MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kittikitti | 2026-02-28 00:57:05+00:00
American here, I would much rather have China being the foremost power too. This saga with Anthropic shows just how clueless these AI companies are. This soap opera has to stop, none of these CEO's, officials from the Trump administration, or the Department of War are good for humanity. I've read the ethics policies that China that they released on generative AI and it's years ahead of anything we have in America.

China's AI Safety Governance Framework: https://www.cac.gov.cn/2025-09/15/c_1759653448369123.htm

Most Americans hate AI and it's effectively the ostrich effect where they hope to outright ban it and ignore everything else. Meanwhile, all the evil people are running the show. While Anthropic continues to propagate Sinophobic messaging, DeepSeek and other companies have a much more muted tone.
by CobrastanJorji | 2026-02-28 00:57:30+00:00
It will really depend on the fine details. If Amazon would lose its military contracts unless it dropped Claude, then Claude will be gone tomorrow. They just got a half billion contract for the Air Force earlier this year, and it's not their only military contract, and they're going to want to be well positioned next time something like the JEDI contract comes along.

Also, AWS has a long history of rolling over when politicians make noise about AWS customers, going back to when Joe Lieberman casually asked Bezos to please stop supporting Wikileaks.
by andrewjneumann | 2026-02-28 00:57:33+00:00
Discussion starts at 06:30 - Treating neurological conditions with open-source TDCS.

GitHub repository: https://github.com/nathanfu88/opentdcs

The future isn't just written in code; it's wired in hardware. But what happens when you combine open-source philosophy with neurological treatment? In this episode, Nathan unveils his latest project: a low-cost, open-source Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) device designed to treat conditions like depression and anxiety. We explore how standardizing the hardware and software for these devices can help facilitate clinical trials and solve the massive accessibility gap in mental health care. We also dive into the messy reality of physical product development. From the challenges of sourcing components in an AI-dominated supply chain to the nuances of choosing an Apache license for open-source hardware, we break down what it actually takes to bring a medical hardware concept to life. You will learn why multidisciplinary feedback is absolutely crucial during the sticky "middle phase" of execution, and how this simple circuit could democratize treatment.
by vidarh | 2026-02-28 00:58:10+00:00
> Wrong. They will use the model that gives them an edge. If they are using a PhD but their competitors are using Einstein, they will lose.

For some tasks that matters. But for a lot of tasks, "good enough but cheaper" will win out.

I'm sure there will be a market for whichever company has the best model, but just like most companies don't hire many PhD's, most companies won't feel a need for the highest end models either, above a certain level.

E.g. with the release of Sonnet 4.6, I switched a lot of my processes from Opus to Sonnet, because Sonnet 4.6 is good enough, and it means I can do more for less.

But I'm also experimenting with Kimi, Qwen, Deepseek, and others for a number of tasks, including fine-grained switching and interleaving. E.g. have a cheap but dumb model filter data or take over when a sub-task is simple enough, in order to have the smart model do less, for example.
by wredcoll | 2026-02-28 00:58:47+00:00
I have called the dmv. They said enter a number and we'll call you back later, which they did. It wasn't fast but it was fairly efficient.

I've had the irs write me a letter saying I owed them money. They were correct and I paid them in a couple of months. It wasn't very hard.

I don't enjoy paying taxes but I do very much enjoy the things they buy.
by btrettel | 2026-02-28 00:59:20+00:00
Nice work. I made a similar (but much less capable) Python script [1] for my own use before and I can say that a tool like this is useful to keep the docs in sync with the code.

My script only detects whether a checksum for a segment of code doesn't match, using directives placed in the code (not a separate file as you've done). For example:

#tripwire$ begin 094359D3 Update docs section blah if necessary.
[...]
#tripwire$ end

Also, my script knows nothing about pull requests and is basically a linter. So it's definitely not as capable.

[1] https://github.com/btrettel/flt/blob/main/py/tripwire.py
by linuxhansl | 2026-02-28 00:59:58+00:00
Hats off to Anthropic for not wavering here.

Supply-chain risks means "the potential for adversaries to sabotage, subvert, or disrupt the integrity and delivery of defense systems, including software, hardware, and services, to degrade national security".

So now Anthropic is an adversary, because it does not want "fully autonomous weapons"? Sure thing, DoD. Go use Grok or whatever, I'm sure that will go great.
by rishabhaiover | 2026-02-28 01:00:11+00:00
I was reading a paper on dark silicon and how it broke the beautiful scaling laws of the past (Moore's law/Dennard Scaling). We hit a wall, innovated and at the moment, the hardware industry is thriving. To me, that means scaling the industry and riding that momentum wasn't wrong. In fact, it allowed us to be where we are today.

Why are we so against, in principle, to the current pre-training scaling laws? Perhaps, we'll require new innovations at some point, but the momentum allows us to reach to newer heights that we've never climbed before.
by txrx0000 | 2026-02-28 01:00:21+00:00
This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. It will eventually be taken from you by force.

Open-source everything. Papers, code, weights, financial records. Do all of your research in the open. Run a 100% transparent organization so that there's nothing to take from you. Level the playing field for good and bad actors alike, otherwise the bad actors will get their hands on it while everyone else is left behind.

Stop comparing AI capabilities to nuclear weapons. A nuke cannot protect against or reverse the damage of another nuke. AI capabilities are not like nukes. Diffuse it as much as possible. Give it to everyone and the good will prevail.

Build a world where millions of AGIs run on millions of gaming PCs, aligned with millions of different individuals. It is a necessary condition for humanity's survival.
by kvinogradov | 2026-02-28 01:01:00+00:00
Software has its own lifecycle, and the funding should not stick indefinitely to a specific project. Meanwhile, our grant format might evolve into some type of limited tenured positions for maintainers, which support the most critical yet risky projects. But this target scope should be dynamic and adapt to the market—global consumption of OSS; otherwise, we may end up maintaining COBOL in 2100...
by sealeck | 2026-02-28 01:02:36+00:00
> Stallman has always been right. It's mind boggling just how right he was about everything.

Mind boggling right about not allowing GCC to be used as a library, his comments on Jeffrey Esptein, a refusal to in any way compromise (e.g. the GNU/Linux meme), etc...

Oh and a recognition that free software, while nice, does not in any way solve the underlying issues he claims it does. Similarly to how letting everyone walk around their local water treatment facility and perform chemical tests doesn't really work and instead the state regulates and hires experts to monitor the water supply...
by fschuett | 2026-02-28 01:02:36+00:00
Certain politicians that are concerned about "the young people are being radicalized online" about certain topics, uncomfortable to said politicians (left / right dialectic doesn't matter, especially not in America). They know that their monopoly over brainwashing children in public schools matters a lot. So, their solution is to shut off any access to any site where you can discuss topics anonymously by forcing more and more regulation to shut down said sites.

Yes, yes, free speech and everything, you just have to first give the OS your phone number, credit card number, drink a verification can and please also... you do want to still keep your job, right?
by nelox | 2026-02-28 01:03:01+00:00
That's a fair point about sequencing, but it actually reinforces the argument rather than undermining it. If Anthropic pushed back internally, and that pushback is what led to the directive going public, then Anthropic had every reason to anticipate that this would become a public story. Which means the blog post wasn't a spontaneous act of transparency, it was a prepared response to a foreseeable escalation. That's more strategic rather than less so.

Internal pushback and public damage control aren't mutually exclusive. A company can genuinely disagree with a client's demands behind closed doors and simultaneously craft a public narrative designed to make itself look as good as possible once those disagreements surface. In fact, that's exactly what competent communications teams do, they plan for the scenario where private disputes become public, and they have messaging ready.

The real question isn't who went public first or why. It's whether Anthropic's stated position, "we support these military use cases but not those ones", reflects a durable ethical framework or a line drawn precisely where it needed to be to keep both the contracts and the brand intact. Nothing in the sequencing you've described answers that question. It just tells us Anthropic saw this coming, which, if anything, means the messaging was more carefully engineered, not less.
by aklsdf__ | 2026-02-28 01:03:22+00:00
If this is your first time making a game, you should do everything yourself the first time.

Doing all of the work yourself at least once (or at least really giving it a go) will help you develop two of the most important skills in game development: understanding what parts of the process of game dev you like and are best at, and understanding how much time and effort it takes to get to something you think is good.

AI shouldn't be used as a replacement for not learning a skill. You will never have as much control over an AI doing the work for you as you want, and your role as the middle man between whatever AI agent you are using to do all the work and the end result is not a good or fulfilling place to be.

You don't have to avoid AI all together, but use it in ways that enhance the skills you care about developing instead of filling in for ones you lack. A good example for art is using it for placeholder art when you are starting something new or experimenting with an artistic choice. Using AI as a more convenient way to look up information while you are coding is very different than prompting what you want done and blasting it directly into your project.

Do you want to learn how to draw or buy a 3D printer with a pencil holder attachment and download images for it to draw for you?
by nilkn | 2026-02-28 01:03:51+00:00
I don't know what you're referencing, but it doesn't matter. I judge people by their actions more than their words. The actions in this case are simple: Anthropic doesn't want their models to be used for fully autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of American citizens, but everything else is fair game; in response, the sitting administration is attempting to kill the company (since a strict reading of the security risk order would force most of their partners, suppliers, etc., to cut them off completely).

Giving precedence to words over actions is how you get taken advantage, abused, deceived, etc.
by tasty_freeze | 2026-02-28 01:03:51+00:00
Knowing nothing about your code, I'd suggest checking if the code uses the DAA instruction. It is by far the trickiest thing to get right. Don't assume well behaved code -- what happens if A=0x5C and B=0xF4 and you execute "add b; daa"? That is, if you attempt to correct a sum which didn't start with valid decimal digits.
by cal_dent | 2026-02-28 01:04:30+00:00
Two things can be true at the same time. It can notionally be a “good” decision and also a straightforward act of Anthropic continuing their PR that they’re some sort of benevolent entity despite continuing to pursue a typical corporate capitalistic structure. It is what it is. The game is the game. But I’m not going to sit there and pretend their virtues are as pure of snow. I’m sorry that’s upset you.
by nelox | 2026-02-28 01:05:19+00:00
The argument isn't that nobody knew Anthropic had DoW contracts. The argument is that there's a difference between "publicly known if you follow defense-tech procurement" and "trending on social media where Anthropic's core audience is now actively discussing it." Both can be true simultaneously.

A fact being technically available and that fact commanding widespread public attention are very different things. Anthropic's communications team understands this distinction even if you don't find it interesting. The blog post wasn't written for people who already track federal AI contracts, it was written for the much larger audience encountering this story for the first time and forming opinions about it in real time.

If the point you're making is just "I already knew this," that's fine, but it doesn't address anything about the incentive structure behind the public response.
by nickysielicki | 2026-02-28 01:06:38+00:00
obviously, I was never suggesting that the DoD spends $961b a year on cloud computing.

Look, it’s a very simple question: Amazon has invested $8b into anthropic. Do you think if the DoD disappeared tomorrow that Amazon would lose more than $8b in revenue over the next 5 years?

I think you underestimate how large the DoD budget is and how many times that money changes hands in the pursuit of fulfilling contracts. $20b-$25b in revenue per year across all hyperscalers is a totally reasonable estimate.
by xpe | 2026-02-28 01:07:12+00:00
So much left unsaid. So much implied. Let’s make it explicit and talk about it. Here are some follow questions that reasonable people will ask:

What was Anthropic’s role in the Maduro operation? (Or we can call it state-sponsored kidnapping.) Who knew what and when? Did A\ find itself in a position where it contradicted its core principles?

More broadly, how does moral culpability work in complex situations like this?

How much moral culpability gets attributed to a helicopter manufacturer used in the Maduro operation? (Assuming one was; you can see my meaning I hope.)

P.S. Traditional programming is easy in comparison to morality.
by fyredge | 2026-02-28 01:07:18+00:00
> As with anything, they are all things that could be done better by a company.
No

> Airlines are a great example of this. They have changed very little in the last 30 years (again, thanks to all the government regulation and red tape).

And thanks to regulations, we have less airline accidents than ever. Private companies are more than willing to "externalise" any accidents from cutting costs otherwise.

> Smartphones, TVs, (and literally anything else not in the hands of the government) has also seen rapid improvements.

So does government funded medical research, which improves the quality of life of people corporations deem "unprofitable".

> Anything the government handles is always rife with overspending, inefficiency, and corruption.

Because large corporations and rich donors lobby them to do so.

> A company must maintain profitability to stay alive.

So does a government, debt only lasts as long as the lender believes in your ability to pay it back.

> The government on the other hand, is $38 TRILLION dollars in the red.

And which of the Mag7 are not in debt? I remind you that if you wish to compare the USA to companies, they are literally an entity of over 300,000 people. No company employs that many people.

> Yes, the things that "people willingly buy" are the literal engine that makes all of this possible. It is not the reverse.

No, government enforced order is what allowed the engine to exist to begin with. No one would innovate if their IP could not be protected, and we would regress back into cartels if the government could not enforce private property.

The prosperity of the modern world is build upon a foundation of solid governance.
by davidw | 2026-02-28 01:07:41+00:00
> You sound like an unhinged person if you in plain words describe what’s happening, but the Trump admin demanded Anthropic’s AI be able to kill things for it without human approval and also do mass surveillance.

> Anthropic said no, and now the admin is trying to destroy the company in retaliation.

From https://bsky.app/profile/bbkogan.bsky.social/post/3mfuuprph5...
by kumarvvr | 2026-02-28 01:08:59+00:00
This is the inflection point for the beginning of culling of the intellectual class. If not physically, atleast economically and socially.

A few arrests and a few in detention centres, will be enough to make them fold and grovel.

They are now categorised as "radical left" and woke.

The elections will be controlled to "prevent the radical left take over of the greatest country on the planet".

edit : The stage is also being set for total media control. My prediction is that the next target will be Google, specifically Youtube. You should start seeing talks about how the radical left is inflitrated youtube.
by nephihaha | 2026-02-28 01:11:18+00:00
I think part of the problem (other than constant changing of nomenclature) is that there is a reluctance to diagnose anyone with such a condition. However, I have encountered someone in the last few years who was almost a textbook example — he had been diagnosed with autism and ADHD according to his own admission (I can see why this misdiagnosis would have occurred). I went through the Hare checklist and found he fulfilled at least 15/20 of the criteria. The notion he was emotionless was nonsense — he clearly has strong emotions, just not much empathy.
Ask HN: How do I use AI as a tool if some answers are objectivity incorrect?
by truthbe | 2026-02-28 01:11:20+00:00
I'm really at stump here, I want to use AI to make my life easier with work but how do I if I can't trust its answers 100% of the time? I mean I understand it needs human intervention but if I don't know the answer itself, it involves me stopping at the exact time I need to, searching for the correct answer elsewhere entirely and or just giving up on it, its quite exhausting.

The process for me is usually I go down a path with an LLM; I get excited at the prospect of using it as a tool. In the middle i spot an error. Question it, the LLM responds with a contradiction in the same conversation. I realise it means the last 5 minutes of dialogue was all incorrect, and I get frustrated that it wasted my time. I mean they're selling it as intelligent but where is the intelligence, to me its more akin to a search engine where instead of showing me a full article, it returns the excerpt of text instead. Useful.. maybe?

I know people use this in their work daily so I'm just curious how do they do it? Do they ignore the blaring errors like they aren't there? I know this sounds sarcastic but I really want to know because especially in my own projects, I find it hard to move on from not 'perfection' per say, but anything other than bad.

Thank you in advance and looking forward to other opinions also
by kalkin | 2026-02-28 01:11:50+00:00
I already suspected the first comment was by an LLM, but deleted that from my reply as it didn't feel like a productive accusation. However, with "that's a fair point" as an opener, plus the sheer typing speed implied by replies, and the way that individual sentences thread together even as the larger point is incoherent, I'm now confident enough to call it.
by ndriscoll | 2026-02-28 01:12:10+00:00
Or just do what reasonable states do and create liability for distributing child inappropriate things to children, and require distributors to use a commercially reasonable way to validate age. The law doesn't need to say specifically how to do it, and it certainly doesn't need to mandate things on unrelated third parties like OS vendors and device manufacturers. The people who want to distribute adult content can work with OS vendors to develop acceptable liability shields for themselves.
by sholladay | 2026-02-28 01:12:16+00:00
As a maintainer on the Ky team, I give a big thumbs up to this proposal.

We have run into many problems with web streams over the years and solving them has always proven to be hairy, including the unbounded memory growth from response.clone().

The Deno team implemented a stream API inspired by Go, which I was happy with, until they ultimately acquiesced to web streams.

This proposal shares some of those principles as well.
by SpicyLemonZest | 2026-02-28 01:12:52+00:00
I don't like it either! But right now, people who say things like this represent a substantial threat to me. So I'm going to bully and abuse them out of any spaces I can (with regret for anyone who I mistakenly target because I misunderstood their post), and leave spaces where I can't. If you're also unhappy with this state of affairs, I encourage you to help get the regime officials who are causing it out of office. There's a big protest planned for next month, you should join.
by phs318u | 2026-02-28 01:14:26+00:00
The discussion here underlines the reality that one can never make a “deal” with a powerful state, just as Lando Calrisian famously found out in Empire Strikes Back.

Dario is Lando, complaining “We had a deal!” Only to be told, “I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”
by bjh13 | 2026-02-28 01:14:30+00:00
> So it's six months to phase out use of Anthropic at the DoD, but the people hosting the models have to stop "immediately".

> Which miiight impact the amount of inference the DoD would be able to get done in those six months.

Which might not be by accident looking at the Truth Social posts which state "Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow."

I would not be surprised to see this being used as an excuse to nationalize Anthropic.
Replace Resend dry-run emails with Gmail drafts for manual review
by nishiohiroshi | 2026-02-28 01:15:08+00:00
Drip email dry run used to send everything to a test inbox via Resend. You could read them, but couldn't selectively approve which ones go to real users. Switched to Gmail drafts - each email becomes a draft addressed to the real recipient. Review, edit the copy if needed, send the ones that look right, delete the rest. When you're ready to go live, flip one boolean.
by blhack | 2026-02-28 01:15:11+00:00
Strength is saying what they were asked to do. I want to know!

Did the DoW ask them to make kill drones? Because if so THAT IS A REALLY BIG DEAL.

The vagueness is irritating. He’s saying they won’t do something, the DoW is saying they don’t even want them to do that, which should resolve the issue, but hasn’t. There is obviously something else at play here.
by ilaksh | 2026-02-28 01:15:48+00:00
For the skeptical, I guess we need to create a truly novel virtual machine and instruction set and then test the implementation of that.

But anything is going to be in some way similar to one degree or another to one or more real projects. So skeptics will claim that it doesn't prove anything.

But that's just the nature of reality and problems solving and such an exercise would prove it could create a compiler for a novel platform.

It would be great if there were a website where all of these skeptics could register in solidarity their assuredness that "it's not real AI and can't be creative" and pledge not to use it.