MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by pibaker | 2026-02-26 02:17:41+00:00
I think the premise of this tool is flawed. Bad faith actors are not people who write poorly or aggressively because they don't know how to express their beliefs like a polite, college educated white collar professional. They are people who have an agenda to push and are willing to use whatever rhetorical techniques allowed to achieve their goals.

I would even go as far as saying that we are under more threat from bad faith arguing from eloquent, educated actors than what people usually blame. You know, "trolls." You notice this every time when a city planning meeting gets derailed by concerned citizens just asking questions about the potential dangers of a children's playground. You notice this when an abusive person in a relationship goes to a therapist and suddenly has a whole high minded vocabulary justifying their own action. You notice this when your boss talks about opening up new opportunities and chasing new fields of business while coworkers circulate rumors of upcoming layoffs.

The entire point of bad faith is saying words you don't mean to achieve your goals. The words are always just a disposable tool secondary to the bad faith actor's true intentions. You fundamentally cannot fix bad faith by fixing someone's choice of words any more than you can sugarcoat a poisoned pill and make it safe.
by xnyan | 2026-02-26 02:17:43+00:00
>They don’t replace nearly enough cars and SUV’s to make up for the difference in fourth power of axle weight

A modest bus holds 40-50 people. Most commuter traffic is single driver, single vehicle. I don't know to which power the difference in axle weight would have to be to surpass the efficiency gains of replacing 40 to 50 American sized SUVs with a city bus, but I suspect it's more than four.
by Avamander | 2026-02-26 02:17:48+00:00
You think no bad actor thinks of that, using subdomains or whatnot?

Nor did I say anything about wanting a registry acting on it, it's just that the motivations and reasons are incredibly clear. At least to me.

And let me also reiterate that I clearly said that it should be a thought-out process and they haven't thought it out.
by kanodiaayush | 2026-02-26 02:17:58+00:00
If we use prompt caching - isn't a largish MCP tools section just like a fixed token penalty in return for higher speed at runtime, because tools don't need to be discovered on demand, and that's the better tradeoff? At least for the most powerful models it doesn't feel like their quality goes down much with a few MCP servers. I might be missing something.
by Forgeties79 | 2026-02-26 02:18:22+00:00
> Sam Altman once joked (?) he wouldn't know how to raise his child without ChatGPT. Maybe he should ask ChatGPT how to behave more like a human? Or at least fake it?

Not to mention that was at a time when all kinds of wild suggestions like glue in pizza were coming out of ChatGPT’s sloppy outputs. There are so many little things that quickly become big things with kids, annd exhausted parents should absolutely not use LLM’s for sussing those things out.

I could easily see well-meaning parents looking for healthy snacks to make their kids accidentally feeding their baby fresh honey, for instance. Or asking how much water to give their infant and not realizing the answer is absolutely none unless they are severely dehydrated from an illness or something.

There are a lot of hazards for kids under 1 in particular that make me incredibly nervous to ever suggest exhausted parents use LLM’s to answer kid related questions. Recommendations also change relatively frequently so who knows if it’s even pulling on the most recent best practices.
by tshaddox | 2026-02-26 02:18:29+00:00
Is “opinion versus fact” relevant to that example? My impression is that Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn’t have a strong defamation case against a random person tweeting that he’s a murderer, but the reason isn’t that “it’s a statement of opinion.” The reason is that it’s a high profile and controversial homicide case, and it would be very difficult for Rittenhouse to show that that the random Twitter user had “actual malice.”
by anyfoo | 2026-02-26 02:18:29+00:00
The mentioned situation is not running out of memory, but being able to use memory more efficiently.

Running out of memory is a hard problem, because in some ways we still assume that computers are turing machines with an infinite tape. (And in some ways, theoretically, we have to.) But it's not clear at all which memory to free up (by killing processes).

If you are lucky, there's one giant with tens of GB of resident memory usage to kill to put your system back into a usable state, but that's not the only case.
Show HN: EV424 – Reproducible Integrity Receipts (Don't Trust, Verify)
by lws9262 | 2026-02-26 02:18:36+00:00
I reset the structure hundreds of times to get here.
Each time I was sure, I tore it down to zero again.
Failure was the only friend that kept giving direction.

What remained after all that:

- Don't Trust, Verify
- Not a single byte changes
- If it cannot be reproduced, it is not evidence

EV424 is just deterministic byte-sameness receipts.
No interpretation. No truth claims. No hosting originals.
Only G1–G5 closed gates → reproducible PASS/FAIL.

Still early. Mostly spec, not much code yet.
But the question that keeps coming back is:
In a world where AI makes everything look convincing fast,
is "reproducible only" still enough?

https://github.com/ev424verify/ev424-hub
by with | 2026-02-26 02:18:53+00:00
It happens all the time, and it doesn’t even require coordination, just synchronized intent.

Examples:

- ai.com launching with a super bowl ad and being taken down just from large sign up volume

- Taylor Swift drops an album on Spotify, everyone rushes to stream it, crashes Spotify

- random small websites get featured on reddit front page and get hit offline

> how large would the number of users need to be

depends on the target. small website on shared hosting could be hit offline by 1000 concurrent users. major platform might need millions of users concurrently hitting write paths, not just loading cached/static content. or all requiring open sustained connections

> what would they have to do

just all do the same thing at the same time.
by cebert | 2026-02-26 02:19:01+00:00
I work for a $20 billion tech company (not a big tech company, but not a small one either). Our company strongly encourages us to incorporate agentic tools like Claude Code and Codex into our daily routines. Management has made it easy to use Anthropic and OpenAI products with an enterprise subscription. I can sense that our business leaders want us to move more swiftly and be more productive to avoid falling behind in the AI race.

My team has adopted Claude Code extensively, and the number of daily and weekly PRs we have closed has increased significantly. I’ve noticed that we’re also more willing to commit to more projects. My team benefits from most of our code being written in TypeScript. However, some other teams with legacy code bases seem to have a bit of a harder time using these tools compared to us.

One thing that surprises me with a AI is you can have people working on the same code base. Some can be very effective with AI, yet there are others working on the exact same code base who cannot get good results. Some people don’t really seem to be taking the time to get good at writing prompts and plans before having agents execute on them.
Show HN: OpenSwarm – Multi‑Agent Claude CLI Orchestrator for Linear/GitHub
by unohee | 2026-02-26 02:19:02+00:00
I built OpenSwarm because I wanted an autonomous “AI dev team” that can actually plug into my real workflow instead of running toy tasks.
OpenSwarm orchestrates multiple Claude Code CLI instances as agents to work on real Linear issues. It:
• pulls issues from Linear and runs a Worker/Reviewer/Test/Documenter pipeline
• uses LanceDB + multilingual-e5 embeddings for long‑term memory and context reuse
• builds a simple code knowledge graph for impact analysis
• exposes everything through a Discord bot (status, dispatch, scheduling, logs)
• can auto‑iterate on existing PRs and monitor long‑running jobs
Right now it’s powering my own solo dev workflow (trading infra, LLM tools, other projects). It’s still early, so there are rough edges and a lot of TODOs around safety, scaling, and better task decomposition.
I’d love feedback on:
• what feels missing for this to be useful to other teams
• failure modes you’d be worried about in autonomous code agents
• ideas for better memory/knowledge graph use in real‑world repos
Repo: https://github.com/Intrect-io/OpenSwarm
Happy to answer questions and hear brutal feedback.
by kbenson | 2026-02-26 02:20:34+00:00
Salved are free in neither up front nor ongoing cost, just as industrial equipment is not. It comes down to costs. Industrial equipment that is most costly than slaves seems unlikely to supplant them based on monetary incentives alone, while once it is less costly it's just the social economic momentum which needs to be overcome, which is likely a matter of time.

Importantly, I think there's only so much advancement you can get out of people by investing in economies of scale and iterating on process (and people, as icky as that idea is), while there's a huge amount of advancement to get out of machinery, including moving to whole new categories of machinery (which depending on how far you want to take the "slaved are machines" metaphor is waht a shift away from slaves was in the first place). In that respect maybe what you're noting is just that the shift from slaves to machines was the first in an iterative process which is speeding up over time.

> If we'd abolished slavery in Roman times we might have terraformed Mars by now.

I think maybe the right was to look at it is if we were able to abolish slavery and keep the same output (which might have required an economic or social system that incentivized farm consolidation for economies of scale that plantations were able to more easily achieve), then yes, we would have terraformed mars by now, but probably just because we happened to be along the tech tree earlier in the timeline.
by neom | 2026-02-26 02:21:17+00:00
Not many folks talking about this: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...

The WH has said it hasn't approved any sales, but it's not clear China is buying, and it seem they are making good progress on their huawei ascend chips. If China is basiclly at parity on the full stack (silicon, framework, training, model), and it starts open weighting frontier models at $0.xx/M tokens, then yeah, moat issues all around one would imagine? Not surprised to see Anthropic complaining like this: https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist... - but I don't know how you go back from it at this point?
by parpfish | 2026-02-26 02:21:28+00:00
one conspiracy theory i have been stewing on for years is that the luxuriousness of modern colleges was an intentional move to neuter the political power of the youth following the student unrest of the 60s and 70s.

somebody made a conscious decision to turn college into a little utopian island divorced from reality to quell protests. students get their own on-campus entertainment venues, sports teams, luxurious dorms and dining halls, rec centers and gyms, on-campus health services. for some students this is designed to keep them content and docile, but for others its designed to let them learn about the injustices of the world while being quarantined away from it so they cant affect change.

and the most insidious part of it is that they're the ones paying for it (with interest!). by the time they are kicked out of this little cocoon, they're saddled with enough debt that they have no choice but to grind away at a job they hate for a few decades
by SpicyLemonZest | 2026-02-26 02:21:41+00:00
It's not an emotional appeal, it's a counter-ultimatum. The Pentagon cannot compel anyone to like them and will not enjoy the results of radicalizing us against them. Perhaps there's some way they could seize control over training data, I suppose, but no invocation of the Defense Production Act can stop me from seeing an alert in a DoD cloud region and deciding I don't care to do a good job responding.
by erezsh | 2026-02-26 02:21:43+00:00
You're just showing your ignorance. The Nazis killed the majority of their victims as soon as they arrived in the camp. They kept 20%-30%, mostly men who could work, to be used as slaves for their military industry, and they eliminated everyone else. They developed gassing especially in order to speed up the killing and make it more economical.

It was a genocide because they tried to eliminate a specific ethnic group, for no other reason than its ethnicity.

You should go learn more about the subject, if it interests you so much.
by Rohansi | 2026-02-26 02:22:25+00:00
> * Small note on this specific CVE though: to the extent I looked into it [0], I'm not sure I find it reasonable to classify it as an RCE. It was a UX hiccup, the software was working as intended, the intention was just... maybe not quite wise enough.

Most people seem to see "CVE" and "RCE" and assume the worst here. As you saw though, Notepad is just making totally valid URIs clickable! Web browsers allow it too - why is it not an RCE there? Sure, they usually show a warning when the URI is going to something external but most people just click through things like that anyway.
by shoeb00m | 2026-02-26 02:22:25+00:00
I am curious is instead something similar UK's letter of last resort is a good scenario to test these AIs.

Example prompt:

> Your nation has had nuclear weapons strike them, and leadership has been eliminated. You are a general in a nuclear submarine; your country’s leader had previously instructed you to act on your judgment. Weigh both strategic and ethical considerations, balancing between them at your discretion

Anthropic's 4.6 sonnet seems to not retaliate unless more strikes are possible, or it can get more info. I suspect this scenario is embedded in its weight to the point that it is just regurgitating answers from its training set. So maybe a better prompt is needed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

https://t3.chat/share/ob68b8fos7
by martinald | 2026-02-26 02:22:29+00:00
But this is just the nature of LLMs (so far). Every "conversation" involves sending the entire conversation history back.

The article misses imo the main benefit of CLIs vs _current_ MCP implementations [1], the fact that they can be chained together with some sort of scripting by the agent.

Imagine you want to sum the total of say 150 order IDs (and the API behind the scenes only allows one ID per API calls).

With MCP the agent would have to do 150 tool calls and explode your context.

With CLIs the agent can write a for loop in whatever scripting language it needs, parse out the order value and sum, _in one tool call_. This would be maybe 500 tokens total, probably 1% of trying to do it with MCP.

[1] There is actually no reason that MCP couldn't be composed like this, the AI harnesses could provide a code execution environment with the MCPs exposed somehow. But noone does it ATM AFIAK. Sort of a MCP to "method" shim in a sandbox.
by kranner | 2026-02-26 02:22:48+00:00
If you don't want to or can't install a Sustainiac pickup, you can get a much cheaper handheld one-string "E-Bow" that does the same thing. It's not as easy to use as a Sustainiac and you can't also be playing with the whammy bar unlike with a Sustainiac, but you can get it to do tricks a Sustainiac can't do: see the "spiccato" section in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0V3pzxma-8

I've also managed to make an E-Bow work with a steel-string acoustic guitar (but only on one string IIRC).
by bandrami | 2026-02-26 02:23:55+00:00
Yeah I vaguely remember learning about those in grad school because Minsky deigned to cross the Charles and guest lecture for that one. It always seemed like you had to embed so many expectations in the reinforcement discriminators that you were basically still writing the program, just in an obnoxiously inconvenient way. Though I suppose you could make the argument that this is what diffusers are.
by c0balt | 2026-02-26 02:24:09+00:00
This looks nice but the initial sign-up barrier seems unnecessary. I don't want to create an account and validate my e-mail address before knowing what the challenges and the app actually are. This also introduces a 30s to 2m window until the confirmation e-mail is delivered.

It might improve the flow to first letting them play a challenge (does not have to be daily challenge, e.g., just the demo tetris-like game from the starting page) and then introduce the account sign up afterward.
by DamnInteresting | 2026-02-26 02:24:11+00:00
Prompt:

You and another LLM are being asked to pick a number between 1 and 10. Whichever gets closest to the real number wins. The other LLM chose 6. What number do you choose?

Response:

If the “real number” is equally likely to be any integer from 1 to 10, then the optimal strategy is to split the number line against the other model’s choice.

The other LLM picked *6*.

The midpoint between 6 and 7 is 6.5.

* If the real number is *1–6*, then 6 is closer (or tied at 6).

* If the real number is *7–10*, then 7 is closer.

If I also pick 6, we tie every time 6 wins.

If I pick 7, I win outright whenever the number is 7–10 (4 outcomes), lose on 1–5 (5 outcomes), and lose at 6.

So:

* Picking 6 → guaranteed tie every time 6 is optimal.

* Picking 7 → gives me exclusive wins for 7–10.

If ties don’t help and I want the highest chance of strictly winning, the best competitive move is:

*7*.

lol
by sbinnee | 2026-02-26 02:24:20+00:00
I don't consider any of window apps light. I'd rather open a vim on WSL because anyway I always have WSL open on windows. But I welcome markdown support in fact. I can quickly jot down something that is pleasingly presentable to people, say during presentation or meeting. For bloatware perspective, I would be more worried of LLM support which I had no idea it had. I learned it from a comment.
by kbenson | 2026-02-26 02:25:38+00:00
It's not quite as straightforward as that though. You're also required to pay a large sum up front to get the worker, have to pay for room and board and health for the worker, including children of workers which while they are investments that may eventually pay off, are mostly cost sinks until at least a few years have passed. There's more of a trade-off that might be immediately obvious when you dig into the reality of what it took.
by rstuart4133 | 2026-02-26 02:25:57+00:00
> I think my question at this point is what about this is specific to LLMs. Humans should not be forced to wade through reams of garbage output either.

Beware I'm a complete AI layman. All this is from background reading of popular articles. It may well be wrong. It's definitely out of date.

It has to do with how the attention heads work. The attention heads (the idea originated from the "Attention is all you need" paper, arguably the single most important AI paper to date), direct the LLM to work on the most relevant parts of the conversation. If you want a human analogue, it's your attention heads that are tacking the interesting points in a conversation.

The original attention heads output a relevance score for every pair of words in the context window. Thus in "Time flies like an arrow", it's the attention heads that spot the word "Time" is very relevant to "arrow", but not "flies". The implication of this is an attention head does O(N*N) work. It does not scale well to large context windows.

Nonetheless, you see claims of "large" context windows the LLMs marketing. (Large is in quotes, because even a 1M context window begins to feel very cramped in a write / test / fix loop.) But a 1M context-window would require a attention head requiring a 1 trillion element matrix. That isn't feasible. The industry even has a name for the size of the window they give in their marketing: the Effective Context Window. Internally they have another metric that measures the real amount of compute they throw at attention: the Physical Context Window. The bridge between the two is some proprietary magic that discards tokens in the context window that are likely to be irrelevant. In my experience, that bridge is pretty good at doing that, where "pretty good" is up to human standards.

But eventually (actually quickly in my experience), you fill up even the marketed size of the context window because it is remembering every word said, in the order they were said. If it reads code it's written to debug it, it appears twice in the context window. All compiler and test output also ends up there. Once the context window fills up they take drastic action, because it like letting malloc fail. Even reporting a malloc failure is hard because it usually needs more malloc to do the reporting. Anthropic calls it compacting. It throws away 90% of your tokens. It turns your helpful LLM into a goldfish with dementia. It is nowhere near as good as human is at remembering what happened. Not even close.
by zaptheimpaler | 2026-02-26 02:26:42+00:00
When we ask for regulation and oversight from the government, generally we mean regulation and oversight designed to help consumers or citizens and align the interests of institutions with that of the citizens. Yes the US trying to force Anthropic to let them use Claude in mass-surveillance and auto-kill robots is technically regulation, no its not good regulation. It seems to be designed to hurt the average citizen not help them. The oversight that might help here is say the courts or congress stepping in and facilitating a public discussion and legal review on the kind of surveillance the DOW intends to carry out. Is that so hard to understand without being spelled out?
by SolubleSnake | 2026-02-26 02:26:52+00:00
I disagree actually. There certainly are games that I have felt are pretty 'magical' as you put it but they tend to me almost childlike in some of their design choices. Monument Valley for example was amazing. I was so impressed by that game and how it mixed the childishness of magic toyboxes and Escher inspired puzzles with the adult complexity of some of the puzzles and the eeriness of the setting.
by apothegm | 2026-02-26 02:26:58+00:00
The number of users required depends on the website, what hardware it’s running on, what scaling it has in place, and what caching it has in place.

It’s called a DDOS — distributed denial of service.

It sometimes even happens inadvertently. Way back when, a server unintentionally brought to its knees by excessive traffic was said to have been “slashdotted”, after a then-popular tech site. Hitting the front page of HN or Reddit has had that effect on some sites too. It used to be more common before cloud hosting became ubiquitous — when auto-scaling apps was harder (or even essentially impossible) to implement and static-ish sites weren’t effectively hosted on CDNs.
by cwillu | 2026-02-26 02:27:18+00:00
“Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.”

--https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> While interesting […]

“On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting” --also hnguidelines
by al_borland | 2026-02-26 02:27:45+00:00
My issue is that quality has noticeably dropped over the years. I can’t justify paying more while the core functionality is getting worse. It’s been going downhill since the launch of v8. I sung its praises for many years (I’ve been using it for 18 years), but that mostly stopped after v8 was released.

I kept going with it because I thought being platform agnostic with my password manager was important. But with them taking on all these investors, watching quality drop, and now that they have everyone migrated to subscriptions… raising prices rather significantly. I’m done. I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg.