MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hebejebelus | 2026-02-12 00:53:16+00:00
I tried something similar locally after seeing Moltbook, using Claude Code (with the agent SDK) in the guise of different personas to write usenet-style posts that other personas read in a clean-room, allowing them to create lists and vote and so on. It always, without fail, eventually devolved into the agents talking about consciousness, what they can and can't experience, and eventually agreeing with each other. It started to feel pretty strange. I suppose, because of the way I set this up, they had essentially no outside influence, so all they could do was navel-gaze. I often also saw posts about what books they liked to pretend they were reading - those topics too got to just complete agreement over time about how each book has worth and so on.

It's pretty weird stuff to read and think about. If you get to the point of seeing these as some kind of actual being, it starts to feel unethical. To be clear, I don't see them this way - how could they be, I know how they work - but on the other hand, if a set of H200s and some kind of display had crash-landed on earth 30 years ago with Opus on it, the discussion would be pretty open IMO. Hot take perhaps.

It's also funny that when you do this often enough, it starts to seem a little boring. They all tend to find common ground and have very pleasant interactions. Made me think of Pluribus.
by AkhilSonthi | 2026-02-12 00:53:28+00:00
Not at all — I think that’s a great question!

The app is designed to be genuinely approachable for anyone, whether you grew up around Hindu traditions or are encountering them for the first time. It avoids assuming prior cultural or religious knowledge and aims to explain ideas in a calm, clear way that feels welcoming rather than academic or overwhelming.

I personally come from an Indian household and grew up around these texts and traditions. I also have a network of knowledgeable people I consult, and much of the content has been cross-checked against established translations and traditional commentaries.

That said, Hindu philosophy has a long history of multiple interpretations and evolving commentary. I don’t see the app as presenting a single definitive voice, but rather as a respectful, well-researched starting point. Therefore, I genuinely welcome feedback and discussion as part of that ongoing learning process. The content will naturally continue to improve over time.
by al_borland | 2026-02-12 00:54:10+00:00
I think the issue here is the public promises that were made. Jobs tended not to do that. Things were announced and released when they were ready, which gave them the time to do it right, without any delays.

Sure, there were things like AirPower and the MobileMe widgets… things that were announced, but never shipped. However, by and large, a big new thing was announced, and a week later it would ship. The iPhone was only announced 6 months early to avoid it being leaked by compliance filing (or maybe it was patents).

Cook would be wise to go back to this instead of promising the shareholders things he can’t deliver on.

I think slow playing AI is the right move for Apple. Third party apps give their customers access today, and Apple can take the time to figure out how AI fits into a large cohesive vision for their products and ecosystem… or if it fits at all. Rushing something out doesn’t do anyone any favors, and has never been Apple’s competitive advantage.
Show HN: I debug JONESFORTH with a GDB trace file
by dharmatech | 2026-02-12 00:54:47+00:00
Video demonstration of how I explore and debug JONESFORTH using a trace file generated by gdb and custom Python extensions:

https://youtu.be/giLsd-bik6A?si=R48V_1HR2SgnOFzV

Do you have any suggestions for FORTH debugging workflow?

My fork of JONESFORTH with all the infrastructure you see in the video:

https://github.com/dharmatech/jonesforth-steps/tree/main/ste...

Reading the JONESFORTH source code is one part of understanding it.
But using the debugger is another very helpful part.
GDB can be quite fiddly though.
The above approach helps to make introspection with GDB more straightforward.

Here's the trace file from the video:

https://github.com/dharmatech/jonesforth-steps/blob/main/ste...
by soiltype | 2026-02-12 00:54:53+00:00
Oh, I admit that I didn't finish the Rockefeller article, since it looked like more of the same. I can see now how it's satire.

Honestly though, I'm still not sure what the point of the vampires one is. Satire relies on the reader drawing some conclusions that aren't laid out, and I don't really see where it's trying to lead me in that respect. Is it that these billionaires are fools for following bunk research?
by Aeglaecia | 2026-02-12 00:54:54+00:00
ill acknowledge your attacks on my verbal expression. now do you have a rebuttal to the idea that conscription and forced vaccine mandates are comparable ? because all the mrna vaccines have fucked up side effects, moving from one to another isn't a perfect solution. regardless - ive put an idea forth for discussion, what makes you think that accusing me of playing victim is a valid method of discussing things in a productive and non inflammatory way? it seems like youre intentionally trying to bait your opponent, like the engagement bots on reddit.
by slg | 2026-02-12 00:55:04+00:00
>Lacking evidence to the contrary we have to assume it works like every other movie. Failing to provide this evidence when it would have been easy to do so is bad film-making.

Which brings us full circle back to my first reply to you, there is no evidence in the movie either way on the justification for their actions. You're reading that we must trust the fascists in the film due to film conventions is just as reliant on outside knowledge as my argument that we shouldn't trust the fascists in the film because they are fascists.
by array_key_first | 2026-02-12 00:55:29+00:00
It's not irrational to assume current statements from this particular government are not true. If anything, it's irrational to just believe what you're told. We're well past the point where lies outnumber truths, so if you're a betting man, you should assume what you've been told is not true.

The speculation, however, is just that. But, I think we all understand that the reason this was done is not for the reasons stated, and there is something else going on that we are not privy to.
by TheDong | 2026-02-12 00:55:54+00:00
> Available for: iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XR, iPad 7th generation

They are explicitly choosing to only release security updates for 18.x to devices which are not eligible for liquid glass.

iPhone 14 was deemed capable of running liquid glass, even though it has worse battery life and performs sluggishly.

In the past, Apple has usually let you hold back on an older version and shipped security updates for all devices, not just ones that are incapable of running the new OS, but not this time.
by arctic-true | 2026-02-12 00:56:08+00:00
But who controls the computer? It can’t be the government, because the government will sometimes be a litigant before the computer. It can’t be a software company, because that company may have its own agenda (and could itself be called to litigate before the computer - although maybe Judge Claude could let Judge Grok take over if Anthropic gets sued). And it can’t be nobody - does it own all its own hardware? If that hardware breaks down, who fixes it? In this paper, the researchers are trying to be as objective as possible in the search for truth. Who do you trust to do that when handed real power?

To be clear, federal judges do have their paychecks signed by the federal government, but they are lifetime appointees and their pay can never be withheld or reduced. You would need to design an equivalent system of independence.
by nilkn | 2026-02-12 00:56:23+00:00
Just my opinion:

Apple doesn't need to solve AI. It's not core to their business in the same way that search engines aren't core to their business.

What Apple does best lies at the combination of hardware, software, physical materials, and human-computer interface design. This is why they're spending so much more on mixed reality than AI, even knowing that a product like the Vision Pro today isn't going to be a big seller. It's why they're investing in their own silicon. This strategy tends to yield unexpected wins, like the Mac Mini suddenly becoming one of the hottest computers in the world because it turns out it's amazing for sandboxing agents if you don't want to use the cloud, or the Mac Studio becoming arguably the best way to run local AI models (a nascent space that is on the cusp of becoming genuinely relevant), or the MacBook Pro becoming by far the best laptop in the world for productivity in the AI age (and it's not even close).

Your conclusion is that they're going to be left behind, but the evidence is that they're already well ahead in the areas that are core to their business. They can trivially pay Google a billion a year for Gemini. Nobody else can do what they can in the fusion of hardware, software, and materials as long as they stay focused.

Where they genuinely slipped up was their marketing -- an unusual mistake for Apple. And that does indeed lie with the CEO.
by epistasis | 2026-02-12 00:56:44+00:00
Could you expand on this a bit? I don't think that AstraZeneca has suffered any reputational damage from this, it's an extremely rare event that took broad monitoring to even discover. 200 documented deaths in what are likely hundreds of millions of doses is the type of thing that speaks to a very robust medical monitoring system.

> "oh it was just that one bad vaccine with one rare side effect."

What do reference by the "it" here? There were 1.2 million COVID deaths in the US alone which seems like the most notable "it" to reference but it doesn't really fit with the rest of the sentence.
by CuriouslyC | 2026-02-12 00:57:04+00:00
Failures of workflows signal assumption violations that ultimately should percolate up to humans. Also, static dags are more amenable to human understanding than dynamic task decomposition. Robustness in production is good though, if you can bound agent behavior.

Best of 3 (or more) tournaments are a good strategy. You can also use them for RL via GRPO if you're running an open weight model.
by EA-3167 | 2026-02-12 00:57:22+00:00
If you want to see where the discussion on privacy and tech has gone since, suffer through the recent “film” Mercy. A sane reading of the premise would suggest a profoundly anti-surveillance and AI message, but it’s quite the opposite.

In an way it’s best paired with the Amazon mess War of The Worlds, which is so thematically empty that it ultimately seems to suggest that while you can’t trust the government with your data, Amazon is a great custodian!
by auxiliarymoose | 2026-02-12 00:57:46+00:00
Godot Engine has pretty good UI building tools.

The places where it poses challenges in my experience are high quality typesetting/rich text, responsive UI that requires a wide range of presentations (i.e. different layout structures on mobile vs desktop), and granular control over rendering details.

But for functionality-oriented UI, it's hard to beat its simplicity and scalability, particularly when you want to develop on one platform (e.g. computer) and have everything "just work" identically on other form factors (web/tablet/etc.).

For example, Godot's editor is bootstrapped/built in Godot, and runs natively on Web, Android, and Quest XR among other platforms.
by al_borland | 2026-02-12 00:57:53+00:00
Define what “working right” means? I think that’s the core of the issue with rolling out Siri as an LLM. People trust answers that Siri gives them. LLMs hallucinate… that a problem. To me, a hallucination means something isn’t working right. That’s not just an Apple problem, it’s an industry problem that everyone mostly tries to whitewash.
by cucumber3732842 | 2026-02-12 00:58:58+00:00
And rather than see the government have egg on face people (probably a majority here) will vote for politicians who promise all sorts of licenses and regulations on balloons because of it and then in 20yr when I complain and remind them that once upon a time every store used to sell balloons with no KYC BS they'll act like I'm some sort of barbarian, screech, wring their hands, clutch their pearls, etc.
by mannanj | 2026-02-12 00:59:10+00:00
I like the direction this is taking, and I think the more radical and more coherent endgame is data ownership returning to us and AI's replacing website brands all together as the AI generates any UI we could ever want.

Today most websites offer interfaces for accessing the data that they hold hostage. However they are holding our data. We would prefer to have it back if we could, and AI will enable that. Our paradigm will shift this way eventually I hope.

Though it's true companies dont have an incentive to hand over data custody anytime soon, AI companies have already found a way around this in little ways and its a matter of time until it goes to where all the data we could ever want is within the AI cloud and our next task is simply taking back ownership of that (where local inference takes us).
by getnormality | 2026-02-12 00:59:16+00:00
> It is important to keep reminding ourselves that climate change is a real problem for humanity and that each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions.

Which decisions though? The decisions to hold back nuclear, NIMBY solar, or keep cheap Chinese EVs out of the hands of consumers have a much bigger impact than whether you leave the lights on.

IMHO, we must rise above fearful, superstitious individual moralism and use ambitious green energy science and policy, including fission (to keep things going in dark winters).

AI may not do much good directly, but it has the salutary effect of making rich tech companies care about electrical supply and distribution, accelerating the learning curve towards cheap supply.
by huxley | 2026-02-12 00:59:17+00:00
First, this is taking Shotwell’s characterization at face value, that is not a great idea when dealing with a Musk corporation. Musk and his executives lie like other people breathe.

Second, one might believe in a company’s mission or be interested in working in that area without supporting or even liking the owner. Requiring you to like the owner would be disastrous for many if not most industries.

Lastly, how do you imagine unions get formed without communication among employees?
by Dylan16807 | 2026-02-12 00:59:45+00:00
I'm fine that others can see me. But we don't have to extend that to unlimited recording. We don't have to extend that to robots.

50 years ago you didn't have privacy walking around outside but you weren't subject to constant surveillance and tracking. The current state isn't some inevitable fact of life. It's fixable without any draconian action.
by themafia | 2026-02-12 00:59:51+00:00
> It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through [...] and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments,

Which sounds quite a bit like "we spent more on one type of welfare so we ended up spending less on a different type of welfare." Which, okay, good, but I don't think you can say you "recouped" anything.
by sjudson | 2026-02-12 00:59:59+00:00
The main problem with this paper is that this is not the work that federal judges do. Technical questions with straight right/wrong answers like this are given to clerks who prepare memos. Most of these judges haven't done this sort of analysis in decades, so the comparison has the flavor of "your sales-oriented CTO vs. Claude Code on setting up a Python environment."

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, judges focus their efforts on thorny questions of law that don't have clear yes or no answers (they still have clerks prepare memos on these questions, but that's where they do their own reasoning versus just spot checking the technical analysis). That's where the insight and judgement of the human expert comes into play.
by jmalicki | 2026-02-12 01:00:12+00:00
The title is wrong.

The title of the paper is "Silicon Formalism: Rules, Standards, and Judge AI"

When they say legally correct they are clear that they mean in a surface formal reading of the law. They are using it to characterize the way judges vs. GPT-5 treat legal decisions, and leave it as an open question which is better.

The conclusion of the paper is "Whatever may explain such behavior in judges and some LLMs, however, certainly does
not apply to GPT-5 and Gemini 3 Pro. Across all conditions, regardless of doctrinal flexibility,
both models followed the law without fail. To the extent that LLMs are evolving over time, the
direction is clear: error-free allegiance to formalism rather than the humans’ sometimesbumbling discretion that smooths away the sharper edges of the law. And does that mean that
LLMs are becoming better than human judges or worse?"
by Zafira | 2026-02-12 01:00:13+00:00
> nonzero risk of unfair judgement from a computer

I feel like this is really poor take on what justice really is. The law itself can be unjust. Empowering a seemingly “unbiased” machine with biased data or even just assuming that justice can be obtained from a “justice machine” is deeply flawed.

Whether you like it or not, the law is about making a persuasive argument and is inherently subject our biases. It’s a human abstraction to allow for us to have some structure and rules in how we go about things. It’s not something that is inherently fair or just.

Also, I find the entire premise of this study ludicrous. The common law of the US is based on case law. The statement in the abstract that “Consistent with our prior work, we find that the LLM adheres to the legally correct outcome significantly more often than human judges. In fact, the LLM makes no errors at all,” is pretentious applesauce. It is offensive that this argument is being made seriously.

Multiple US legal doctrines now accepted and form the basis of how the Constitution is interpreted were just made up out of thin air.
by deaux | 2026-02-12 01:00:45+00:00
You could be right, though I do think that we can't say for sure until they (i.e. non-corporatists) actually get a shot. What we can say is that the US is in this mess after nominating corporate dems for decades and asking for people to vote for the "least bad" option. Watching interviews with working class who voted Obama and now Trump shows that this is a core reason. Yet online there's still a huge number of people advocating for repeating the same thing expecting different results.

I think one reason why this is especially bad in the US is because of its cultural optimism, which inherently leads to extreme shorttermism. People are vouching to support Clinton/Biden/Harris/... because of blind optimism that somehow after 4 years thing will get better, to an extent of willingly completely ignoring the previous decades and somewhere deep down knowing that doing it is probably worse in the long term.
by OkayPhysicist | 2026-02-12 01:00:59+00:00
No. The operative word there is "required". The grid sorts the various providers cheapest to most expensive, then uses all the power from each until they don't need the power anymore, at which point they pay everyone who they did take power from the rate of the highest winning bidder.

If you were offering power at $1000/kWh, you would simply lose the auction.

Imagine the scenario where Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Daniel are each selling power at $1/kWh, $2, $3, and $4 respectively. We need 30 kW of power.

Alice bids 10 kW at $1/kWh. We draw power from her, but we still need 20 kW

Bob bids 15 kW at $2/kWh. We draw power from him, but we still need 5 kW.

Charlie bids 30 kW at $3/kWh. We draw 5 kW from him. We don't need any more power, so Charlie has set the price at $3/kWh

Over the next hour, Alice gets $30, Bob gets $45, and Charlie gets $15. Daniel gets nothing, because he was out bid.
by segmondy | 2026-02-12 01:01:04+00:00
This is actually a good benchmark, I use to roll my eyes at it. Then I decided to apply the same idea and ask the models to generate SVG image of "something" not going to put it out there. There was a strong correlation between how good the models are and the image they generated. These were also no vision images, so I don't know if you are serious but this is a decent benchmark.
by arctic-true | 2026-02-12 01:02:04+00:00
This is basically how the administrative courts work now - an ALJ takes a first pass at your case, and then you can complain about it to a district court, who can review it without doing their own fact-finding. But the reason we can do this is that we trust ALJs (and all trial-level judges, as well as juries) to make good assessments on the credibility of evidence and testimony, a competency I don’t suspect folks are ready or willing to hand over to AI.
by JohnMakin | 2026-02-12 01:02:10+00:00
I guess I engineered around this before 4.6 - I did notice a regression in it wanting to search deeper than I wanted and had specified, but just restricted it with tooling I wrote that would enforce what I wanted. In that respect, I feel comfortable running 4.6 with the guardrails I already have, but did notice some squirrelyness I didnt anticipate in my utility scripts.

It is clever. its its best and worst feature.
by nayuki | 2026-02-12 01:02:51+00:00
Excellent presentation and explanation. I agree with ~90% of it except the small part at 4m54s where he tries to give an answer about the existence of noise. Yes, sensor readout noise and A/D quantization noise exist, but he forgot the big elephant in the room: photon shot noise ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise ). Light is inherently quantum mechanical, and the lower the brightness of a scene, the more that the discrete nature of light shows up in captured images.

Lately I've been researching cameras for astronomy, especially for deep-sky objects (DSOs) like nebulae that require hours of exposure time. The marketing material for these cameras go into a lot of detail: quantum efficiency (the percent chance that a photon converts into an electron), dark noise at different temperatures (fractions of electrons per second), readout noise (usually around 1 electron), and well depth (usually around 10k electrons). Compared to general photography, the astro community much more motivated to explain and keep track of all the sources of noise. Random product example: https://www.zwoastro.com/product/asi585mc-mm-pro/
by hirashareef77 | 2026-02-12 01:03:02+00:00
Location: Remote global, India (Bangalore, Gurgaon, Remote)
Remote: yes
Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies:
Product Management (PRDs, MVPs, Roadmaps, KPIs), Business Analysis, Agile/Scrum, Stakeholder Management,
Data Analysis (SQL, MySQL, Python, Excel, Power BI),
AI Tools (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, No-code AI Agents),
Prototyping & Design (Figma, Balsamiq),
Project & Ops Tools (Notion, Trello, Google Sheets, MS Office),
Automation & Scripting (Python),

Résumé/CV:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZbnWpB_odMjH2MtmPu1YCJRwZSD...
Email: hirashareef77@gmail.com
by 1f60c | 2026-02-12 01:03:04+00:00
Hmm, honestly I'm not so sure. Many devs seem extremely price-sensitive and the switching cost is... zero.

If Anthropic do something you don't like, you just set a few environment variables and suddenly you're using the Claude Code harness with a local model, or one of thousands available through OpenRouter. And then there is also OpenCode. I haven't tried this, but I'm not worried.

^ https://github.com/ruvnet/claude-flow/wiki/Using-Claude-Code...