MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by andrenotgiant | 2026-02-27 17:59:22+00:00
I've seen people compare the situation we are in now with AI to early days of Uber. Basically "You're excitement is artificially inflated by the fact that a VC just paid half your bill."

That definitely happened with Uber, but I would argue that one key difference between the Uber situation and the AI situation is COST. How much can COGs be reduced via optimization and technology.

In Uber scenario, the cost is labor, there's a hard lower limit where people will find something else to do for work.

In AI scenario, we've already seen the labs make major reductions in cost-per-token. I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say they have more possible cost reduction levers than Uber.

So I don't agree that at some point VC money will run dry and the unit economics for tokens will dramatically change.
by julianlam | 2026-02-27 17:59:39+00:00
> Considering they trained their model on open-source software, the least they could do is give it to open-source maintainers for free with no time limit.

Why? The resulting code generated by Claude is unfit for training, so any work product produced after the start of the subsidized program should be ignored.

Therefore it makes sense to charge them for the service after 6 months, no? Heh.
by socalgal2 | 2026-02-27 17:59:54+00:00
Promises should not be a big overhead. If they are, that seems like a bug in JS engines.

At a native level (C++/rust), a Promise is just a closure added to a list of callbacks for the event loop. Yes, if you did 1 per streamed byte then it would be huge but if you're doing 1 promise per megabyte, (1000 per gig), it really shouldn't add up 1% of perf.
by ck2 | 2026-02-27 17:59:54+00:00
"constitution-free zone"

a phrase that should be impossible but due to wild corruption of the people who write law, it does

all of Florida, all of Maine are in a "ha what constitution" zone

https://www.aclumaine.org/know-your-rights/100-mile-border-z...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/bill-rights-border-fou...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
by rekabis | 2026-02-27 18:00:03+00:00
I think, in the spirit of accuracy, that they should more rigorously define the capacity of the cup they are measuring.

For example, my coffee mug clocks in at 750ml. If I were to have two of those every day, I would be vibrating through walls and floors like The Flash.

On the flip side, my mother’s coffee cup barely cracks 200ml. On hard days I’d be propping my eyelids open with toothpicks by mid-afternoon with just two of those cups.
by apolloartemis | 2026-02-27 18:00:19+00:00
Within the Washington Post article cited below is the following policy statement from the Trump Administration’s DoD/DoW.

“It remains the Department’s policy that there is a human in the loop on all decisions on whether to employ nuclear weapons,” a senior defense official said. “There is no policy under consideration to put this decision in the hands of AI.”

This indicates the Administration’s support for and compliance with existing US law. (Section 1638 of the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act). https://agora.eto.tech/instrument/1740

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/02/27/anthrop...
by pigeons | 2026-02-27 18:00:22+00:00
Does anyone have any ethical concerns using openai regarding money donated to the current US administration in one way or another? I will search for more accurate details about that situation. I know about several other ethical concerns with openai that people have, including copyright and other considerations regarding the work being trained on, as well as lack of action regarding users who are harmed by their usage of the product, often regarding mental health, environmental concerns, actually quite a few others, but I am interested if many people think their political donations are an issue or not.
Show HN: DiagramIDE – a Rust GUI to Compose Diagrams via Tcl, Prolog, and Pikchr
by xlii | 2026-02-27 18:00:50+00:00
I built DiagramIDE because I wanted a more modular way to handle diagramming-as-code. It’s a Rust-based GUI (EGUI) where you can split logic, data, and rendering into separate windows. Instead of one giant DSL file, you can script components in Tcl, define relationships in Prolog, and pipe the results into Pikchr for the final render.

Fair warning: it’s an early alpha and still quite rough around the edges. I’ve been dogfooding it for my own work so it’s definitely functional but expect unexpected.

Shortest way to try it out is a compiled binary release: https://github.com/exlee/pikchr.pl/releases/tag/latest
by dathinab | 2026-02-27 18:00:58+00:00
> many are willing to see him trample

there is little surprising about it

Trump is pushing in the direction of an Oligarchie, billionaires would be the future oligarchs.

So even iff a billionaire is no-okay with this development, if they stick out they

- will lose their status/money iff Trump wins long term

- will make enemies with many other billionaires, but a core trend of billionaires is taking advantage of connections to other powerful people

- will be the prime target to make and example of

So there is a high risk for sticking out. At the same time "mostly passively tagging along" will at worst make them oligarchs. At the same time they are used to crossing ethical boundaries to maximize profits. *This is just another form of that.*

In general its pretty much non-viable to go from sub/barely millionaire to billionaire by keeping to law, moral and ethics.

And it's not a secret either that any extreme concentrations of power or money are fundamental thread of _any_ democratic state of law, the US is no exception. The US has been warned that their system is very prone to populist take over and their checks and balances are quite brittle since _decades_. (At least since end of WW2 when people when people analyzed how Hitler took over post-WW1 Germany and wondered if the US could suffer a similar fate. And instead of improving the robustness the general response was "nonsense, this is the US" and then after 9/11 thinks got worse instead of better, and then in recent decades with a push in favor of monopolies instead of a free market(1) thinks got even worse.

(1): Monopolies and a (actual, in practice) free Market are fundamentally incompatible. It also is kinda obvious why once you put away decades of deregulation propaganda.
by deinonychus | 2026-02-27 18:01:56+00:00
you can just french toast anything you have laying around in your fridge or kitchen. they can't stop you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB42iztkzVQ

i've done the french toast pizza and it wasn't bad. not sure if it was worth the effort. maybe there's an ideal type of pizza or combo of toppings that makes this spectacular. either way it's worth trying once just to say you did.
by gmerc | 2026-02-27 18:02:24+00:00
The part where this will be fun is where the VCs lobby the US government, via peace board donation or golden iphones, to ban Chinese Open Source AI because otherwise they won't ever make their money back.

https://this.os.isfine.org/blog/posts/us-ai-labs-love-the-ai...

My bet is on model signing to run on US (Nvidia hardware stack), akin to what Nvidia already has built for various game console customers.
by dgacmu | 2026-02-27 18:02:58+00:00
You'll note I didn't try to specify what was of import.

We can create mechanisms that enable more people to follow their own idea of what is important instead of merely what is lucrative. Not everyone will agree with the choices other people make, and it wouldn't eliminate money as a motivating factor, it would just slightly reduce the strength of that signal relative to other potential signals such as "I feel like I'm doing something meaningful."
by blakeheron | 2026-02-27 18:03:18+00:00
This resonates. We have been running into the silent degradation problem too. Stale entries accumulating, duplicate memories from retries, context drift over long sessions.
One thing we found useful: separating facts, append-only and curated, from context, ephemeral and aggressively compacted. Makes health checks easier because you know which layer to validate.
Have you looked at cryptographic integrity checks? We are experimenting with hashing memory artifacts to detect tampering or corruption, but it is overkill for most use cases.
Curious if you are planning open source release. Would love to compare approaches.
by marcusestes | 2026-02-27 18:03:28+00:00
This category of complaint is useless until it is unfolded to contain better economic reasoning.

In the case of a VC-subsidized service like Uber, the subsidization is utilized by the company until a a monopolistic or network effect takes hold and allows for price increases.

LLM economics are very different. If the tokens are being subsidized now, they must stay subsidized until some form of monopoly, network effect, or pure R&D advantage is achieved.

In the case of LLMs, the open weight models are nipping at the heels of the proprietary models, and this may be a fundamental condition. Perhaps subsidizing tokens enhances increases engagement, and thus, equity value of the company training the proprietary models, and they reinvest this value back into the energy costs needed to train them. Perhaps this dynamic gives proprietary models the performance distance they need in order to increase their margins.

Hasn't happened yet. It's not clear that it will happen.

Next time I read this take, I want to see eight to ten more paragraphs of analysis before it feels like a contribution to the discourse.
by lonelyasacloud | 2026-02-27 18:04:10+00:00
>Anthropic's policy is full of contradictions. They are against mass-surveillance of Americans but they happily deal with Palantir.surveillance of Americans but they happily deal with Palantir.

Palantr will also be subject to the same contractual limitations as the DoD.

>They talk about humanity as a whole but only care about what American companies use their models to do to Americans; everybody else is fair game for AI-driven surveillance.

The stated red lines are about mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous lethal weapons - and those are the kinds of restrictions you’d expect to apply to any government using the tech on its own population, not just the US.

While For American agencies to use Anthropic's models against other sovereign states requires the access to the raw data from that state which is somewhat of a practical firebreak. Pragmatically, Amodei is an American citizen heading an American company in America; why give the current regime additional reasons to persecute them and risk seizing control of the technology for their friends?

> They warn of the dangers of AI-driven warfare by demonstrating a mass-scale cyberattack perpetrated using their model, Claude, as the main operation engine and immediately release a new, more powerful version of Claude. You just need to use Claude to protect yourself from Claude, see.

What is the realistic alternative? sit quietly and pretend scaling isn't a thing and dual use does not exist? Try and pause/stop unilaterally while money floods into their arguably less scrupulous competitors?

Nobody knows if Anthropic's efforts will make much difference, but at least it is refreshing to see a technology company and its leader try to stand up for some principles.
by arcanemachiner | 2026-02-27 18:04:55+00:00
> a public repo with 5,000+ GitHub stars

This is going to get abused so fast, it will make your head spin.

EDIT: I just look up the highest-ranking "buy GitHub stars" page (which I will obviously not link here), and it looks like you would have to pay a little over $1000 to get the required amount of stars. So I suppose it might not get abused as easily as I thought.

On the other hand, someone with the gumption and elbow grease to abuse this process themselves could still easily do so, I'd wager.

All that being said, I still think that GitHub stars are effectively worthless, and attempting to assign value to them like this is, at best, a fool's errand.

I can imagine this will invoke Goodhart's law, increasing the amount of people shilling their AI-generated shovelware onto a Web already greatly suffering from the consequences of the plummeting cost of intelligent-sounding text generation.
by maddmann | 2026-02-27 18:05:25+00:00
That’s simply not true, governments help billions of people in many ways, especially people with disabilities, children (ie labor protections), women, etc. You are completely disingenuous to say otherwise. Billionaires are harming many people through eroding the institutions that protect the average people (rulings like citizens united, trumps election, etc). You don’t seem like a person with a real perspective to me.
by DeepSeaTortoise | 2026-02-27 18:05:42+00:00
> They literally weakened the legislation.

IMO that's not the case, because if a legislation looses its intended focus, it gains a lot of arbitrariness in return. The more interpretations you consider valid, the more options you can choose from when applying it.

So, obviously, the legislation had to be returned to a single interpretation, the one Congress intended (or the one the court thinks is the best if you believe courts should hold legislative power).

Which leads directly to the second issue: Which was the interpretation Congress intended?

> From dissent of disagreeing SCOTUS justice: "absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love."

The majority opinion analyses this issue with 6 different approaches, including a textual one, arriving at similar conclusions from each.

The dissenting opinion on the other hand argues, that all other approaches but the textual one should be rejected.

The dissenting opinion's textual interpretation strongly asserts, that Congress intended with "accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value
from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded" to address both bribes (intending to be influenced) and gratitudes (intending to be rewarded).

The majority opinion argues that if you were to divorce the concept of a reward from the prior intent during the influenced/rewarded actions in a statute that criminalizes accepting something of value rather than the intent itself (because how would that even be possible?), you end up with a situation in which being promised something of value, but only receiving it after the influenced actions have been completed, would no longer fulfill the requirements to be considered a bribe.

Basically the majority argues that if they are correct (666 being a bribery rather than a combined bribery + gratitudes statute), Congress still would have had to use language at least equivalent to the one at hand and therefore additional tests to deduce the intent of the 99th Congress can not be disregarded.
by hnav | 2026-02-27 18:06:20+00:00
One thing that's happening is that attestation is being plumbed into the web itself. CloudFlare and Apple have a collab where Safari will inject tokens that let CF know that the request is coming from a blessed device. In a world where all websites are being crushed by bot traffic, expect that Goog pushes on their own integrity initiative in Chrome in the next year or two.
by wrs | 2026-02-27 18:06:22+00:00
There wouldn't be an "ad" anywhere, though. You'll just ask the LLM for alternative implementations in plan mode, and it will be selling you one of them during the conversation rather than giving you an unbiased comparison. If you become suspicious it will make sure the pros just slightly outweigh the cons, or mention how well the thing works with something else in your stack, or whatever else a skilled salesperson would do to guide your choice without you realizing.

It's already doing this by telling everyone to use React and Tailwind, it's just that nobody's getting paid for it to do that.
by estearum | 2026-02-27 18:06:23+00:00
No, it's already in the law that it only applies if it is intended to and corruptly accepted as an influence on official decision-making.

A gift as a thank-you, post-hoc, where the prosecution cannot prove the gift was part of an effort to "corruptly" influence a prior decision, was always fine under any interpretation.

If students said "if you give us a good grade, then we'll give you a Best Teacher Ever mug," that is functionally identical to a bribe but is now legal.
by hopechong | 2026-02-27 18:06:26+00:00
We've been seeing a lot of people run OpenClaw directly on their main machine, which is a bad idea for a few reasons: it needs broad system access, it's noisy on resources, and if something goes wrong you want a clean blast radius.
The obvious answer is "just isolate it," but isolation has real friction. You need to provision a machine, handle SSH keys, configure security groups, and remember to tear things down so you're not leaking money.
This post walks through the three realistic options:

Docker – lowest friction, but shares your kernel and has limits depending on what OpenClaw needs to do
Dedicated hardware – best isolation, but you're paying 24/7 and it takes time to set up
Cloud VM – the sweet spot for most people: true isolation, pay-per-use, tear it down when you're done

For the cloud VM path, we show how to launch a hardened OpenClaw environment on AWS, GCP, Azure, or any other cloud with a single command, handling provisioning, SSH, and auto-teardown for you.
by FrustratedMonky | 2026-02-27 18:06:57+00:00
NDAA (The "Huawei Rule") is for cases when a foreign entity has infiltrated or taken over the company in question.

But DOD wants to use Anthropic so is really confirming that there is no foreign entity issues. They want to use it.

So to use NDAA (The "Huawei Rule"), is nakedly false and being used as a punishment.

Which if allowed to happen, could be used against any US Corporation to enforce compliance with the regime..
Show HN: Zero – offline, privacy-first expense tracker
by indranilbhuin | 2026-02-27 18:08:01+00:00
Over the past year I built zero, a fully offline expense tracker for Android and iOS.

Most finance apps today rely on accounts, cloud sync, subscriptions, and analytics. I wanted to try the opposite approach:

No accounts
No cloud storage
No telemetry
No ads
No subscriptions

All data stays locally on your device. The project is open source and focused purely on privacy and simplicity.

Would love feedback on:
• Offline-first product viability
• Non-SaaS monetization models
• UX tradeoffs when you remove analytics

Happy to answer any technical questions.
by fc417fc802 | 2026-02-27 18:08:20+00:00
No, it's not equivalent to nested if statements. If you can mathematically demonstrate that it is I would be interested.

Anyway that's irrelevant. The point is that we use different language when referring to the one because its capabilities appear to be fundamentally different.

Your argument comes down to a claim of human exceptionalism - that a computer program can never "understand" simply by virtue of being a computer program. You haven't actually provided any defense of that claim though. You've just assumed it without justification.
Show HN: SnapMyApp – App Store screenshot maker with Quick and Advanced editing
by sourabh86 | 2026-02-27 18:08:23+00:00
It’s still a work in progress, so I’m sharing early for feedback.

What I think is different from most tools: it has a Quick mode for speed and an Advanced mode for full control, so you can either generate fast or fine-tune details (canvas, layers, frame, screenshot, background) in one place. It’s guided but not rigid, and preview/export are built to stay aligned so output matches what you see while editing.

It works great on mobile as well where other apps struggle.

No signup needed (might add pro features in future)

No ads

If you test it, I’d really value feedback on time-to-first-export, export quality consistency, and what’s missing for you to switch from your current tool.
by ootakamoku | 2026-02-27 18:08:32+00:00
I have developed the Unsaturable LLM Benchmark. This project evaluates the internal reasoning engines of Large Language Models by forcing them to compete in well-known zero-sum games, specifically Chess, Go, and Texas Hold'em.

The primary experimental protocol strictly prohibits the models from accessing a current board state or a list of legal actions. They receive only sequential delta updates and must reconstruct the global game state autoregressively.

Performance across the entire benchmark is quantified using a weighted Bradley-Terry model with global maximum-likelihood optimization. This mathematical model estimates the probability of one language model defeating another based on the outcomes of their direct matchups. To fully evaluate a model under these extreme cognitive constraints, the Bradley-Terry ratings are divided into three distinct pillars:

Syntax Reliability: This metric isolates matchups that terminate prematurely due to syntax failures or illegal actions. It actively penalizes models that fail to maintain required constraints, generating a Bradley-Terry rating based strictly on format and rule adherence.

Strategic Skill: To isolate true strategic reasoning independent of formatting errors, this metric evaluates games that conclude successfully without any syntax failures or illegal actions. It generates a Bradley-Terry rating that measures a model's capacity to outsmart opponents when both agents play without execution errors.

Epistemic Calibration (Metacognition): On every turn, models are forced to output a probabilistic confidence score (0-100) regarding their action's legality. Head-to-head ROC-AUC comparisons are calculated and randomly sampled via bootstrapping to simulate pairwise outcomes. These simulated win/loss records are then fed into the Bradley-Terry model to generate a rating that ranks models strictly by their self-awareness and their capacity to differentiate legal from illegal internal states.

Executing thousands of API requests through OpenRouter to achieve statistically significant confidence intervals requires a substantial financial expenditure. I am currently seeking external funding to execute additional matches. Additional funding directly correlates to tighter confidence intervals and the inclusion of new models on the leaderboard.

I am available to answer questions regarding the experimental protocol or the mathematical frameworks utilized.
by SatvikBeri | 2026-02-27 18:09:24+00:00
It was roughly "given this dataset with 100 time series, write code to calculate these statistics as performantly as possible. Make one single-threaded version and one using 4 cores."

The C++ versions were around ~250 lines long, and the developers generally only had time to try one approach. While the Julia versions were around ~80 lines long, and the developers had time to try several approaches. I'm sure the best theoretically possible C++ version is faster than the best Julia version, but given that we're always working with time constraints, the performance per developer hour in Julia tends to be really good in my experience.
by lflin00 | 2026-02-27 18:09:42+00:00
Hello, I am a 20 year old biomedical engineering student. Built this without knowing the CS theory behind it.
The main idea: strip every function down to its pure logical structure, remove variable names, formatting, comments and what you are left with is a hash. Two functions with the same hash have the same logic regardless of how its written or what it's called. Apparently this is a thing called alpha equivalence.
The new part: instead of writing a parser for every language. I used an LLM to translate any language to Python first, then it runs through the same pipeline as Python. Now you can detect that a Java function and a Python function structurally the same. Meaning only 1 parser was needed.
Supports Python and Js/Ts natively. C++, Java, Rust, Go, and many others work through AI translation. VS Code extension with merge tool included.
GitHub: https://github.com/lflin00/SRI-ENGINE
Curious what people think about using an LLM as a universal frontend.