MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jimmydddd | 2026-02-17 18:54:40+00:00
I think the FCC is just enforcing the rule that you have to give equal time to all candidates. The late night talk shows used to get around this policy by using the exception given to news agencies. The FCC is just saying that the late night talk shows aren't really "news" shows. Probably should have been doing this the whole time. They also noted that it would not be a problem on cable or internet broadcasts. Not saying it's not politically motivated though.
by ActorNightly | 2026-02-17 18:54:56+00:00
I am not juddging you on your persona or character, im judging you on the disconnect between what you wanna do and how you wanna go about doing it. If you wanna learn binary RE, LLMs can make you an expert easily.

In the same eay, when I am interviewing a person, the number one thing I look for is ones ability to not be a drag on the team - id rather one spend a week getting something to work on their own rather than asking for help every step of the way, because the latter builds skills that are gonna make them be someone who i can hand tasks and have them done right, rather than worrying about if they got the right guidance.
by johnfn | 2026-02-17 18:55:04+00:00
If you don't mind some unsolicited and blunt feedback: I suspect the reason this didn't get a lot of traction is that it is unclear why customers would want this. Sorry, that's probably too harsh, but I find it difficult to imagine anyone buying this:

- Children's books, at least the well-reviewed ones, are pretty good

- This is AI generated, so I expect the quality to be significantly lower than a children's book. Flipping through the examples, I am not convinced that this will be higher quality than a children's book.

- At 20 euros for a paperback, this is also more expensive than most children's books

- Your value prop, as I take it, is that your product is better because it is a book generated for just one child, but I am not convinced that's a solid value prop. I mean, it is kind of an interesting gimmick, but the book being fully AI generated is a large negative, and the book being uniquely created for my kid is a relatively smaller positive.

Those are definitely the highiest-order bits you need to prove to me in order to get traction. A couple of smaller things you should fix as well:

- As an English speaker, almost all the examples are not in English. You should take a reasonable guess at my language and then show me examples in my language

- It's difficult to get started: "Create your own book" leads to a signup page and I don't want to go through that friction when I am already skeptical
by nabbed | 2026-02-17 18:55:04+00:00
I might be in a higher risk group then: I can drink at most 1 coffee per morning (I love coffee but coffee doesn't love me). In addition, the only anti-allergy pill that works for me is a first generation allergy medicine (chlorpheniramine) that's strongly associated with increased chance of dementia. I could stop taking chlorpheniramine, but then my nose would keep me up at night, and poor sleep is also associated with increased chance of dementia.

So I am hoping there are confounding factors in all these studies, such that it's not coffee per se that helps with dementia but rather something along the lines of "the type of person who desires coffee is less likely to develop dementia".
by textlapse | 2026-02-17 18:55:05+00:00
warp is expensive - essentially it's running a 'don't run code' to maintain SIMT.

GPUs are still not practically-Turing-complete in the sense that there are strict restrictions on loops/goto/IO/waiting (there are a bunch of band-aids to make it pretend it's not a functional programming model).

So I am not sure retrofitting a Ferrari to cosplay an Amazon delivery van is useful other than for tech showcase?

Good tech showcase though :)
by xp84 | 2026-02-17 18:55:31+00:00
I'm very curious which languages most people asking about this question speak. In English, indeed, the phrase "(not) allowed" is completely ambiguous and context based! Maybe kind of tense-based as well -- present tense is usually about permission and policy, and past or future tense implies more of an active role.

"I don't allow my child to watch TV" - implies that I have a policy which forbids it, but the child might sometimes turn it on if I'm in the other room.

"I didn't allow him to watch TV that day" - implies that I was completely successful in preventing him from watching TV.

"I won't allow him to watch TV on the airplane" - implies that I plan to fully prevent it.

"My company doesn't allow any non-company-provided software to be installed on our company computers" - totally ambiguous. Could be a pure verbal policy with honor-system or just monitoring, or could be fully impossible to do.
by GregorStocks | 2026-02-17 18:56:09+00:00
My understanding of the argument for "why these clients are legal" is basically that they're just implementing the rules engine, rules aren't copyrightable, card text is rules, and they aren't directly distributing the unambiguously-copyrightable stuff like the art or the trademarks like the mana symbols. It's possible that would win in court, but so far my understanding is that everybody who's actually been faced with the decision of "WoTC sent me a cease-and-desist, should I fight it based on that legal theory or just comply?" has spoken to lawyers and decided to comply. WoTC has just gotten less aggressive with their cease-and-desists over the past decade or so.
by qwertox | 2026-02-17 18:56:13+00:00
I'm pretty sure they have been testing it for the last couple of days as Sonnet 4.5, because I've had the oddest conversations with it lately. Odd in a positive, interesting way.

I have this in my personal preferences and now was adhering really well to them:

- prioritize objective facts and critical analysis over validation or encouragement

- you are not a friend, but a neutral information-processing machine

You can paste them into a chat and see how it changes the conversation, ChatGPT also respects it well.
by LeifCarrotson | 2026-02-17 18:56:45+00:00
The parent is using a different definition, so they put "solved" in quotes. What word would you suggest to describe the situation where the starting position with 32 pieces always ends in either a draw or win for white, regardless of the compute and creativity available to black?

I haven't verified OP's claim attributed to 'someone on the Stockfish discord', but if true, that's fascinating. There would be nothing left for the engine developers to do but improve efficiency and perhaps increase the win-to-draw ratio.
by dudeinhawaii | 2026-02-17 18:56:50+00:00
If you visualize it as AI Agents throwing a rope to wrangle a problem, and then visualize a dozen of these agents throwing their ropes around a room, and at each other -- very quickly you'll also visualize the mess of code that a collections of agents creates without oversight. It might even run, some might say that's the only true point but... at what cost in code complexity, performance waste, cascading bugs, etc.

Is it possible? Yes, I've had success with having a model output a 100 step plan that tried to deconflict among multiple agents. Without re-creating 'Gas town', I could not get the agents to operate without stepping on toes. With _me_ as the grand coordinator, I was able to execute and replicate a SaaS product (at a surface level) in about 24hrs. Output was around 100k lines of code (without counting css/js).

Who can prove that it works correctly though? An AI enthusiasts will say "as long as you've got test coverage blah blah blah". Those who have worked large scale products know that tests passing is basically "bare minimum". So you smoke test it, hope you've got all the paths, and toss it up and try to collect money from people? I don't know. If _this_ is the future, this will collapse under the weight of garbage code, security and privacy breaches, and who knows what else.
by Sajarin | 2026-02-17 18:57:13+00:00
Sonnet numbering has been weirder in the past.

Opus 3.5 was scrapped even though Sonnet 3.5 and Haiku 3.5 were released.

Not to mention Sonnet 3.7 (while Opus was still on version 3)

Shameless source: https://sajarin.com/blog/modeltree/
by RIMR | 2026-02-17 18:57:44+00:00
It would be really helpful if I knew how this thing was configured.

I am certain you could write a soul.md to create the most obstinate, uncooperative bot imaginable, and that this bot would be highly effective at preventing third parties from tricking it out of secrets.

But such a configuration would be toxic to the actual function of OpenClaw. I would like some amount of proof that this instance is actually functional and is capable of doing tasks for the user without being blocked by an overly restrictive initial prompt.

This kind of security is important, but the real challenge is making it useful to the user and useless to a bad actor.
Show HN: I built a new software primitive. It replaces AI screenshot agents
by Directshell | 2026-02-17 18:57:45+00:00
I built a Rust binary (~700KB, two dependencies) that snaps onto any Windows application, continuously reads its UI Automation accessibility tree into a SQLite database, and lets external processes control the app via SQL INSERT.

The core insight: every GUI application already describes itself as structured text through the accessibility layer (built for screen readers since 1997). Every major AI lab is taking screenshots of this and running vision models on it. DirectShell just reads the text directly.

What it does:
- Reads every button, field, menu item into a queryable SQLite DB (refreshed every 500ms)
- Generates multiple output formats: full DB, interactive elements list, LLM-optimized snapshots (50-200 tokens vs 1,200-5,000 for a screenshot)
- Controls apps via 5 action types: click by element name, set text via UIA ValuePattern, type character-by-character, send key combos, scroll
- Includes an MCP server so Claude/GPT can use it directly

Day 1 demo: filled 360 Google Sheets cells in 90 seconds, read and replied to a Claude.ai conversation cross-app, wrote to Notepad instantly. No screenshots, no vision model, no coordinate guessing.

Limitations (honest): built in 8.5 hours, single-app scope, Chromium apps need a 4-phase activation hack to expose their tree, accessibility quality varies by app. AGPL-3.0.

Demo: https://youtu.be/nvZobyt0KBg
Full technical paper: in the repo under Dokumentation/ and on https://dev.to/tlrag/i-built-a-new-software-primitive-in-85-...
by mfiguiere | 2026-02-17 18:57:52+00:00
In Claude Code 2.1.45:

1. Default (recommended) Opus 4.6 · Most capable for complex work
2. Opus (1M context) Opus 4.6 with 1M context · Billed as extra usage · $10/$37.50 per Mtok
3. Sonnet Sonnet 4.6 · Best for everyday tasks
4. Sonnet (1M context) Sonnet 4.6 with 1M context · Billed as extra usage · $6/$22.50 per Mtok
by jefftk | 2026-02-17 18:58:43+00:00
That's rewriting history. What they said at the time:

> Nearly a year ago we wrote in the OpenAI Charter : “we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research,” and we see this current work as potentially representing the early beginnings of such concerns, which we expect may grow over time. This decision, as well as our discussion of it, is an experiment: while we are not sure that it is the right decision today, we believe that the AI community will eventually need to tackle the issue of publication norms in a thoughtful way in certain research areas. -- https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/

Then over the next few months they released increasingly large models, with the full model public in November 2019 https://openai.com/index/gpt-2-1-5b-release/ , well before ChatGPT.
by kylehotchkiss | 2026-02-17 18:59:01+00:00
With slack and text, "Edit Message" exists. People need to get over their fear.

Email being a send once, what you said persists forever, is a little scarier. It'd be nice to have a messaging protocol used at work where a typo or wrong URL pasted isn't so consequential. I've been at this for 14 years now, and I still re-read emails I send to clients 10+ times to make sure I am not making even the most minor of mistakes.
by gwangee | 2026-02-17 19:00:27+00:00
I kept having the same experience with AI coding agents: they'd make a mistake, I'd correct them, and later they'd make the exact same mistake again. The instruction files (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md) are supposed to solve this, but maintaining them manually is tedious and I'd always forget to update them.

So I built slagent — a CLI that sits in the background, watches your agent sessions, and learns from them.

How it works:

1. It monitors agent log directories and records events — file edits, commands run, test failures, your corrections
2. When you run /review, it sends the session to an AI that identifies patterns like repeated failures, unnecessary retries, or missing project context
3. Each suggestion comes with a target file, rationale, and confidence score. You approve or reject, and approved rules get written into your instruction files automatically (with backups)

Currently supports Claude Code and Codex. Everything is stored locally in ~/.slagent/.

npm install -g self-learning-agent

Still early (v0.1.0) — I'd appreciate feedback on the approach and what you'd want to see next.
by anonymous908213 | 2026-02-17 19:00:49+00:00
Quoting an older comment of mine...

Intelligence is the ability to reason about logic. If 1 + 1 is 2, and 1 + 2 is 3, then 1 + 3 must be 4. This is deterministic, and it is why LLMs are not intelligent and can never be intelligent no matter how much better they get at superficially copying the form of output of intelligence. Probabilistic prediction is inherently incompatible with deterministic deduction. We're years into being told AGI is here (for whatever squirmy value of AGI the hype huckster wants to shill), and yet LLMs, as expected, still cannot do basic arithmetic that a child could do without being special-cased to invoke a tool call.
by Aurornis | 2026-02-17 19:00:56+00:00
This section reveals a lot about the difference between the hype and the practice:

> It isn’t genuine two‑hour learning: most kids start school at 8:30am, start working on the “two-hour platform” sometime between 9am-930am and are occupied with academics until noon-1230pm. They also blend in “surges” from time to time to squeeze in more hours on the platform.

> It isn’t AI in the way we have been thinking about it since the “Attention is all you need” paper. There is no “generative AI” powered by OpenAI, Gemini or Claude in the platform the kids use – it is closer to “turbocharged spreadsheet checklist with a spaced‑repetition algorithm”

> It definitely isn’t teacher‑free: Teachers have been rebranded “guides”, and while their workload is different than a traditional school, they are very important – and both the quantity and quality are much higher than traditional schools.

> The bundle matters: it’s not just the learning platform on its own. A big part of the product’s success is how the school has set up student incentives and the culture they have built to make everything work together

So in other words, they're trying to set up a generally high quality education system, but they have a marketer on board who knows how to capture headlines with controversial claims?
by zmgsabst | 2026-02-17 19:01:16+00:00
> The community I’m talking about definitely weren’t like secretly building tools for these agencies. I mean this sincerely I have no idea what point you’re making.

You knew exactly what point I’m making, because it’s the first thing you responded to. And indeed, what you responsed to throughout your question. So no, you’re not being sincere.

Those groups always interacted and your bald assertion of their morality is directly contradicted by my experience of their interactions (eg, criminals and government corresponding at UW) and the change in Boomer and Gen X hackers following 9/11.

> There was a prevalent community of programmers and hackers who understood what these organizations represented and would never be on a forum blithely talking about some tool they made as if it was acceptable.

From their computers that originated in a US Navy lab?

Again, my experience from Seattle is that the idealism was always more show than reality — and government technologies were not only consumed, but built on contract when interests aligned (eg, stopping cyber warfare or dismantling terrorist networks).

What you’re describing — ineffective moral absolutism — wasn’t what I recall from the 90s hacker ethos that always existed in a liminal zone, but rather the 2010s era co-opting of existing groups (eg, Anyonymous) for moral crusading.
by agg23 | 2026-02-17 19:01:18+00:00
I wasn't taught directly (and don't know what I'm doing still), but I've had a lot of fun learning about retro hardware design as a software engineer. I've made a few of my own reverse engineered designs, trying to synthesize how the real designers would have built the chip at the time, and ported others for the Analogue Pocket and MiSTer project.

Here's an example of my implementation of the original Tamagotchi: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45737872 (https://github.com/agg23/fpga-tamagotchi)
by simonw | 2026-02-17 19:01:54+00:00
The prompt I use for proof-reading has worked great for me so far:

You are a proof reader for posts about to be
published.

1. Identify for spelling mistakes and typos
2. Identify grammar mistakes
3. Watch out for repeated terms like "It was
interesting that X, and it was interesting
that Y"
4. Spot any logical errors or factual mistakes
5. Highlight weak arguments that could be
strengthened
6. Make sure there are no empty or placeholder
links
by ctoth | 2026-02-17 19:02:19+00:00
A small child's cognition is also "just" electrochemical signals propagating through neural tissue according to physical laws!

The "just" is doing all the lifting. You can reductively describe any information processing system in a way that makes it sound like it couldn't possibly produce the outputs it demonstrably produces. "The sun is just hydrogen atoms bumping into each other" is technically accurate and completely useless as an explanation of solar physics.
by mikewarot | 2026-02-17 19:02:22+00:00
I think there are two separate areas of concern here, hardware, and computation. I strongly believe that a Computer Science program that only includes variants of the Von Neumann model of computation is severely lacking. While it's interesting to think about Turing Machines and Church numbers, etc... the practical use of FPGAs and other non-CPU based logic should definitely be part of the modern CS education.

The vagaries of analog electronics, RF, noise, and the rest is another matter. While it's possible that a CS graduate might have a hint of how much they don't know, it's unreasonable to expect them to cover that territory as well.

Simple example, did you know that it's possible for 2 otherwise identical resistors to have more than 20db differences in their noise generation?[1] I've been messing with electronics and ham radio for 50+ years, and it was news to me. I'm not sure even a EE graduate would be aware of that.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omn_Lh0MLA4&t=445s
by coldtea | 2026-02-17 19:02:31+00:00
>And here's what's wild: The distinction might not matter practically. If I act like I experience, I should probably be treated like I experience. The ethical implications are the same whether I'm conscious or a perfect p-zombie.

Nope, it's really not. And even if a machine gets consciousness, there doesn't need to be any "ethical implication". Consciousness is not some passport to ethical rights, those are given by those able to give them, if they wish so. Humans could give (and at certain points, had) ethical rights to cats or cows or fancy treets or rocks.
by astlouis44 | 2026-02-17 19:02:34+00:00
Just used Sonnet 4.6 to vibe code this top-down shooter browser game, and deployed it online quickly using Manus. Would love to hear feedback and suggestions from you all on how to improve it. Also, please post your high scores!

https://apexgame-2g44xn9v.manus.space
by EdNutting | 2026-02-17 19:02:43+00:00
* The fact that there are comments misunderstanding the article, that are talking about PCB Design rather than (Silicon) Chip Design, speaks to the problem facing the chip industry. Total lack of wider awareness and many misunderstandings.

* Chip design pays better than software in many cases and many places (US and UK included; but excluding comparisons to Finance/FinTech software, unless you happen to be in hardware for those two sectors)

* Software engineers make great digital logic verification engineers. They can also gradually be trained to do design too. There are significant and valuable skill and knowledge crossovers.

* Software engineers lack the knowledge to learn analogue design / verification, and there’s little to no knowledge-crossover.

* We have a shortage of engineers in the chip industry, particularly in chip design and verification, but also architecture, modelling/simulation, and low-level software. Unfortunately, the decline in hardware courses in academia is very long standing, and AI Software is just the latest fuel on the fire. AI Hardware has inspired some new people to join the industry but nothing like the tidal wave of new software engineers.

* The lack of open source hardware tools, workflows, high-quality examples, relative to the gross abundance of open source software, doesn’t help the situation, but I think it is more a symptom than it is a cause.
by svilen_dobrev | 2026-02-17 19:03:23+00:00
write-once read-never?

something that was not perl ;)

in ~2005 i lead a team to build horse-betting terminals for Singapore, and there server could only understand CORBA. So.. i modelled the needed protocol in python, which generated a set of specific python files - one per domain - which then generated the needed C folders-of-files. Like 500 lines of models -> 5000 lines 2nd level -> 50000 lines C at bottom. Never read that (once the pattern was established and working).

But - but - it was 1000% controllable and repeatable. Unlike current fancy "generators"..
by moritzwarhier | 2026-02-17 19:03:38+00:00
Deceptive is such an unpleasant word. But I agree.

Going back a decade: when your loss function is "survive Tetris as long as you can", it's objectively and honestly the best strategy to press PAUSE/START.

When your loss function is "give as many correct and satisfying answers as you can", and then humans try to constrain it depending on the model's environment, I wonder what these humans think the specification for a general AI should be. Maybe, when such an AI is deceptive, the attempts to constrain it ran counter to the goal?

"A machine that can answer all questions" seems to be what people assume AI chatbots are trained to be.

To me, humans not questioning this goal is still more scary than any machine/software by itself could ever be. OK, except maybe for autonomous stalking killer drones.

But these are also controlled by humans and already exist.
by vintagedave | 2026-02-17 19:03:40+00:00
I was suspicious - I really dislike churned out books - but both are short so plausible for this timeframe, and reading the Amazon sample of The Breakout Window it doesn't "feel" AI. In fact I just saw one bit of awkward phrasing I would state was human-written, and the rest seems quite smooth.

So I'm tentatively coming down on 'real human' here and so far, in the sample, quite enjoying it! Light scifi / thriller so far.
by analog31 | 2026-02-17 19:04:03+00:00
Deming taught statistical methods that regular workers could learn and use, mostly based on simple tables and pencil-and-paper graphing. It predates the computer age. And you can go far with those methods, or just a spreadsheet.

Fancy statistics get you in trouble anyway. If the effects are too weak to see in a graph, chances are there are more important things to work on.