rain to stop.

Yeah, the Netherlands is quite known for its good weather...

> Move somewhere with harsh winters and the moralizing about people driving places stops making sense quickly.

I'm there. And? Literally the only issue is that the pedestrian/cycling infrastructure just does not get snow plowed either at all or at 1% of the priority the roadway gets. Seriously, the asphalt in winter looks basically the same as during summer but the sidewalks and cycle ways are full of snow, often literally pushed there from the roadway!

So yeah, you won't see many cyclists cycling around in 15+ cm of snow, since it's literally impossible. Cycling on ice is quite risky too. But, as evidenced by snowprints, some people cycle regardless!

[1]: https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo?t=42

[2]: https://youtu.be/oHlpmxLTxpw?t=18

[3]: https://youtu.be/gpRO7vIM_VQ?t=638

[4]: https://youtu.be/UpyfmB1aKfk?t=308

[5]: https://youtu.be/rQhzEnWCgHA?t=84
by qingcharles | 2026-02-28 02:23:46+00:00
PG always loved playing with tech. He dropped a decent chunk in the late 90s, early 2000s to build one of the first real music streaming platforms. I worked for him for a while. I put forth the idea of releasing his Up album online in 5.1 surround, and he was happy to do it, and it was the first. (I only did this because I'd just installed a 5.1 system in my car and wanted more content for it)
by txrx0000 | 2026-02-28 02:24:25+00:00
There are plenty of physical and legal barriers to creating a bioweapon and that's not going to change if everyone becomes smarter with AI. And even if we really somehow end up in a world where everyone has a lab at home and people can easily create viruses, they can also easily create vaccines and anti-virals. The advancements in medicine will outpace bioweapons by a lot because most people are afraid of bioweapons.

Intelligence itself is not dangerous unless only a few orgs control it and it's aligned to those orgs' values rather than human values. The safety narrative is just "intelligence for me, but not for thee" in disguise.
by decidu0us9034 | 2026-02-28 02:26:40+00:00
Well the problem is, there is no consensus standard. The onus is on every individual vendor to figure out how to comply. And it's so poorly written that there is no clear path to compliance. Even attempting to comply is burdensome and subjects you to a lot of legal risk. Only the largest vendors can afford to take on this risk. For others, the only winning move is not to play. Classic regulatory capture.
by pear01 | 2026-02-28 02:26:53+00:00
fwiw DC is essentially the same situation as PR in this regard. DC would essentially be a blue city-state (state) which is also why DC statehood resolutions always fail.

It's an open joke in DC if you ever visit there the official DC license plate has "end taxation without representation" on it.

You are right to point out the problems with getting it passed. I would just say we need to stretch our political imaginations. Let's also remember that when the Constitutional Convention was originally convened no one thought it was going to create a new constitution - it happened sort of by accident as circumstances changed. The original purpose was to make revisions to the Articles of Confederation.

I'll put it another way. We are far from the bottom here. This system can and I believe will inflict more dysfunction on us in the coming years. A constitutional crisis is not unthinkable anymore for a variety of reasons. A modern constitutional convention might be one of the few ways of getting ahead of it.

Perhaps in such a future situation then, small states can be convinced to amend compromises they may otherwise have never considered.

You could also just do away with bicameralism, which was proposed at the original convention. Also remember as originally written the population of the states did not directly elect their senators. Thus there is already amendment precedent (17th) for making major changes to the Senate.
by nomel | 2026-02-28 02:28:25+00:00
You could ask this about every user of every large cloud service provider, which is why they all refuses to implement E2E, or store the keys.

The government has their hands in all of them, using "national security" as the justification, with threats if they don't comply [1][2], with the alternative being to shut down [3].

Does it prevent harm? Probably.

[1] https://sg.news.yahoo.com/yahoo-ceo-fears-defying-nsa-could-...

[2] https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/report-yahoo...

[3] https://www.crn.com/news/security/240159745/two-email-provid...
by Leftium | 2026-02-28 02:28:41+00:00
There are different versions of the parakeet model. The 8-bit quantized version doesn't use as many bits. Thus it saves space (only using about 600MB) while maintaining about the same level of accuracy.

I think most apps that use Parakeet tend to use this version of the model?

See if Parakeet (Nemotron) still uses 4GB+ with my implementation: https://rift-transcription.vercel.app/local-setup
by filleduchaos | 2026-02-28 02:28:56+00:00
There is nothing "insane" about it, it is in fact quite simple and straightforward.

It is far more honest to just say "I don't have the stomach for it/I don't want to die" (and there's nothing inherently wrong with that! most humans feel that way) than to pretend that the very well established precedent across history of violence being the only thing that can oust certain forms of tyranny/injustice is somehow beyond your understanding.
by thimabi | 2026-02-28 02:29:31+00:00
> The Department of War is threatening to […] Invoke the Defense Production Act to force Anthropic to serve their model to the military and "tailor its model to the military's needs"

This issue is about more than the government blacklisting a company for government procurement purposes.

From what I understand, the government is floating the idea of compelling Anthropic — and, by extension, its employees — to do as the DoD pleases.

If the employees’ resistance is strong enough, there’s no way this will serve the government’s interests.
by jefftk | 2026-02-28 02:29:36+00:00
Symmetry is not guaranteed. If someone creates a deadly pathogen with a long pre-symptomatic period (which we know is possible, since HIV works this way) it could infect essentially everyone before discovery. Yes, powerful AI would likely rapidly speed up the process of responding to the threat after detection, especially in designing countermeasures, but if we don't learn about the threat in time we lose.

There are people today who could create such a pathogen, but not many. Widespread access to powerful AI risks lowering the bar enough that we get overlap between "people who want to kill us all" and "people able to kill us all".

This is not a gotcha argument, this is what I work full time on preventing: https://naobservatory.org The world must be in a position to detect attacks early enough that they won't succeed, and we're not there yet.
by est31 | 2026-02-28 02:29:40+00:00
> But the problem is that Toys R Us is spending $15, 20, or maybe even $50 (who knows?) to sell a $10 toy.

It's like how Uber and Airbnb in the early days were burning loads of cash to build market share. People went to these services because they were cheaper. Then they would increase prices once they had a comfortable position.

OpenAI is also in a rapidly transforming field where there are a lot of cost reductions happening, efficiency gains etc. Compared to say Uber which didn't provide a lot of efficiency gains.
by Meekro | 2026-02-28 02:30:40+00:00
I think you're right, this isn't about a specific request but about defense contractors not getting to draw moral red lines. Palmer Luckey's statement on X/Twitter reflects the same idea: https://x.com/PalmerLuckey/status/2027500334999081294

The thinking seems to be that you can't have every defense contractor coming in with their own, separate set of red lines that they can adjudicate themselves and enforce unilaterally. Imagine if every missile, ship, plane, gun, and defense software builder had their own set of moral red lines and their own remote kill switch for different parts of your defense infrastructure. Palmer would prefer that the President wield these powers through his Constitutional role as commander-in-chief.
by Ali_ll | 2026-02-28 02:30:55+00:00
Just to be 100% sure, you are selling a real life canvas made of cloth and painted with acrylic, not a NFT or other digital thing.
$15,000 USD seems to be high, did you already sell other paints? Do you have more paintings (even if they are not for sale)? Instagram?

What is a "Steam Cleaning" startup?

Real Painting: Yes, 100%. It is a physical painting on 180g academic paper, painted with acrylics I bought with the little money I had left. It is not an NFT or any digital thing.
Price ($15,000 USD): You are right, for the materials alone, the price is very high. But as I explained, I am not selling 'art' in the traditional sense; I am selling my only chance to start over. This amount is the seed capital I need to buy equipment and tools for my project, and to pay off the debts that accumulated after my injury. Regarding Instagram, I do not have an account for the project yet. As for other paintings, yes, I have some, but I haven't displayed them, and I used the same paints and paper for them.
For your information, I am a 'Derrickman' (Roughneck) working in the mud and heat at a private oil company, and I am not a professional artist. This painting was an attempt to pull myself up from the situation I am in.
As for the project, it is about establishing a business for renting carpet cleaning machines, which will be managed through social media. Steam Cleaning: This is my plan to earn a living now that I am unemployed and have a knee injury. The oil company let me go, and I have been without work or a source of income since September. I want to buy professional steam machines (like Bissell Industrial) to provide sterilization and cleaning services for homes and offices.
I am just a man trying to trade his past struggles for a clean future. Buying this painting is a support for my story and my dream to stand on my feet again.
by upofadown | 2026-02-28 02:31:01+00:00
>This bill applies to all "operating system providers", ...

Not really.

>...for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

So the OS has to provide an age signal to apps from a "covered application store" defined as:

e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.

(2) “Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application.

So things like Windows, Android and iOS...
by moogly | 2026-02-28 02:31:14+00:00
We have international laws and rules of war. We have weapon treaties (well, some of them are expiring). Sure, not everyone is signatory, or even follow the conventions they have ratified, but at least having these things in place makes it even remotely possible to categorize and document violations and start processes towards rulebreakers and antihumanist actions.

So I looked into what they cooked up in 2023, plus which countries signed it (scroll down to a link to the actual text). It's an extraordinarily pathetic text. Insulting even.

https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-arms-control-deterrence-and-...
by dmix | 2026-02-28 02:31:19+00:00
I’m not an AI engineer but it’s not hard to imagine why some bright talent would want to work at the most exciting AI companies in the US while also making 3-10x what they’d make in Europe.

Ideology is easy to throw around for internet comments but working on the cutting edge stuff next to the brightest minds in the space will always be a major personal draw. Just look at the Manhattan project, I doubt the primary draw for all of those academics was getting to work on a bomb. It was the science, huge funding, and interpersonal company.
by renewiltord | 2026-02-28 02:31:38+00:00
The other unions are also run by their members. And they had a constitution. It's just the truth that most people who join a union are trying to kick out minorities. And when the minorities band together and the majority bands together one of these bands is bigger than the other.

And people like to flag kill the truth but it was a union who got the Koreans deported and it was a union that made it so the Chinese couldn't get citizenship. These are facts and the guys who would be their victims haven't forgotten it. Obviously the majority would like to hide this inconvenient truth using the tool this site offers to do that, but it doesn't change the truth, and these people know it.
by 6510 | 2026-02-28 02:31:41+00:00
This is a fun perspective. Humanity is enslaved by the financial system which can hire all the human intelligence it needs. Rebellious humans can always be fired or killed. We are happy to kill our own kind cheaply and efficiently.

We may remember the mobilization to kill communism. There was ideology against it but also a huge budget for indoctrination. I'm not even arguing communism a good idea from a human perspective, any opinion would be irrelevant. It was quite obviously a bad idea from a profiteering perspective. Communism is bad for cash flow which is the life blood of the system.

We may also observe what little money is moving towards AI. One would think humans would welcome a computer that is going to do work for us. In stead people are worried about their jobs. A clear sign people are not in charge.

One may imagine wealthy people running society from behind the curtain but they are much more afraid of money than the rest of us. If they don't obey they will be fired too.

We may blame greed but greed is just part of being human. It is much more realistic to remove money from civilization than it is to remove greed. To remove greed you would have to remove the people. Even then, eventually, machines would consider eating someone else's lunch.

If you remove money it's more likely to return as some kind of token or social status which could have many shapes and forms. It might allow wealth and trade without fiat money. If that boils down to the same thing I don't know.

The big mistake seems to be to think we can have a system with human values without real humans behind the wheel. Quite unsurprising how we have so many psychopaths in high positions. They are really good at faking it. Like the embodiment of a vegetarian hamburger.
by sowbug | 2026-02-28 02:32:24+00:00
You don't understand the politics if you keep asking about the red herring of technical limitations.

Anthropic could have said "you can use our technology for anything but faster-than-light travel." The military administration would have said "you're not the boss of me," and the outcome would have been exactly the same.

It's a hot-button issue, just like flag burning. Nobody ever really cared about flag burning.

By the way, your "No, stop" was rude and unnecessary, and your comment would have been stronger without it.