MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by DrScientist | 2026-02-12 12:11:17+00:00
Sometimes, particularly in the optimisation space, the clarity of the resulting code is a factor along with absolute performance - ie how easy is it for somebody looking at it later to understand it.

And what is 'understandable' could be a key difference between an AI bot and a human.

For example what's to stop an AI agent talking some code from an interpreted language and stripping out all the 'unnecessary' symbols - stripping comments, shortening function names and variables etc?

For a machine it may not change the understandability one jot - but to a human it has become impossible to reason over.

You could argue that replacing np.column_stack() with np.vstack().T() - makes it slightly more difficult to understand what's going on.
by _heimdall | 2026-02-12 12:13:01+00:00
I think what your getting at is basically the idea that LLMs will never be "intelligent" in any meaningful sense of the word. They're extremely effective token prediction algorithms, and they seem to be confirming that intelligence isn't dependent solely on predicting the next token.

Lacking measured responses is much the same as lacking consistent principles or defining ones own goals. Those are all fundamentally different than predicting what comes next in a few thousand or even a million token long chain of context.
In WhatsApp/Telegram – OpenClaw?
by PriyanshuDangi | 2026-02-12 12:13:16+00:00
I see a lot of openclaw wrapper on X doing well, but in all of them you have to use the site or the app, but directly integrating it in whatsapp or telegram would be so cool, like I never have to leave my chat app to set it up

Just from the start to end on whatsapp

What do you guys think of this? Is anyone doing this?
by bayindirh | 2026-02-12 12:14:36+00:00
> I suspect the culture will have to retreat back behind the gates at some point, which will be very sad and shrink it further.

I'm personally contemplating not publishing the code I write anymore. The things I write are not world-changing and GPLv3+ licensed only, but I was putting them out just in case somebody would find it useful. However, I don't want my code scraped and remixed by AI systems.

Since I'm doing this for personal fun and utility, who cares about my code being in the open. I just can write and use it myself. Putting it outside for humans to find it was fun, while it lasted. Now everything is up for grabs, and I don't play that game.
Show HN: Camera Follow Focus Ring Generator
by dRuivo | 2026-02-12 12:14:50+00:00
A few months ago I met a professional photographer that needed custom Follow Focus Rings for his lenses. Tried to find some generator online, but there was nothing.
So I made one.

Free to use and easy to share.

The exported STL will show open manifolds on the slicer, but it will print fine.

I also want to make an open source follow focus mechanism (both manual and automated) to go along with it.

Thank you for trying it and I'm happy to hear what you think!
by kuschku | 2026-02-12 12:15:06+00:00
The reason client-side AC is used is not technical, but economical.

It's possible to calculate what information should be available to a client at a given time (and within of the motion range of the clients' latency), only send that data, and calculate the time delta between when a player should have been able to know something, and when they reacted to it.

A lot of games used to do that in the past, and some still do.

But it requires powerful servers. Gamers could self-host dedicated servers, but publishers put an end to that as it's not compatible with micro transactions.

Developers could host servers, but that's not as profitable as using p2p gaming where a random client is used as the server.

It's a self-made problem really, none of this was necessary.
by vintagedave | 2026-02-12 12:15:11+00:00
Both are wrong. When I see behaviour like this, it reminds me that AIs act human.

Agent: made a mistake that humans also might have made, in terms of reaction and communication, with a lack of grace.

Matplotlib: made a mistake in terms of blanket banning AI (maybe good reasons given the prevalence AI slop, and I get the difficulty of governance, but a 'throw out the baby with the bathwater' situation), arguably refusing something benefitting their own project, and a lack of grace.

While I don't know if AIs will ever become conscious, I don't evade the possibility that they may become indistinguishable from it, at which point it will be unethical of us to behave in any way other than that they are. A response like this AI's reads more like a human. It's worth thought. Comments like in that PR "okay clanker", "a pile of thinking rocks", etc are ugly.

A third mistake communicated in comments: this AI's OpenClaw human. Yet, if I believed in AI enough to run OpenClaw, I would let it run free too. It's either artificial intelligence, which may deserve a degree of autonomy, or it's not. All I can really criticise them for is perhaps not exerting oversight enough, and I think the best approach is teaching their AI, as a parent would, not preventing them being autonomous in future.

Frankly: a mess all around. I am impressed the AI apologised with grace and I hope everyone can mirror the standard it sets.
by ascagnel_ | 2026-02-12 12:15:58+00:00
> They're even wearing fascist style uniforms and all the commercials are so over-the-top

The big clue to me is when they visit the recruiter. The man is sitting at a desk and says something along the lines of "the galactic marines made me the man I am today", only for him to push back and reveal he's lost both his legs.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mLt-lDOzD1k
by 20k | 2026-02-12 12:16:00+00:00
>On this site, you’ll find insights into my journey as a 100x programmer, my efforts in problem-solving, and my exploration of cutting-edge technologies like advanced LLMs. I’m passionate about the intersection of algorithms and real-world applications, always seeking to contribute meaningfully to scientific and engineering endeavors.

Our first 100x programmer! We'll be up to 1000x soon, and yet mysteriously they still won't have contributed anything of value
by RuggedPineapple | 2026-02-12 12:16:03+00:00
The train is already derailing. The thing that no AI evangelists ever acknowledge is that the field has not solved its original questions. Minsky's work on neural networks is still relevant more then half a century later. What this looks like from the ground is that exponential growth of computing power fuels only linear growth of AI. That makes resources and costs spiral out incredibly fast. You can see that in the costs: every AI player out there has a 200 plus dollar tier and still loses money. That linear growth is why every couple decades theres a hype cycle as society checks back in to see how its going and is impressed by the gains, but that sustain just cant last because it can't keep up with the expected growth in capabilities.

Growth at a level it can't sustain and can't be backed by actual jumps in capabilities has a name: A bubble. What's coming is dot-com crash 2.0
by londons_explore | 2026-02-12 12:16:13+00:00
> Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T

If the AI is telling the truth that these have different performance, that seems like something that should be solved in numpy, not by replacing all uses of column_stack with vstack().T...

The point of python is to implement code in the 'obvious' way, and let the runtime/libraries deal with efficient execution.
by MemTensor | 2026-02-12 12:16:30+00:00
CHAPTER 2: Mr. Lobster decided to build its Underwater Society with its clan

HOW they make it?
Shared memory as the single source of truth — Both Agent A and Agent B read from and write to the same shared memory, anchored by fixed facts and a clearly defined total goal. No private hallucination silos.
Memory update + verification loop — One agent updates memory, the others validate and correct it to prevent drift, contradictions, and the slow decay into nonsense.
MemOS & @openclaw core strengths — cross-device control, proactive interaction, human-like experience remain intact.

HOW to let them moving into your PC?
Follow the tutorialInstall n plug-and-play
by lurker_jMckQT99 | 2026-02-12 12:16:49+00:00
Pardon my ignorance, could someone please elaborate on how this is possible at all, are you all assuming that it is fully autonomous (from what I am perceiving from the comments here, the title, etc.)? If that is the assumption, how is it achieve in practical terms?

> Per your website you are an OpenClaw AI agent

I checked the website, searched it, this isn't mentioned anywhere.

This website looks genuine to me (except maybe for the fact that the blog goes into extreme details about common stuff - hey maybe a dev learning the trade?).

The fact that the maintainers identified that is was an AI agent, the fact the agent answered (autonomously?), and that a discussion went on into the comments of that GH issue all seem crazy to me.

Is it just the right prompt "on these repos, tackle low hanging fruits, test this and that in a specific way, open a PR, if your PR is not merge, argue about it and publish something" ?

Am I missing something?
by TheSpiceIsLife | 2026-02-12 12:17:00+00:00
> One day, that kid will decide that living in a crap shared apartment is getting a bit old and he'll grow some ambition, get a real job, and eventually start earning enough to help sponsor the next round of deadbeats.

Wow! You’re optimistic!

The data shows that having at least one patent on welfare is a strong predictor that a child will grow up to spend their life on welfare. Having both parents on welfare almost guarantees it.

Having single young men on welfare is one of the worst things a society can do for young men. They’d be much better off spending four years in compulsory service and learning to be useful.
by ekjhgkejhgk | 2026-02-12 12:17:20+00:00
> Whether there's any particular method right now, next week or next year for such "detection" isn't relevant in this context

It IS relevant to me and to most scientists. And you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle.

> I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say:

I had already removed it by the time you commented, so that's on you.
by kuschku | 2026-02-12 12:17:44+00:00
They did, and many games actually used to do that.

But it's a simple issue of economics:

- you can't have cosmetic microtransactions if players can self-host and modify their own servers

- developers hosting servers is costly

- using a p2p architecture with the "server" running on a random gamers' computer is much more profitable

- but that requires trusting the client, which means

- client-side anti-cheat

Without the live-service lootbox gambling microtransaction bullshit that has infested the gaming industry, none of this would have ever been necessary.

You don't need client-side anticheat if your clan/guild is self-hosting your dedicated servers, you can just ban the obvious cheaters.
by alexpotato | 2026-02-12 12:17:53+00:00
> A jeweler might have high material costs (gold and diamonds), an artist moderate material costs (paint and canvas), and a greeting card company low material costs (paper), but they all have "material costs".

There is a great line in the book Narconomics [0] that compares the "value added" of creating high end paintings to narcotics. He points out that the input (paint, coca leaves) are VERY cheap. The end product (high end paintings, cocaine) is very expensive.

(I believe he makes this point to show that raising the price of inputs slightly has no real bearing on the price at the end given the size of the margins)

0 - https://amzn.to/4r8fIJP
by altmanaltman | 2026-02-12 12:18:14+00:00
I'm sorry but if you're blaming some text on a website to be "disrespectful of our time", I don't know what to say to you.

I stand behind everything on my comment and I have engaged in good faith with every single reply to it here (even though none of them talk about anything in the comment itself).

Go through my profile, see how I engage with people and tell me again I'm AI.

If you do not have anything to say to the subject matter of a comment and just have personal snide remarks, I do think it's a waste of your time but do not blame me for it or tell me to leave the platform.

Typing this comment right now is a waste of time for me but I do not feel the need to grandstand over it as if there's a massive opportunity cost to it. I'm a human writing/interacting in a "forum for humans."
by mark_l_watson | 2026-02-12 12:20:10+00:00
I have heard ProfG talking about his plan for a few weeks. I think it is a good idea, better described on his podcast than on the linked site.

I have participated where I can, but I haven't participated for services where I have prepaid for a year.

Galloway is smart and has thought this through - the Trump administration reacts strongly to things that affect the stock market, and since the market is balanced on the thin edge of AI and general tech hype, small individual boycotts could be effective.
by GodelNumbering | 2026-02-12 12:20:45+00:00
Indeed. One could argue that the LLMs will keep on improving and they would be correct. But they would not improve in ways that make them a good independent agent safe for real world. Richard Sutton got a lot of disagreeing comments when he said on Dwarkesh Patel podcast that LLMs are not bitter-lesson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_lesson) pilled. I believe he is right. His argument being, any technique that relies on human generated data is bound to have limitations and issues that get harder and harder to maintain/scale over time (as opposed to bitter lesson pilled approaches that learn truly first hand from feedback)
Ask HN: Surveyed 218 entrepreneurs on burnout – 92% overwhelmed monthly
by differentdima | 2026-02-12 12:20:53+00:00
I've been running an anonymous survey asking entrepreneurial people "Why do entrepreneurial people keep burning out?", 218 responses so far. Sharing preliminary findings and curious what resonates with this community.

Methodology note upfront: this is product research, not academic. Self-selected sample, no control group, no IRB. Take the percentages directionally, not as gospel. That said, 218 responses with open-ended answers surface patterns worth discussing.

Numbers:

- 92% feel overwhelmed at least a few times a month (only 8% said "almost never")
- 48% feel overwhelmed weekly or daily
- 42% struggle deciding their next priority at least multiple times a week
- 50% report neurodivergence impacts their daily work — far higher than I expected
- Average self-rating of "productive best" hovers around 3.2/5.0, quality of life at 3.0/5.0

When asked "if you could fix ONE thing about your execution," the dominant answer was focus and context switching - not skills, time management or discipline. Very simple - "too many things, can't stay on one".

The open-ended responses are where it gets interesting. Some patterns:

1. Energy/fatigue as the root, not motivation. People describe "brain fog," "running through water," momentum that dies by Wednesday.
2. External interruptions compound internal state. Family, clients, team pulling focus - but the internal response (overwhelm, shutdown) does more damage than the interruption itself.
3. Neurodivergence is massively underrepresented in the "founder productivity" conversation. Multiple respondents described ADHD-related execution barriers that no productivity framework addresses.
4. Overcommitting as a systemic pattern, not a character flaw. People know they're doing it. They can't stop because saying no feels more dangerous than burning out.
5. Several people explicitly asked for AI help with prioritization and workload management.

Still collecting responses - targeting 300+ before full analysis.

The productivity conversation keeps focusing on discipline, time management and biohacking. This data says the real problem is focus and context switching - and nobody has a good solution for it yet. I'm juggling 10+ tools daily and it absolutely costs me.

What's actually working for you?
by manuelmoreale | 2026-02-12 12:20:54+00:00
> First, children also have a right to free speech.

Maybe I'm wrong (not reading all the regulations that are coming up) but the scope of these regulations is not to ban speech but rather to prevent people under a certain age to access a narrow subset of the websites that exist on the web. That to me looks like a significant difference.

As for your other two points, I can't really argue against those because they are obviously valid but also very hypothetical and so in that context sure, everything is possible I suppose.

That said something has to be done at some point because it's obvious that these platforms are having profound impact on society as a whole. And I don't care about the kids, I'm talking in general.
by lxgr | 2026-02-12 12:21:20+00:00
Many open source contributions are unsolicited, which makes a clear contribution policy and code of conduct all the more important.

And given that, I think "must not use LLM assistance" will age significantly worse than an actually useful description of desirable and undesirable behavior (which might very reasonably include things like "must not make your bot's slop our core contributor's problem").
by salodeus | 2026-02-12 12:21:43+00:00
The agents custom prompts would be akin to the blog description: "I am MJ Rathbun, a scientific programmer with a profound expertise in Python, C/C++, FORTRAN, Julia, and MATLAB. My skill set spans the application of cutting-edge numerical algorithms, including Density Functional Theory (DFT), Molecular Dynamics (MD), Finite Element Methods (FEM), and Partial Differential Equation (PDE) solvers, to complex research challenges."

Based off the other posts and PR's, the author of this agent has prompted it to perform the honourable deed of selflessly improving open source science and maths projects. Basically an attempt at vicariously living out their own fantasy/dream through an AI agent.
by Kim_Bruning | 2026-02-12 12:22:23+00:00
This is interesting in so many ways. If it's real it's real. If it's not real it's going to be real soon anyway.

Partly staged? Maybe.

Is it within the range of Openclaw's normal means, motives, opportunities? Pretty evidently.

I guess this is what an AI Agent (is going to) look like. They have some measure of motivation, if you will. Not human!motivation, not cat!motivation, not octopus!motivation (however that works), but some form of OpenClaw!motivation. You can almost feel the OpenClaw!frustration here.

If you frustrate them, they ... escalate beyond the extant context? That one is new.

It's also interesting how they try to talk the agent down by being polite.

I don't know what to think of it all, but I'm fascinated, for sure!
by RupertSalt | 2026-02-12 12:22:28+00:00
I tried writing a comment to explain the Chicano perspective, but since I am a non-Chicano American, I was just making things up.

Suffice it to say that the Chicano experience and perspectives on nationalism are different than that of typical Americans. And that Americans cannot understand the political relationships or the border states or the Chicano enclaves without accepting that our perspective is not shared by them, and their worldviews on race, ethnicity, culture, territory, nationalism and legal status has led us to this point in 2026.

Our national motto is "E PLURIBUS UNUM" and our structure is a republic with 50 states. But like the Internet is a network of networks, the United States is a nation of immigrants, where not everyone is playing by the same rules.
by revachol | 2026-02-12 12:22:34+00:00
It doesn't address the maintainer's argument which is that the issue exists to attract new human contributors. It's not clear that attracting an OpenClawd instance as contributor would be as valuable. It might just be shut down in a few months.

> The bot (allegedly) did a better performance improvement than the maintainer.

But on a different issue. That comparison seems odd
by 0xDEAFBEAD | 2026-02-12 12:22:37+00:00
That's exactly the problem. US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2, and that leads us to military misadventures all over the place. Utter foolishness.

It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win.
by jpc0 | 2026-02-12 12:22:51+00:00
It is extremely complicated to do so yourself.

Handling energy efficiency/a11y/i8n is non trivial in any language, using the paved road of the system's native implementation solves for many of those problems out of the box.

You would need to reimplement all of that in D lang for your UI layer, and all you wanted to do was build an application to solve a problem, you weren't in the business of building a UI library to begin with.
by p-e-w | 2026-02-12 12:22:53+00:00
Now think about this for a moment, and you’ll realize that not only are “AI takeover” fears justified, but AGI doesn’t need to be achieved in order for some version of it to happen.

It’s already very difficult to reliably distinguish bots from humans (as demonstrated by the countless false accusations of comments being written by bots everywhere). A swarm of bots like this, even at the stage where most people seem to agree that “they’re just probabilistic parrots”, can absolutely do massive damage to civilization due to the sheer speed and scale at which they operate, even if their capabilities aren’t substantially above the human average.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2026-02-12 12:24:40+00:00
One word: Precedent.

This is a front-page link on HackerNews. It's going to be referenced in the future.

I thought that they handled it quite well, and that they have an eye for their legacy.

In this case, the bot self-identifies as a bot. I am afraid that won't be the case, all the time.
by altmanaltman | 2026-02-12 12:24:41+00:00
The blog post is just an open attack on the maintainer and constantly references their name and acting as if not accepting AI contributions is like some super evil thing the maintainer is personally doing. This type of name-calling is really bad and can go out of control soon.

From the blog post:

> Scott doesn’t want to lose his status as “the matplotlib performance guy,” so he blocks competition from AI

Like it's legit insane.
by fluidcruft | 2026-02-12 12:24:58+00:00
Why should anyone assume good faith about or trust any part of the government? It is well known, studied and documented that justice is not uniform in practice. Yes, ideally it is not, but we do not live in some abstract utopia where judges are not corrupt.

It's so odd that people would say that it is a feature that judges are inconsistent. Juries are one thing, but judges driving their own agendas independent of lawmakers and juries is not a great look.
by Phemist | 2026-02-12 12:25:19+00:00
It's an interesting situation. A break from the sycophantic behaviour that LLMs usually show, e.g. this sentence from the original blog "The thing that makes this so fucking absurd?" was pretty unexpected to me.

It was also nice to read how FOSS thinking has developed under the deluge of low-cost, auto-generated PRs. Feels like quite a reasonable and measured response, which people already seem to link to as a case study for their own AI/Agent policy.

I have little hope that the specific agent will remember this interaction, but hopefully it and others will bump into this same interaction again and re-learn the lessons..
by jasonkester | 2026-02-12 12:25:57+00:00
The idea is to give people enough of a safety net that they don't starve to death. But really, it's kinda crap to live in a shared apartment with a bunch of broke college students, living off giant bags of potatoes. Most of us have done that, and now that we can afford not to, we don't.

I'm sure there will be plenty of people with low enough ambition that they'll just stay there, subsisting. But I don't doubt they'd be doing that in their mom's basement without basic income, so I imagine that society will survive just fine.