MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: Claude Code for Mobile GUI Automation
by UgOrange | 2026-02-19 12:44:18+00:00
Phone GUI agents (e.g., AutoGLM-Phone, GELab) can already do NL-driven taps/navigation/form filling.
My observation: smaller GUI models (often 4B/9B class) work well for single interactions, but become brittle on long workflows with branching and recovery.

I built a Skill layer that separates planning from execution:

- Planner: Claude Code / Codex (task decomposition, decision-making, replanning)
- Orchestrator: Skill layer (state machine, retries/rollback, tool protocol)
- Executor: phone GUI model (screen parsing + UI actions + cross-app execution)

Execution loop:

1. Goal in NL/template
2. Planner emits step plan + conditions + fallback strategy
3. Skill compiles into atomic actions (tap/type/swipe/wait/verify)
4. GUI executor runs on real/cloud phone, returns screenshots/state/structured output
5. Planner/orchestrator decide next step until success/fallback
Potential use cases:

- recruiting outreach automation
- multi-platform content distribution
- social outreach workflows
- lead extraction
- competitor monitoring
by perilunar | 2026-02-19 12:45:08+00:00
Two odd things strike me:

1. 5 is the symbols for 4 and 1 combined, 6 is new, then 7=6+1, 8=6+2, and 9=6+3. It seems to me it would be more obvious to have 1 to 5 be unique symbols, then 6=5+1, 7=5+2, 8=5+3, and 9=5+4. Like how we do with tally marks.

2. The system is really just 4 digits combined in a square. I don't see the advantage over Arabic numerals.
by TZubiri | 2026-02-19 12:45:29+00:00
I didn't see today's ToS change. But this was always against ToS. OpenClaw specifically is built against tech that breaks ToS.

Probably the ToS change was to make it more clear.

To be fair, the developer is the one breaking the ToS in the most significant way, breaking boilerplate reverse engineering clauses.

But the user also is very aware that they are doing something funny, in order to authenticate, the user is asked to authorize Claude Code, n ot Opencode or OpenClaw, it's clearly a hack and there is no authorization from Anthropic to OpenClaw, and you are not giving Anthropic authorization to give access to OC, the user asks Anthropic to give access to Claude Code, the only reason this works is because OC is pretending to be Claude Code.

The bottom line issue is that as a user you are paying for a subscription to a package that includes an expected usage. That package is not metered, but it is given on the condition that you will use it as it is expected to be used, by chatting manually with the chatbot, which results in a reasonable expected token usage. By using a program that programatically calls the chat interface, the token consumption increases beyond what was part of the original deal, and so the price should be different.

A similar scenario would be if you go to an all you can eat buffet, you pay for a single person, but then you actually unload an army of little clones that start eating the whole buffet. Technically it was an all you can eat buffet and you paid the price right? Well no, come on, don't play dumb.
Show HN: Building a Music Creation Platform Powered by Lyria 3
by garmiter | 2026-02-19 12:45:43+00:00
I’m building a music creation site that integrates with Lyria 3, a new AI music generation model. The goal is to make AI-powered music creation simple, fast, and accessible to anyone — no production skills required. The integration is coming soon, and I’d love for the community to try it out and share feedback once it’s live. Thanks. https://lyria3.im/
by tarruda | 2026-02-19 12:45:46+00:00
This is probably one of the most underrated LLMs releases in the past few months. In my local testing with a 4-bit quant (https://huggingface.co/ubergarm/Step-3.5-Flash-GGUF/tree/mai...), it surpasses every other LLM I was able to run locally, including Minimax 2.5 and GLM-4.7, though I was only able to run GLM with a 2-bit quant. Some highlights:

- Very context efficient: SWA by default, on a 128G mac I can run the full 256k context or two 128k context streams.
- Good speeds on macs. On my M1 Ultra I get 36 t/s tg and 300 t/s pp. Also, these speeds degrade very slowly as context increases: At 100k prefill, it has 20 t/s tg and 129 t/s pp.
- Trained for agentic coding. I think it is trained to be compatible with claude code, but it works fine with other CLI harnesses except for Codex (due to the patch edit tool which can confuse it).

This is the first local LLM in the 200B parameter range that I find to be usable with a CLI harness. Been using it a lot with pi.dev and it has been the best experience I had with a local LLM doing agentic coding.

There are a few drawbacks though:

- It can generate some very long reasoning chains.
- Current release has a bug where sometimes it goes into an infinite reasoning loop: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/pull/19283#issuecommen...

Hopefully StepFun will do a new release which addresses these issues.

BTW StepFun seems to be the same company that released ACEStep (very good music generation model). At least StepFun is mentioned in ComfyUI docs https://docs.comfy.org/tutorials/audio/ace-step/ace-step-v1
by Kim_Bruning | 2026-02-19 12:46:22+00:00
Yeah, I get it, that's outside your personal Overton window; we all come at this from different angles. I take it you reject the operator's confession out of hand then?

That said, the theory you're putting forward today seems to be a bit flimsy and convoluted for a mere $209 in tokens. Were they ever even spent? I don't think it should survive Occam's Razor.

If the meme-coin you mentioned enters the timeline before 2026-Feb-08, plausibly that resurrects the theory.

But who knows, I'm not the crypto-hunter. Maybe you've seen crazier stuff!
Show HN: Unix-style pipeline composition for MCP tool calls
by kantord | 2026-02-19 12:46:54+00:00
This is a little side-project I have been working on at my job.

Model Context Shell lets AI agents compose MCP tool calls using something similar to Unix shell scripting. Instead of the agent making each tool call individually (loading all intermediate data into context), it can express a workflow as a pipeline that executes server-side.

Since the orchestration is deterministic and reproducible, you can also use it with Skills.

Tool orchestration runs outside the agent and LLM context, so the agent can extract only the relevant parts of data and load those into context. This means you can save tokens, but also you can work with data that is too big to load into context, and your agent can trigger a very large number of tool calls if needed.

Also, this is not just a tool that runs bash - it has its own execution engine. So no need for full system access.

Example query: "List all Pokemon over 50 kg that have the chlorophyll ability"

Instead of 7+ separate tool calls loading all Pokemon data into context, the agent builds a single pipeline that:

1. Fetches the ability data
2. Extracts Pokemon URLs
3. Fetched each Pokemon's details (7 tool calls)
4. Filters by weight and formats the results

At least in it's current iteration, it's packaged as an MCP server itself. So you can use it with any agent. I made this, and some other design choices, so you can try it right away.
by nicbou | 2026-02-19 12:47:07+00:00
To an extent, you can set boundaries. Boundaries are not for controlling others, but they can define what behaviour you accept. I don't accept apologies written by AI. I don't read AI-written content. I don't put my name on AI output. If you send an AI-generated wall of text my way, I will not acknowledge it.

Otherwise, have you tried politely calling people out on it? "Is this your writing?" "I'd prefer if you didn't make me read AI-generated text." Again, it's less about controlling their behaviour, but about making your boundary known.

Just be ready to accept that you are swimming against the current here. If people cared as much as you do, they would not use AI that way in the first place.
by gostsamo | 2026-02-19 12:47:36+00:00
The arabs were broken into smaller kingdoms for a long time when it came to the XIII century. The Eastern Roman Empire had been in decline since the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and even before that it was only a regional power. Compared to those, the mongols managed to build an empire spreading on millions of square kilometers. There is no base for comparison. It is like comparing the UK and the US 20 years after WWII.
by K0balt | 2026-02-19 12:48:05+00:00
That is the main idea of stoicism. So although I realize your statement is meant to be sarcastic, I wholeheartedly agree. It’s a very difficult bar, but it is incredibly enriching and conducive to inner peace and a harmonious life. I have lived my fair share of highly traumatic experiences and I feel qualified to say that stoicism is a viable way forward when it seems that there is none.
by spiderfarmer | 2026-02-19 12:48:35+00:00
If this was happening in my country, I would more than likely participate in non-peaceful protests. I would do everything in my power to bring the government down.

The fact that people from the USA are just letting this happen is evidence that people are either stupid, evil or already afraid for the things that will unfold. And I’m putting everyone who knows better but doesn’t care in the evil basket.
by grishka | 2026-02-19 12:48:43+00:00
And no one can even give a concrete answer why root certificates need expiration dates. It's just because reasons.

IMO the whole PKI thing is a terrible idea to begin with. It would make much more sense to tie the trust in TLS to DNS somehow, since the certificates themselves depend on domains anyway. Then you would only have a single root of trust, and that would be your DNS provider (or the root servers). And nothing will expire ever again.
by exfalso | 2026-02-19 12:48:44+00:00
There's a fun hypothesis I've read about somewhere, goes something like this:

As the universe expands the gap between galaxies widens until they start "disappearing" as no information can travel anymore between them.
Therefore, if we assume that intelligent lifeforms exist out there, it is likely that these will slowly converge to the place in the universe with the highest mass density for survival. IIRC we even know approximately where this is.

This means a sort of "grand meeting of alien advanced cultures" before the heat death. Which in turn also means that previously uncollided UUIDs may start to collide.

Those damned Vogons thrashing all our stats with their gazillion documents. Why do they have a UUID for each xml tag??
by codethief | 2026-02-19 12:48:46+00:00
> short video of an app comparing the startup times of Electrobun, Tauri, Electron etc.

Looks like I hit the submit button a bit too fast. I meant to say: "a short video comparing the startup times of apps using Electrobun, Tauri, Electron etc."

(I can't edit my comment anymore unfortunately.)
by program_whiz | 2026-02-19 12:49:22+00:00
Is it possible to construct an ID using some kind of centralized observable phenomena? Due to how time and distance distinguish things, would they always be unique? Like only one person will ever simultaneously observe stars in certain positions and intensities, color, etc. Similar to how I've heard some companies use lava lamps or other noisy processes to generate entropy.

I guess I'm wondering if there is a way to construct a universal coordinate frame for the whole universe? If so, then its possible to trivially assign local time + x + y + z + salt to make unique ids.
by lelanthran | 2026-02-19 12:49:56+00:00
> That is a far cry from "AI makes cloning complex flagship apps trivial".

That is not what I claimed, though.

I said "Cloning your good idea", and context in this thread and this story is not, nor was it ever, about producing Windows 11 or a similarly large and non-trivial product.

It was, IIRC, about small teams (the actual story is about a solo founder) executing a good idea, and then seeing someone with a $20 CC account cloning that product in a week.

That's what I responded to.
by ben_w | 2026-02-19 12:51:33+00:00
Yellow journalism was when we had not yet adapted to print.

The satanism scare was when had not yet adapted to international news.

We're in the "yellow journalism" phase of social media.

And there was nobody to push back against the satanism scare (straw men are so very easy to fight against, and it was at the time a straw man); a better reference for those eras would be the Hillsborough disaster where coverage by the Sun got it boycott in the region because it had become more difficult to get away with stuff like that than the newspaper itself could manage, and conversely the limited coverage of mistreatment of Mau Mau era Kenyans in UK press because their treatment was a national embarrassment and the highest levels didn't want that embarrassment.
by ruicraveiro | 2026-02-19 12:51:55+00:00
Hardware: Spot on.

There are European or open-source alternatives for just about everything. Beginning with the OS, there's Linux and going all the up in the stack, we've got stuff like Nextcloud, OnlyOffice, LibreOffice, and so on.

Some hardware is produced in Europe. Goodram is a nice example. What we do not have is a processor architecture, nor factories. The closest to European is ARM. It is a British company, which is good, but outside the EU, and controlled by a Japanese holding, and fabless. Being fabless is the main issue here. (Edit: The Raspberry Pi is a strategic showcase of the status. It is a non-EU European product, uses a non-EU European ISA, ARM, but the chip implementing that ISA is made by a US company, Broadcom, and the Pi is the closest that we can get in terms of strategic autonomy).

I believe that our over-reliance on x64 is by far our biggest risk. ARM's existence should give us some comfort, but I don't think that it is enough, though. If I were to define a EU strategy for digital sovereignty, one of my cornerstones would be to bet on an ISA architecture and have a strategy to bring to Europe at least one CPU factory. I don't think that starting from scratch would be a viable option. However, betting on an existing open source architecture like RISC-V to make it far more mainstream could be viable. No matter how much we'd invest on RISC-V and how successful it would become, the point wouldn't be to make other blocs dependent on us, but to sever our current dependence on them.
by bogzz | 2026-02-19 12:52:55+00:00
...Guts? I genuinely don't know what field you're lobbing this from, but insinuating that referring to India as Bharat is for whatever reason a bad thing is asinine to me. This was a common name used in India even back in the pre-2009 days when I used to live there.

If you want to critique the anti-Muslim sentiment, democratic backsliding, or using nationalism as a veneer for corruption-- then I would have taken you seriously. AS it is though, even if it may not be rosy, on paper India is doing quite well.
by nerdjon | 2026-02-19 12:53:26+00:00
> This is, plain and simple, a tie-in sale of claude code. I am particularly amused by people accepting it as "fair" because in Brazil this is an illegal practice

I am very curious what is particularly illegal about this. On the sales page nowhere do they actually talk about the API https://claude.com/pricing

Now we all know obviously the API is being used because that is how things work, but you are not actually paying a subscription for the API. You are paying for access to Claude Code.

Is it also illegal that if you pay for Playstation Plus that you can't play those games on an Xbox?

Is it illegal that you can't use third party netflix apps?

I really don't want to defend and AI company here but this is perfectly normal. In no other situation would we expect access to the API, the only reason this is considered different is because they also have a different service that gives access to the API. But that is irrelevant.
by whurley23 | 2026-02-19 12:53:48+00:00
I'm in an environment where the work consist of multiple streams. There are long running tasks, major features that can go for months, require multiple rounds of review and approval, and a sustained amp of back-and-forth. Then there are smaller ones that are typically accomplishable within a typical iteration time period. And then you have hot fixes, security or emergency changes.

These all have separate QA, integration, and release timelines that can -- and often do -- change during the process. As a result, what goes into any given release is sometimes being changed almost right up until we hit the button. Having the ability to roll a release branch from different feature branches and not get miscellaneous work from things that aren't ready is important.

Now, this could also be done with clever use of feature flags, but the platform doesn't play nicely with that concept. Plus, then there would be the work of going back and removing them or leaving in place a mess of conditional statements littered around.

Doing it in version control is architecturally simpler, integrates better with our task and version management tools and is easier to standardize on. There is a cost in how to handle merge conflicts, but that is manageable and can be offset by good task planning and careful work. And the occasional reset
by notepad0x90 | 2026-02-19 12:53:56+00:00
Use a deck of cards for representation. 52 digits where 'K♠' for king-of-spades would be one character in Unicode. it isn't just cosmological unique, it's easier to read, harder to edit manually, and easier for our pattern recognition to keep track of.

And best feature: anyone can generate a random id of such representation by getting a deck of cards and shuffling it properly. Playing cards are ubiquitous. I can see a camera "reading" the decks after they've been splayed on a table after a shuffle. This might even make a better random number seeds.

You're not sure if there is any demand for this sort of stuff? Look at dicekeys:

https://dicekeys.com/
by throwa356262 | 2026-02-19 12:56:27+00:00
One interesting observation is that successful RISC CPUs dont have a super simple ISA anymore. At least not in the frontend.

MIPS was notorious for having a simple ISA and RISCV is trying to mimick that to some extent.
But look at thumb2 for example and you will see complex encodings and even variable instruction width.
by creatonez | 2026-02-19 12:56:31+00:00
> As far as I remember the original plan was to only maintain both in a transitional phase

Is there a source for this? I don't remember any language to suggest Java Edition would eventually be replaced when they announced Windows 10 Edition. They've always indicated that they intend to keep maintaining the Java Edition, with parity in the core game. The messaging here has never changed, as far as I'm aware.
by jhbadger | 2026-02-19 12:56:56+00:00
I'm not sure I like merging translations together. They really make a difference, not like merging irrelevant things like paperback vs hardcover. A lot of classic literature from non-English originals (and I assume vice versa) suffers from old, dry translations -- I remember reading Dostoevsky in high school and not liking it much but that's because it was using translations from the early 20th century. More modern translations feel much more alive.
Show HN: Agent Memory DB – Episodic memory for agents (97.5% vs. 85% recall)
by andy9829 | 2026-02-19 12:57:00+00:00
Most LLM apps only keep the last N tokens after a context window is exceeded, so when the user said the important thing 50 turns ago, it's gone and the model can't answer.

This repo adds episodic memory to store experiences as vectors and retrieve by similarity when answering. This focuses on relevance rather than temporal proximity.

On 40 preference/recall tasks we see 97.5% success vs 85% for truncated history. On long tasks where the key info is at the start it is 88.9% vs 33.3%.

It has a Rust core, Python/Node/Go bindings, along with LangChain and LangGraph integrations. Fully open source.
by jleyank | 2026-02-19 12:57:02+00:00
To cure a cancer, assuming “by luck” isn’t a plan:

We need a target, something to affect with the med.

We need a biological model, as human screening isn't ethical.

We need a number of compounds that are active against the biological model and available at the target. They have to keep working as the biological system becomes more complex.

The survivors have to be selective and not have undesired tox or physical properties. There has to be clear IP space to reward the investment. We have to be able to make the thing in bulk.

Once you have these things, they have to be tested for safety and efficacy in humans. They have to be better than the current standard of care. And somebody has to be willing to pay for them.

There are pitfalls at each stage. Looking at the Alzheimer’s marketplace, bazillion dollars have been spent to no useful effect. They satisfied their model, showed activity in humans but the model turned out to be wrong. This is why pharma/biotech is big win, big loss - it ain’t engineering.
by em-bee | 2026-02-19 12:57:08+00:00
i don't quite follow your argument, i think the opposite is true. you should trust LLMs LESS than any random person.

the problem is not whose fault it is. the problem is: are you even able to recognize that this information is wrong.

if it is not the assistants fault then clearly the answer is no. you are not blaming the assistant for not recognizing the error. but, that means that most other people will also not recognize the error. those who do recognize the error are only able to do so because they have additional information that most other people would not have.

i trust other humans because the cost of verifying everything is too expensive. this matters especially for information that is not of critical importance. getting some trivia wrong is at most embarrassing, it's not critical.

LLMs get stuff wrong more often than humans, and so the risk of getting a wrong answer is higher, and therefore checking is always necessary, which negates the benefit of using them in the first place.

which means: you will only use LLMs if you intent to trust them. the same way i will only ask another human if i intent to trust them.

when i ask a human to give me some information, then i am not asking a random person, but i am asking a person that i believe can give me the right answer because they have the necessary experience, skill, knowledge to give that answer. when i am asking an LLM, i am asking with the same expectation, otherwise, why would i even bother?

it's not a question of infallibility. it's a question of usability. but to me, an LLM that is not infallible is also not usable.

the problem is that LLMs promise more than they can actually do, and this article is one way to expose that false promise. it is news because LLMs are news.
by troymc | 2026-02-19 12:57:17+00:00
Another possibility is that more people start using open-weights AI models (which have gotten very competitive recently [1]) running on cloud computing providers, and the main competition becomes just another aspect of the cloud computing wars: AWS vs. Azure vs. Google vs. Everyone Else.

[1] As I write this, GLM-5 is ranked fifth place on the LLM Leaderboard at https://artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboards/models