MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by remarkEon | 2026-02-28 16:19:35+00:00
This is not what I said, and not what the WaPo quoted. We're talking about the CEO, who is shall we say unfamiliar with war making, getting asked a hypothetical about how the product he sells would perform in a first strike scenario, and he reportedly gives what is an entirely legalese answer. Yes, I consider this a likely possibility. It sounds exactly like how someone would respond if they've been swimming in legal memos for months.
by JPLeRouzic | 2026-02-28 16:20:04+00:00
I wonder if it's possible to design a personal device that can track most of the 100+ biomarkers named in the front page of this website. I guess that do do so it must analyze more than the blood (through LEDs reflections), for example saliva or feces.

After all my watch tracks already 6/7 of them, why not 100?
by Retric | 2026-02-28 16:20:09+00:00
Harder here doesn’t mean slower. Reading and understanding your own code is way faster than writing and testing it, but it’s not easy.

AI tools don’t prevent people from understanding the code they are producing as it wouldn’t actually take that much time, but there’s a natural tendency to avoid hard work. Of course AI code is generally terrible making the process even more painful, but you where just looking at the context that created it so you have a leg up.
by bee_rider | 2026-02-28 16:20:30+00:00
If you measure the productivity of the system that is “you, using an LLM” in terms of the rate at which you can get actually-reviewed code completed (which, based on your comment, seems to be what you were doing) that seems like a totally reasonable way of doing things. But in that case the bottleneck is probably you reviewing code, right? Which, I bet, is faster than writing code. But you probably won’t get the truly absurd superhuman speed ups.

What would you say is your multiplier, in terms of throughly reviewing code vs writing it from scratch?
by Havoc | 2026-02-28 16:20:52+00:00
Good.

I do hope corporations in general take a harder stance on this. From a society perspective people with inside knowledge fleecing randoms is not a win. We've got that somewhat under control on the stock exchange, but have this absurd situation where on prediction markets it is a free for all and everyone pretends this is fine.

I also think corporations should distance themselves from individuals willing to fleece randoms. Trading in general is very wild west survival of the fittest but active exploitation of insider knowledge speak of very poor morale character
by jauntywundrkind | 2026-02-28 16:21:13+00:00
It's not 100% clear to me, but supposedly it was just access to Antigravity that was shut off.

If people lost access to their whole accounts that would be a major crisis for Google users. But it doesn't seem that that was actually the case.

This doesn't make it super clear, but, the submission from a week ago when bans got handed out:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47115805
by MengerSponge | 2026-02-28 16:21:42+00:00
> what's stopping some employee from something like Mathematica from taking the source code and having an agent port it to open source

Laws against theft. Also the same reason employees don't release the code on pastebin or something.

> Who owns an algorithm?

The org or person who was granted the software patent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent

> Will everything get copied eventually?

If we're lucky. More likely everything bitrots as technical capabilities are lost. Slowly at first, then quickly.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-02-28 16:21:48+00:00
> (lots of word salad normalizing genocide)

If you're reading what I wrote as endorsing Israel's war you're exhibiting the problem with blind hate. You stop seeing the world as it is.

> It's OK to hate an entity

Sure. Hating an entity doesn't require you to endorse atrocities against its people.

> October 7 was not an insane horror. It was a perfectly fine response to such a monstrous foreign entity

One, you could literally change "October 7" to "the war in Gaza" and have the Israeli far right in a nutshell.

Two, I guess I respect you for being honest about what you believe. It's a clear position. Even if it's morally abhorrent. (You're saying killing children is okay if it's politically expedient.) But I guess there are enough people in that region who believe what you've said across various conflicts; herego this.
by somenameforme | 2026-02-28 16:22:14+00:00
Would you not say that somebody could equally cynically describe options trading in this way?

Prediction markets are very valuable because they provide information on issues that's generally much more accurate than alternative sources, such as polls. For instance Polymarket predicted 94% of the results for the 2024 election a month out, including the presidential. It can also provide more information than the news. For instance the chances of Khamenei being out as Supreme Leader of Iran by March 31st just skyrocketed up to 78%. That tells me far more than the various news sites minute by minute coverage.
by bendmorris | 2026-02-28 16:22:21+00:00
Completely resonate with this. There don't seem to be many of us, at least in my online bubble, but you're not alone.

I believe and hope eventually we'll come around to valuing people who have put in the work - not just to understand and review output but to make choices themselves and keep their knowledge and judgement sharp - when we fully realize the cost of not doing so.
by baumy | 2026-02-28 16:22:34+00:00
Management where I work is currently touting a youtube video from some influencer about the levels of AI development, one of the later ones being "you'll care that it works, not how".

We are all supposed to be advancing through these levels. Moving at a pace where you actually understand the system you're responsible for is now considered a performance issue. But also, we're "still held responsible for quality".

Needless to say I'm dusting off my resume, but I'm sure plenty of other companies are following the same playbook.
by jameshilliard | 2026-02-28 16:22:48+00:00
> I doubt the negotiations were in good faith, probably just a political 'see, we tried' gesture full of deal-breaker bad faith proposals.

Iranian officials made public statements refusing to give up their nuclear weapons program so they weren't negotiating in good faith either. Terrorists like the Iranian regime can never be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons for obvious reasons.
by inem | 2026-02-28 16:23:37+00:00
ChatGPT renders every message in the DOM at once. At 2,000 messages that's ~500K nodes. The tab freezes or crashes.

The AI handles long conversations fine. It's purely a frontend problem — React re-rendering an ever-growing tree.

The fix is simple: intercept the fetch response for /backend-api/conversation/{id}, truncate the mapping to the last N messages for rendering, keep full context for the model. 30KB, no dependencies, no external requests.

I built this because my most useful conversations were becoming unusable. Chrome Web Store submission is pending review, so distributing via Gumroad for now.

Happy to answer questions about the implementation.
by gusmally | 2026-02-28 16:23:39+00:00
> When circumstances eventually require that understanding, when something breaks in an unexpected way or requirements change in a way that demands architectural reasoning, the organization discovers the deficit.

Maybe it's because I work in such a small team on a still-starting project, but even with the chaos of LLM-generated code, I can't imagine such a case as above that the LLMs couldn't also address.

Great read though and I appreciated the article.
by esafak | 2026-02-28 16:24:00+00:00
Just read every line of the generated code and make sure it is as clear and good as possible. If you can't understand it when it's fresh out of the oven you and your coworkers won't tomorrow, either. This verification places a natural limit on the rate of code you can safely generate. I suppose you could reduce that to spot checks and achieve probabilistic correctness but I would not venture there for things that matter.
by jbdamask | 2026-02-28 16:24:08+00:00
I replied to a comment above with the system prompt.

Something I've learned is that the standard, "Summarize this paper" doesn't do a great job because summaries are so subjective. But if you tell a frontier LLM, like Opus 4.6, "Turn this paper into an interactive web page highlighting the most important aspects" it does a really good job. There are still issues with over/under weighting the various aspects of a paper but the models are getting better.

What I find fascinating is that LLMs are great at translation so this is an experiment in translating papers into software, albeit very simple software.
by reliabilityguy | 2026-02-28 16:24:29+00:00
> Both from an international rights and from a moral point of view you're objectively wrong.

Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?

> This is not even worth a discussion.

How do you know without a discussion that you are right?

> The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.

This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.

> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.

Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?

Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
by empath75 | 2026-02-28 16:24:39+00:00
I have been laboriously going through the process of adding documentation and comments in code explaining the purpose and all the interfaces we expect and adding tests for the purpose of making it easier for claude to work with it but it also makes it easier for me to work with it.

Claude often makes a hash of our legacy code and then i go look at what we had there before it started and think “i don’t even know what i was thinking, why is this even here?”
by 0xbadcafebee | 2026-02-28 16:25:03+00:00
Throw a rock and you'll hit one... Groq (not Grok, elon stole the name), Mistral, SiliconFlow, Clarifai, Hyperbolic, Databricks, Together AI, Fireworks AI, CompactifAI, Nebius Base, Featherless AI, Hugging Face (they do inference too), Cohere, Baseten, DeepInfra, Fireworks AI, DeepSeek, Novita AI, OpenRouter, xAI, Perplexity Labs, AI21, OctoAI, Reka, Cerebras, Fal AI, Nscale, OVHcloud AI, Public AI, Replicate, SambaNova, Scaleway, WaveSpeedAI, Z.ai, GMI Cloud, Nebius, Tensorwave, Lamini, Predibase, FriendliAI, Shadeform, Qualcomm Cloud, Alibaba Cloud AI, Poe, Bento LLM, BytePlus ModelArk, InferenceAI, IBM Wastonx.AI, AWS Bedrock, Microsoft, Google
by FrustratedMonky | 2026-02-28 16:25:16+00:00
The hope would be if more Americans were reading it, and understanding, then they would hold leaders more accountable and we wouldn't even get in this situation. The founding fathers kind of assumed an educated population, even if debating and disagreeing, would come to better conclusions. This current method of "lets cut education so the population doesn't know what is going on" is really a long term plan for the religious right to take over. But they are thinking in decades and generations.
by throwaway346434 | 2026-02-28 16:25:28+00:00
The problem is this is the difference between one or two obscure skills fading away with disuse (normal); and potentially all ability to load programming information into your working memory being affected; as you didn't develop the neural pathways or knowledge of the codebase (not normal or desirable)

While it is a spectrum around when you choose to use AI, what seems increasingly common in my experience is some people trying to go "all in", feel frustration and burnout when they are relegated to babysitting an LLM; get angry that it has made a mistake, misinterpretation or simply left something obvious out; then thinking it's user error/they didn't prompt well enough/it is their fault. At the same time, they are increasingly cognitively blind to mistakes at a review stage, so they find out the hard way in production and enter into a cycle of hyper vigilance/distrust/justifiable paranoia.

In those cases, it's a recipe for skills loss and depression over the long term and a vicious cycle.
by autoexec | 2026-02-28 16:25:38+00:00
Trump ran on "no wars" because he was going to spend all his focus on America instead of burning taxpayer money dropping bombs overseas. I'm sure some people voted for him at least in part for that reason. You can argue that they should have known he was liar, but there is support for it. Also, with the new concentration camps, the soldiers in our streets, and the nazi salutes I'm not sure the whole "good guys" against the "bad guys" narrative is something trump voters care about at all. They seem pretty comfortable playing the "bad guys" part anyway.
by bluGill | 2026-02-28 16:25:49+00:00
Testing to ensure the product works as expected is more than half of the product development labor if you want a quality product. This includes time spends on things like the mandatory "anti-harassment" training any competent HR is forcing you to once in a while even though not related to product delivery (or so I hope - some should be fired for the problems you are causing by not living that training)

LLMs can write a lot of code. they can even write a comprehensive test suite for that code. However they can't tell you if it doesn't work because of some interaction with something else you didn't think about. They can't tell you that all race conditions are really fixed (despite being somewhat good at tracking them down when known). They can't tell you that the program doesn't work because it doesn't do something critical that nobody thought to write into the requirements until you noticed it was missing.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-02-28 16:25:54+00:00
> Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status

I mean, that's interesting from a political theoretical perspective. And if you want to put sacred meaning into it, sure. I'm not sure most people would take a decade-old Swedish institute as a harbinger of whether or not America is a demoracy too seriously (versus other sources, to be clear).
by ford | 2026-02-28 16:26:02+00:00
Good engineering has always been about minimizing the amount of effort it takes for someone to understand and modify your code. This is the motivation for good abstractions & interfaces, consistent design principles, single-responsibility methods without side-effects, and all of the things we consider "clean code".

These are more important than ever, because we don't have the crutch of "Teammate x wrote this and they are intimately familiar with it" which previously let us paper over bad abstractions and messy code.

This is felt more viscerally today because some people (especially at smaller/newer companies) have never had to work this way, and because AI gives us more opportunity to ignore it

Like it or not, the most important part of our jobs is now reviewing code, not writing it. And "shelfed" ideas will now look like unmerged PRs instead of unwritten code
by amluto | 2026-02-28 16:26:08+00:00
> that disk read speed translates to about 3 GB/s which is well outside the range of what HDDs can achieve.

That’s PCIe 3.0 x4 or PCIe 4.0 x2, which a decent commodity M.2 NVMe SSD can use and can possibly saturate, at least for reads.

> which means that in 2026 we'll have seen 11 doublings since gigabit speeds in 2003, so we'll all have > terabit speeds available to us.

We’re not that far off. 100GbE hardware is not especially expensive these days. Little “AI” boxes with 400-800 Gbps of connectivity are a thing.

That being said, all the connections over 100Gbps are currently multi-lane AFAIK, and the heroic efforts and multiplexing needed to exceed 100Gbps at any distance are a bit in excess of the very simple technology that got us to 100Mbps “fast Ethernet”.
by joshu | 2026-02-28 16:26:27+00:00
this is cool. i built something similar a while back using wavelets and matching pursuit in a similar manner but with a different goal; i wanted to make an image compressor that had different visual effects when the file format was glitched. here are some examples of it moving variance from the original above to the compressed image below: https://youtube.com/shorts/f2pZyZNXY0Q?si=HXf14pOs9DaAk7MZ https://youtube.com/shorts/-LIALRpU63o?si=p_MiFnT8MMX0C0b4
by jcranmer | 2026-02-28 16:26:29+00:00
Arms control treaties are effective only if they are banning weapons that aren't useful. The problem is that landmines are incredibly useful weapons. What that means is that every country that has signed up to the Ottawa treaty either expects never to get into a major war again, is planning on relying on its allies who haven't signed the treaty to deploy landmines for them, or is planning on ignoring the treaty and using landmines anyways if it gets into another major war again.

In that vein, the Baltics withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty is commendable because they've stopped lying to everybody about what they're going to do come wartime.
by jacquesm | 2026-02-28 16:26:34+00:00
AIPAC is a thing...

And now of course you're going to label me an AIPAC nutter, but in this particular case I think the evidence is fairly plain given the collaboration between the two countries on this. If Israel had done this by their lonesome or if the US had not involved Israel then you could make the case that they reached this point independently, right now it looks to me as if collusion is a 100% certainty and that the US is executing a foreign policy that will not benefit it but that will benefit Israel. It also makes me wonder whether this will end up as a Venzuela re-run where the top names change but everything else remains the same, just with US companies the beneficiaries of the oil, which is, besides policy the main driver behind these things anyway.
by dlubarov | 2026-02-28 16:26:35+00:00
> that was quite literally targeting civilians

So Israel carried out some airstrikes at the same time that Hamas fighters were trying to kill the fleeing hostages and their rescuers, but you're claiming that the two were unrelated? Israel wasn't targeting the terrorists trying to kill them, but murdering unrelated civilians just for fun in the middle of the rescue operation? Any evidence behind this extraordinary claim?
by ackdesha | 2026-02-28 16:26:37+00:00
I currently prefer GitHub Copilot Pro to Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and OpenCode for my current role and codebase. Staff Engineer in a midsized professional engineering organization. Using Agent mode with latest OpenAI and Anthropic models. Backend TypeScript maintaining established codebases. Not being constrained by management. It’s not a perfect tool but it has advanced significantly since early releases.
by JasonADrury | 2026-02-28 16:26:44+00:00
Ah, so they'd only previously been members of the IDF?

Do you suppose Israel doesn't consider previous members of Hamas legitimate targets?

>The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have been applying a targeting framework. The evidence is that they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire.

But that's effectively indistinguishable from the Israeli targeting framework where everyone connected to Hamas is a legitimate target.
by mint5 | 2026-02-28 16:27:27+00:00
No one here is saying this is China fault, they’re saying the current situation is on par for how the USA, China and Russia treat the world.

In this thread the only reason people have brought up Chinese issues are because the strong defensiveness of others like China is some saint. They’re not.

Also I think two more examples were missed, how Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded without china’s tolerance of their ally doing it, and Hong Kong repression. Also how Iran and Ukraine make it much more likely they finally go for Taiwan like they’ve been posturing to do.

To deny China isn’t like Russia and the US in this regards is like thinking Trump was going to be the peace president as he claimed
by troyvit | 2026-02-28 16:27:40+00:00
Call it the pebble that started the landslide but I lay it at the Patriot Act, which was passed in October, 2001. The passing of the law was bad enough but the subsequent extensions of the law by both parties cemented the government's intent.

In other words we might have killed Osama Bin Laden, but he won. The U.S truly is a "shadow of it's former self."
by jonnycoder | 2026-02-28 16:27:58+00:00
It feels like the late 1990s all over again, but instead of html and sql, it’s coding agents. This time around, a lot of us are well experienced at software engineering and so we can find optimizations simply by using claude code all day long. We get an idea, we work with ai to help create a detailed design and then let it develop it for us.
by Cyph0n | 2026-02-28 16:28:21+00:00
The Iranians are pragmatic. Look beyond their relationship with the US. There are other state actors that Iran wants to remain in good relations with.

They understand that a defensive war is not the same as an offensive war. Besides, going on the offensive isn’t something they - as a regional power - have the firepower or diplomatic “street cred” for.

They are already painted as a so-called irrational actor. Doing something reckless will only prove its detractors right.

The other part to this is keeping the negotiation door open. The idea is to demonstrate to other state actors that they are cool headed & rational - even in wartime conditions.
by Anamon | 2026-02-28 16:28:44+00:00
Awesome, Clonk fans on HN! To this day, I don't think there's any game series I spent more total hours in than Clonk. Also starting in 1998 with Clonk 4, especially with one particular friend from school, we played these sometimes every day for hours, all through Planet, GWE, Endeavour, and Rage (did I miss one?). As far as splitscreen multiplayer is concerned, it's still one of the best and most versatile computer games ever written, in my opinion. Bastard of a learning curve, though, which is why I never managed to get anyone beyond that one friend hooked, and I stopped playing it when our life paths started diverging... :(

I also remember Matthes Bender as more of a distant, benevolent ruler keeping the project running but staying very much in the background. IIRC by the time Clonk 4 came out he already had his consultancy going, so he was probably glad to offload the community stuff to other people.

By the way, Clonk is still going: there's OpenClonk, as well as an open-source continuation of the original Rage branch. Even the CCAN is still online!
by bluGill | 2026-02-28 16:28:49+00:00
If you have been in the industry for a few decades you will be able to think of several hundred "silver bullets" that made great promises - some even turned out to be great ideas, but none where the 10x revolution that they promised.

The article is a good summary of major movements through the decades without so much that whole point is lost in the details. I would have put in a slightly different set of things if I wanted to write that article, but the point would still stand and I would leave out many things that could be put in but would be too much noise.
by antonvs | 2026-02-28 16:29:12+00:00
This topic always reminds me of "The Last One",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_One_(software) :

> "The name derived from the idea that The Last One was the last program that would ever need writing, as it could be used to generate all subsequent software."

That was released in 1981. Spoiler alert: it was not, in fact, the last one.