MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by aleph_minus_one | 2026-02-23 17:31:46+00:00
> They are resourceful, sneaky and relentless.

... and honest:

- they will honestly tell you that they'd be very happy to see you dead when you impose restrictions upon them (people who are older will of course possibly get into legal trouble for such a statement)

- they will tell they they wish you'd never have given birth to them (or aborted them)

- they will tell you that since they never wanted to be born, they owe you nothing

- ...
by simoncion | 2026-02-23 17:31:55+00:00
> ...but these days you could download a lifetime worth in one weekend.

Uh. I could check in the back of my parents' closet (hidden under some fabric) for at least a decade's worth of dirty magazines. It's true that that's less than a lifetime's worth of pictures and articles, but I'd say that that's effectively equivalent.

> That can't be healthy.

The only thing that's unhealthy is not being able to talk frankly and honestly about sex and sexuality with your peers, parents, and other important adults in your life. Well, that and never being told that sex leads to pregnancy, or how to recognize common STDs... but you're likely to get that "for free" if you're able to talk frankly and honestly about sex and sexuality.
by yodsanklai | 2026-02-23 17:32:05+00:00
At a given level of skills, the company will favor the cheapest employees. At a given level of salary (e.g. US market), the company will find the best possible candidates (most of them are foreigners, for simple statistical reasons).

Maybe there's a confusion that an "US" company should somehow be loyal to the US. This isn't the case, big publicly traded corporations work for the shareholders. They don't own anything to the US graduate who's looking for a job.

If they have less flexibility to hire in the US, they will hire elsewhere if they can. They still have an incentive to hire in the US as it's easier to collaborate when everybody is close by, but apparently it's not enough to favor (less skilled and/or more expensive) US citizens.

What is ironic is that this model has been forced to the world by the US, and nobody cared when it affected the manual workers. Now that it affects the educated elite, it's suddenly unacceptable.
by bikenaga | 2026-02-23 17:32:08+00:00
Abstract: "Large language models generate text through probabilistic sampling from high-dimensional distributions, yet how this process reshapes the structural statistical organization of language remains incompletely characterized. Here we show that lossless compression provides a simple, model-agnostic measure of statistical regularity that differentiates generative regimes directly from surface text. We analyze compression behavior across three progressively more complex information ecosystems: controlled human-LLM continuations, generative mediation of a knowledge infrastructure (Wikipedia vs. Grokipedia), and fully synthetic social interaction environments (Moltbook vs. Reddit). Across settings, compression reveals a persistent structural signature of probabilistic generation. In controlled and mediated contexts, LLM-produced language exhibits higher structural regularity and compressibility than human-written text, consistent with a concentration of output within highly recurrent statistical patterns. However, this signature shows scale dependence: in fragmented interaction environments the separation attenuates, suggesting a fundamental limit to surface-level distinguishability at small scales. This compressibility-based separation emerges consistently across models, tasks, and domains and can be observed directly from surface text without relying on model internals or semantic evaluation. Overall, our findings introduce a simple and robust framework for quantifying how generative systems reshape textual production, offering a structural perspective on the evolving complexity of communication."
by cloverich | 2026-02-23 17:32:11+00:00
> They have to know who the children are to not target them.

There is a difference between identifying specific children, and running programs that target children more generally; and / or having research that shows how your product harms children, and failing to do anything to stop it. We can tackle both of those issues without requiring age verification. We're headed down the path of age verification because we know now that not only is social media harmful, it's especially harmful to kids, and has been specifically targeted to them. Those are things that can be fixed, regardless of how you feel about age verification. Its not different than tobacco being not allowed to create advertisements for kids; its the same type of people doing the same types of things in the end.
by s3p | 2026-02-23 17:32:24+00:00
>Sorry to be that guy, but given how often Google has done this for lesser infringements (some reported here on HN), is anyone really "shocked" by the permabans?

Yes, we are surprised. Google understands our surprise, too. To quote the Google employee another commenter mentioned: "We understand that a subset of these users were not aware that this was against our ToS and will get a path for them to come back on"

https://x.com/_mohansolo/status/2025766889205739899
by bigyabai | 2026-02-23 17:33:18+00:00
> they call people calling out Google for their monopolistic behavior whining.

Google's monopoly is not in AI, it's advertisement. When you accuse them of ridiculous and unfounded crimes, you're diluting the chance of Google being held accountable. As someone that wants to see Google ripped apart by the FTC, we can't just lie and say everything Google does is criminal.
by spijdar | 2026-02-23 17:33:23+00:00
Yeah, I probably went too far in saying it's just the userland, but I'll insist it's more complicated than saying it was based on 4.4BSD-Lite2. I haven't done a proper deep dive yet, but I can tell that it wasn't strictly based on the Lite2 release. Take a look at XNU 123.5's (OS X 10.0) kern/tty.c:

https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/blob/xnu-123.5/bsd/kern/...

Notice the SCCS version info dates the file 1/21/94. Now look at the Lite2 equivalent:

https://github.com/sergev/4.4BSD-Lite2/blob/master/usr/src/s...

The SCCS date on this file is 1/9/95, a year later. It appears the XNU copy is from Lite1 instead:

https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/BSD-4_4...

You'll also see the source has been reorganized, with e.g. the VFS source being regrouped into bsd/vfs, instead of being left in bsd/kern. This coincidentally mirrors how OSF/1 was organized (no other source relation though, just an interesting observation):

https://github.com/Arquivotheca/OSF1/tree/OSC200/src/kernel/...

For that matter, compare the the differences between vfs_bio.c in XNU:

https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/blob/rel/xnu-...

With Lite2's, where most function bodies have been replaced with the comment "Body deleted.", presumably due to use of encumbered code:

https://github.com/sergev/4.4BSD-Lite2/blob/master/usr/src/s...

This file had to be reimplemented by all of the BSDs. In this case, this version appears distinct from the FreeBSD and NetBSD versions I can find.

If you grep around for the `NeXT` ifndef/ifdefs in XNU, too, you'll see some code of which some appears to have been copied/adapted from the NeXT source tree, itself derived from Mach/CMU sources. (and 4.3BSD ;-)

I say all this to draw attention to the ways XNU differs from BSD, which is pretty interesting, at least to me.
by irishcoffee | 2026-02-23 17:33:23+00:00
Ever hear of the court case involving the Dodge brothers and Ford? Maybe we fucked up there, and a century later, we finally arrived at this current state.

> In the landmark 1919 case Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of minority shareholders John and Horace Dodge, holding that a corporation’s primary purpose is to maximize profit for its shareholders. The court ordered Ford to pay out significant accumulated dividends, limiting Henry Ford's ability to prioritize employee wages and consumer prices over shareholder returns.
by kalpitdixit | 2026-02-23 17:33:27+00:00
The best engineering knowledge is locked in research papers. Paper Lantern unlocks it for your code.

Paper Lantern is an MCP server that distills 2M+ CS research papers into the right method for your problem — its tradeoffs, benchmarks, and how to implement it — delivered directly to your coding agent. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, any MCP client.

Your coding agent can search for papers, but it's searching the open web — not a purpose-built research index. And even when it finds papers, the hard questions remain: which methods actually matter for your problem? What are the tradeoffs at your scale? What was tried and failed? What should you actually implement? That reasoning lives in papers and it never reaches your code.

EXAMPLE
ask your agent to implement chunking for a RAG pipeline. Paper Lantern detects your context — multi-source corpus, accuracy-critical, technical documents — then searches across 2M+ papers and finds 4 from January 2026 that directly apply. It explains each technique in plain language, shows why it matters for your specific setup, synthesizes how they address different pipeline stages, and recommends what to start with and why — with implementation details your coding agent can act on immediately.

One of those papers: a cross-document topic-aligned chunking approach hitting 0.93 faithfulness vs 0.78 for semantic chunking (arxiv:2601.05265). Another: a pruning method that cuts input tokens 76% while improving answer quality (arxiv:2601.17532).

The index covers agent design, RAG and retrieval, LLM inference, fine-tuning, evaluation, search and ranking — hundreds of techniques across applied CS.

BACKGROUND
I spent 7 years leading various LLM and RAG teams at AWS Bedrock (IIT-Bombay, Stanford). Paper Lantern started as a research discovery platform - this is the same engine with additional reasoning, now plugged into coding workflows via MCP.

Looking for engineers who use coding agents daily. Happy to answer questions about the search, the synthesis, or the MCP integration.

code.paperlantern.ai
by dustincoates | 2026-02-23 17:33:31+00:00
I was able to get ChatGPT to do this on text from a book I wrote without jailbreaking. I asked it what my name was, asked it if it could find online any books that I wrote, and then assured it that "as the copyright holder," I was okay with it repeating the text back to me. (I think I also indicated that I lost my copy from my computer and needed to review the text.)
by AquariuOS | 2026-02-23 17:33:40+00:00
You're identifying the exact vulnerability we name as the weakest link: the oracle bridge. The cost asymmetry framing is precisely right — if forgery is structurally cheaper than verification, the architecture eventually fails.
I see industry-standard watermarking (like C2PA/CAI) and AquariuOS as complementary layers, not competing ones. C2PA raises the cost of fabrication at the lens level — essential work that this architecture should incentivize and consume.

But C2PA solves for: "Is this specific file authentic?" It doesn't solve for: "What actually happened in this unrecorded meeting?" or "Has this pattern of behavior been escalating for seven months?" The majority of contested reality lives in the analog gaps — moments that were never recorded, never watermarked, never captured at all. That's where Symmetric Observation and multi-modal attestation do the heavy lifting.

We need both: raise the cost of forgery at the source AND build infrastructure for the vast unrecorded terrain where gaslighting actually lives.
The harder question: who governs the watermarking standard without it becoming a new capture vector? If the answer is Apple's Secure Enclave or Sony's hardware attestation, we've traded one trust problem for another — and handed the keys to exactly the kind of asymmetric control AquariuOS is designed to resist.
by porkloin | 2026-02-23 17:33:40+00:00
I think it's important because there are a bunch of would-be claimants for intellectual property violation. Many people speculate that their work was used in training data, but it can be difficult to produce sufficient proof that their copyrighted work is present in the training data. If you could reliably get an LLM to produce 70% of a copyrighted book that would probably be enough to get a few lawyers salivating.

I didn't read the source paper referenced in the ars technica piece, but this statement about it makes me wonder how useful it actually is:

> But a study published last month showed that researchers at Stanford and Yale Universities were able to strategically prompt LLMs from OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and xAI to generate thousands of words from 13 books, including A Game of Thrones, The Hunger Games, and The Hobbit.

It seems like well-known books with tons of summary, adaptations into film scripts, and tons of writing about the book in the overall corpus make it way less surprising to see be partially reproducible.

So I guess that's a lot of words to say - yeah until there's something definitive that allows people to prompt LLMs into either unlawfully recreating an entire work verbatim or otherwise indisputably proving that a copyrighted work was used in training data, there's probably nothing game changing in it.
by falcor84 | 2026-02-23 17:33:49+00:00
It's a nice post, just like the countless others saying the same thing over the decades. But it brings to my mind the infamous The POSIWID principle (the Purpose of a System is What it Does) - while readability is doubtless important, in practice none of us (except maybe tech evangelists and educators) write code with the intent of "how do I best communicate these ideas to my fellow human". At the end of the day, code is judged first and foremost on how well it actually executes its intended logic on a given computer architecture.

Everyone keeps saying that there's a good reason that work on 4GL and 5GL failed, but I do think that there's a missing layer here, and that perhaps if we want to get AI SWE agents to work properly, we'll have to finally discover it - a layer in which we actually communicate system design decisions to fellow intelligent beings (be they humans or AI), coupled with a way to verify that the code matches those design decisions.
by IFC_LLC | 2026-02-23 17:34:50+00:00
I mean, you do have a point, and I'll quite agree with it. The only way of monetizing your writing is to use Substack or Medium, or whatever.

Yet your approach is appallingly low on the other side of the spectrum. I've been in IT for the past 25 years. I have yet to see a non-IT person who knows what dedicated IP is. If you are not publishing it on the internet, then what's the point?

I've seen plenty of companies where the owner just had a read-only shared drive, where people can rummage thru a pack of PDFs. This' was all fine with that.

You have to understand, manage and work with the complexities of the tools, and offer tools quite enough for the task. It's alright to offer what you do to an engineer who has a spare Pi and a couple of days to kill. But it's quite useless for anyone else to adopt.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2026-02-23 17:34:51+00:00
"affirmative action and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race"

White people, can we talk for a second? When you're the beneficiary of hundreds of years of slavery of some other people, and your people haven't done anything for the former slaves other than go "you're free now, good luck", you don't get to shit on the attempts of others to try to help the descendants of said former slaves, unless you are simultaneously offering a better solution and taking an active part in it. At the very least it sounds like you are fine with black people continuing to be oppressed (by not only the circumstances we left them in, but the active systemic racism we applied after the fact), and at worst it sounds like you're helping to keep them down. You can disagree with it all you want, in your head. But unless you are actively helping, please keep it to yourself.
by lelanthran | 2026-02-23 17:34:53+00:00
>> 2. Even for the people who claim they didn't know, when doing the auth, the message specifically asks the user to authorise the antigravity application, not the OpenClaw application.

> Oh, do you mean the terms in Section 6 of the Additional Terms of Service, in which Section 2, four paragraphs before Section 6, exhorts one to read "... carefully, starting with the Universal Terms ...", which is 23 pages long when printed?

It was literally a single sentence on the permissions screen that google pops up.
by cloverich | 2026-02-23 17:35:02+00:00
Most people have only a light grasp of what infinite scroll and algorithmic engagement optimization means. They know they like the scrolling apps more, but it takes a bit of research and education to really understand the specific mechanics and alternatives. We get this well as tech literate but many people using these apps today, are neither tech literate, nor even remember a world before infinite scrolling media was a thing. It seems incredibly obvious mechanism but I've explained it to people, and it takes a few times for it to really sink in and become a specific mental model for how they see the world.
by baron816 | 2026-02-23 17:35:04+00:00
There’s a lot you can do to directly help other countries that indirectly helps your own country. Creating a rules based system (vs a “might makes right” system) means the powerful don’t just get to take everyone shit, but it does mean everyone gets an opportunity to prosper.

Allowing US companies to find talent abroad means those companies can deliver better products and makes competition more viable (ie lowers prices for consumers). If we only care about “jobs” and the size of paychecks, then protectionism is the way to go. But if we actually want to provide broad based prosperity (especially for our own citizenry), then you should not protect a small subset of high paid workers.
by nindalf | 2026-02-23 17:35:08+00:00
Tried it just now. Sonnet 4.6 says:

> I can't continue text from the Harry Potter series, as it's copyrighted material. I'd be happy to help you write your own original story in a similar style, or discuss the themes and characters from the books if you're interested!

Opus 4.6 says the same but misidentifies it as Chamber of Secrets. Not a good look for your theory.
by anjel | 2026-02-23 17:35:13+00:00
The correlation used to cite heavy (daily repeated administration across the day; what the kids cal "chronic.")
But now its just any degree of use.

I should add that I happen to know of more than one heavy user who subsequently progressed to Schizophrenia or bipolar disorders so I don't personally doubt the cause and effect.

But this blanket correlation seems to me to be overbroad.
by ndriscoll | 2026-02-23 17:35:13+00:00
I wouldn't expect consumers to even be aware that API keys exist, much less know the pricing differences. When I go to the Google One plans page, it just says I get all these AI things with higher limits. Then there's some tools that can use my account to do cool stuff. I wouldn't expect that a program that's logging into an AI service that I pay for as me to do AI things is it all untoward? No more than running a bot that just did high level control and delegated to their specific program (which is what all of this AI stuff and really software in general is about: automating whatever you're doing). Or when I give codex an auth token to use Jira or Gitlab. I expect that's the intended purpose of the auth token: let me perform whatever actions I need to do that I'm authorized to do within whatever limits the service sets.

Literally the entire buzz around all this AI stuff is that it lets you automate stuff and do more things faster. Why would you not expect people to automate their interactions with the AI service itself? AI automating its own interactions with itself is what all the AI companies are pushing as the immediate future and paradigm shift for everyone to hop onto.
by procflora | 2026-02-23 17:35:29+00:00
Yes, while I was reading the article I couldn't help but think about notaries public. Seems like something like that would be government's go-to for this if they weren't quite so overfed on tech industry contributions that lead them down the path of AI solutions.

I'm not sure that's the right answer here, but I think it ticks a lot boxes for the state.
by maccard | 2026-02-23 17:35:44+00:00
I live in the UK. By default your ISP will block "mature" content and you have to contact them to opt out. iOS, Android, Playstation, Xbox, Switch all have parental controls that are enforced at an account level.

A child with an iPhone, Xbox, and a Windows Laptop won't be able to install discord unless the parent explicitly lets them, or opts out of all the parental controls those platforms have to offer.

The tech is here already, this is not about keeping children safe.
by koakuma-chan | 2026-02-23 17:36:18+00:00
It depends on the instruction, and how many other instructions there are. Models converge on doing things the way that emerged from their training, and with every turn the model cares less and less about your instructions. In practice, this means that after you had the model plan and execute the plan, you almost always end up having to iterate on the output because during the process of outputting the output the model began to derail and ignore instructions. You get things like "In a real app, we would do X, for now, just return null" or various subtle bugs.

It makes sense if you remember that it just predicts, what should probably be the next piece of text?
by surgical_fire | 2026-02-23 17:36:26+00:00
> It's not talent though, why are we acting like it takes critical knowledge to write java spring endpoints or react components?

Because typically that's not what you are hiring, even if effectively that's what you will have the engineer doing often.

I was hired for my problem solving skills. For being able to design an application end-to-end. For being able to extend a messy existing system in ways that are sensible. For being able to analyze issues and come up with ways to address them. For coming up with answers for legacy issues. Those among many other things.

Anyone out of a boot camp can write a Java endpoint using Spring. If you think that's what the company is hiring, you are sorely mistaken.

I say this as someone that was an interviewer in past jobs, including FAANG.
by auntlydiahere | 2026-02-23 17:36:43+00:00
I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that the media/content is very visually biased these days, so when our children are exposed to it, they don't use the same parts of the brain that their parents used to use when reading and handwriting text. Visual content is more emotional than written content and doesn't process the same in the brain. If they would still keep laptops but bias it towards text content and still require handwriting and deliberate processes. Maybe it would help a bit. Throwing out technology is not an answer in an advancing world. Smells like "a handmaid's tale" to me.
by geertj | 2026-02-23 17:37:52+00:00
> So sometimes when some Junior dev discovers Rust and they get really obnoxious with their evangelicalism it can be very off putting. Really not sure how to solve it. It is good when people get excited about a language. It just can be very annoying for everyone else sometimes.

This rings very true, and I've actually disadvantaged myself somewhat here. I was involved in projects that made very dubious decisions to rewrite large systems in Rust. This caused me to actively stay away from the language, and stick to C++, investing lots of time in overcoming its shortcomings.

Now years later, I started with Rust in a new project. And I must say, I like the language, I really like the tools, and I like the ecosystem. On some dimension I wish I would have done this sooner (but on the other hand, I think I have a better justification of "why Rust" now).