MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by narag | 2026-02-06 11:14:56+00:00
IMHO, the key is where you add complexity. In software you have different abstraction layers. If you make a layer too fat, it becomes unwieldly. A simple system evolves well if you're adding the complexity in the right layer, avoiding making a layer responsible for task outside its scope. It still "works" if you don't, but it's increasingly difficult to maintain it.

The law is maybe a little too simplistic in its formulation, but it's fundamentally true.
by jvillasante | 2026-02-06 11:15:04+00:00
This are all valid points and a hype-free pragmatic take, I've been wondering about the same things even when I'm still in the skeptics side. I think there are other things that should be added since Mitchell's reality won't apply to everyone:

- What about non opensource work that's not on Github?

- Costs! I would think "an agent always running" would add up quickly

- In open source work, how does it amplify others. Are you seeing AI Slop as PRs? Can you tell the difference?
by jqpabc123 | 2026-02-06 11:15:08+00:00
Humans don’t reliably solve that either.

They can and have. But they don't achieve this by using probability to guess the next word in a sentence.

Once again, judgment is an important but ill defined aspect of intelligence.

An LLM has none. Instead, it relies on probability --- which we all know can easily produce incorrect results that sound plausible.

Tempered with human judgment, LLMs can still prove useful in some strictly restrained cases but it's general purpose reliability is highly suspect --- in my judgment. And this lack of reliability counters the logic for applying them in a lot of cases.
by willis936 | 2026-02-06 11:16:13+00:00
Are you referring to the literal planet rather than a woman? That character felt particularly of self insert fantasy (oo a hot 20 year old in love with the aged professor).

Regardless, stopping at the first book is a good recommendation. Asimov demonstrated he didn't understand what made his own work interesting. Granted mystery boxes are hard, but he took an immediate about-face on psychohistory and retconned any bit of intrigue with rather vanilla stuff. The first book is outstanding.
by stroebs | 2026-02-06 11:16:13+00:00
I'll carve out some time to add a discussion as I've become quite passionate about artifact storage in the last 18 months as a result of having to look after this behemoth. Air-gapping is also pretty important - JFrog supports granular proxy specification by repo.

It's a great start. What I can say is that granularity of CVE's in policies will become important for larger consumers. We have about 4.5mn artifacts so even getting CVSSv3 10's blocked was a challenge, let alone 9.8.
by jMyles | 2026-02-06 11:16:25+00:00
> I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh.

I think the reason is that most people don't believe, at least on sufficiently long times scales, that legacy states are likely to be able to shape AI (or for that matter, the internet). The legitimacy of the US state appears to be in a sort of free-fall, for example.

It takes a long time to fully (or even mostly) understand the various machinations of legislative action (let alone executive discretion, and then judicial interpretation), and in that time, regardless of what happens in various capitol buildings, the tests pass and the code runs - for better and for worse.

And even amidst a diversity of views/assessments of the future of the state, there seems to be near consensus regarding the underlying impetus: obviously humans and AI are distinct, and hearing the news from a human, particular a human with a strong web-of-trust connection in your local society, is massively more credible. What's not clear is whether states have a role to play in lending clarity to the situation, or whether that will happen of the internet's accord.
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-02-06 11:16:45+00:00
> IDK where to begin with this, because we clearly do have physical public spaces for interaction, whether free like parks or not free like coffee shops.

How many public discussions have you participated in at a coffee shop? If you have something to say and you go there and start trying to chat up anyone who walks in the door, what response do you expect from the proprietors?

If you go to a park which is within 10 miles of the median home, how many people do you expect to encounter there at any given time, especially in the heat of summer or cold of winter?

You need indoor spaces that don't have some private commercial operator, like community centers or hackerspaces, but those are the things that get priced out by high real estate costs.

> People also hang out at each others' homes.

You move to a new city and want to meet people. Are you expecting many strangers to invite you into their homes without introduction?

> Moreover, supply of public spaces increases when there's demand, much of which is being soaked up by social media.

Social media costs time. Physical spaces cost even more time (since you need to travel there) and they cost money (to cover the rent). What happens when you then make the rent high?

> Even social media can be meaningfully distinguished in terms of design features.

So is e.g. Usenet social media or not? Does it matter if it provides ordering options other than search by date?

> They've all since morphed into toxic cesspools of social comparison, parasociality, polarization, disinformation, and other problems.

Because those things increase engagement and the central middle man gets paid for increasing engagement.

> Interoperability/federation doesn't solve those problems

It removes the perverse incentive to design things that way.

> most of the interoperable and federated solutions actually perpetuate them, because the problematic design features are part of the spec.

Then why is Neocities or "add a Bluesky comments section to your blog" so much less toxic than Facebook?

The primary thing driving toxicity in certain federated networks is when they get a huge influx of users after some incumbent social network gets into the news over political suppression, because then a mass of the target's partisans try to switch to something else in protest and partisans are toxic so if you get inundated with disproportionately partisan exiles you've got a problem. Which doesn't happen if you federate the whole main network containing the majority of the population including moderates and apolitical subjects rather than disproportionately one side's most excitable militants.
by accidentallfact | 2026-02-06 11:18:03+00:00
It's called "a stupid man with money". It's really quite simple:

* He has money

* People want a share of his money

* He has enough people to tell him stuff to make his bullshit seem to have some connection with reality

* Anybody who argues with his stupid bullshit is no longer welcome and gets no chance to get a share of his money
by lstolcman | 2026-02-06 11:18:35+00:00
The slovak version of an article contains different photos, and a video [0].

Also, check out the interview with nosič from poland [1] - he mentioned working there 18 years. Surely, surviving this long means that certain techniques are needed ;) When asked about back pain: "My back hurts when I sit at the computer"

[0]: https://regiontatry.sk/moje-tatry/tatranski-nosici-svetovy-u...

[1]: https://magazynnaszczycie.pl/artykul/chleb-uratowal-mi-zycie...
by pjmlp | 2026-02-06 11:21:00+00:00
On the contrary, GNU Compiler Collection is written in C++ and happens to have C as one of the supported fronteds, having moved away from C in 2008.

LLVM is written in C++, also supports multiple language frontends, one of them happens to be C.

Visual C++, also written in C++, happens to still compile some form of C, and after adding some C11 and C17 support (a few items are still missing in 2026), Microsoft is in no rush to add anything else.

The language that matters is the implementation, otherwise we can also talk about the relevance of PL/I compilers from IBM and Unisys, written in C++.
by adastra22 | 2026-02-06 11:21:09+00:00
I don’t think this example proves your point. There’s no indication that the model actually worked this out from the input context, instead of regurgitating it from the training weights. A better test would be to subtly modify the books fed in as input to the model so that there was actually 51 spells, and see if it pulls out the extra spell, or to modify the names of some spells, etc.

In your example, it might be the case that the model simply spits out consensus view, rather than actually finding/constructing this information on his own.
by qarl | 2026-02-06 11:21:10+00:00
> the level of performance isn't stated in the linked article so a parser in Python is probably sufficient.

No, you'll have to match the performance of the actual code, regardless of what happens to be written in the article. It is a C compiler written in Rust.

Obviously. Your games reveal your malign intent.

EDIT: And good LORD. Who writes a C compiler in python. Do you know any other languages?!?
by AshamedCaptain | 2026-02-06 11:21:15+00:00
Frankly, I think you are exaggerating. My university had a course that required students to build a C compiler that could run the C subset of SPECint (which includes frigging Perl) and this was the usual 3 month class that was not expected to fill in 24h of your time, so I'd say 1 week sounds perfectly reasonable for someone already familiar. Good enough C for a shitton of projects is barely more complicated than writing an assembler, in fact, that is one of C's strong points (which is also the source of most of its weaknesses).
by vermaden | 2026-02-06 11:21:22+00:00
What I expected - that if I would want to install Openbox - then Xorg will be forced.

I typed:

# pkg install xlibre

... and X11 XLibre implementation installed and Openbox installed properly and 'xorg' packages was not forced.

The binaries of XLibre still have the same old 'Xorg' names like 'Xorg' is the server binary name (not 'XLibre') and xinit(1) is still xinit(1) ...

But if you already have 'xorg' package installed and you would like to install 'xlibre' package then there would be conflicts as they install file into the same places - and often with the same names.

Hope that helps.
by vee-kay | 2026-02-06 11:21:40+00:00
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I thank you for the heads up, my friend.

But I feel that if my account gets restricted or suspended on HN because of downvotes on my comments that merely state some hard truths, then so be it.

It would be a judgement on HN, not on me.

I will simply go elsewhere to speak up the truths..

Someone has to speak for those innocents whose voices have forever been silenced by evil people.
by braiamp | 2026-02-06 11:22:14+00:00
Pure unregulated market, that doesn't guarantee free market assumptions does that. Capitalism doesn't need it. Without mechanisms that allow for the free entry/exit of competitors, fair and simultaneous access to information, preventing cartels/price fixing, .... a bunch of assumptions for perfect free market to happen, the market will tend towards monopolies due cumulative advantage (in econ. known as Matthew effect), since small advantages compound into dominance.
by yakshaving_jgt | 2026-02-06 11:22:42+00:00
I run a company that uses Nix for everything.

We're running GitHub Actions. It's good. All the real logic is in Nix, and we mostly use our own runners. The rest of the UI that GitHub Actions provides is very nice.

We previously used a CI vendor which specialised in building Nix projects. We wanted to like it, but it was really clunky. GitHub Actions was a significant quality of life improvement for us.

None of my colleagues have died. GitHub Actions is not killing my engineering team at any rate.
by rsynnott | 2026-02-06 11:22:57+00:00
... I mean Tesla's first real production electric car (Model S) came out after the Leaf, and only a few months before VW AG's first production electric cars (VW had previously occasionally put out an electric version of the Golf on a small-scale basis, going back to _1992_, but those don't count, any more than the Tesla Roadster does). What _really_ happened is that, circa 2010, the economics started working; lithium ion batteries got into the cost range where it could work.

EVs were inevitable, and the timing was largely dictated by battery pricing.
by subscribed | 2026-02-06 11:23:16+00:00
Gods, I had a flashback just from you mentioning that.

I had a reasonably simple problem to solve, slightly weird font and some 10 words in English (I actually only missed one or two blocks for missing letters to cover all I needed).

After a couple of days having almost everything (?) I just surrendered. This seems to be intentionally hostile. All the docs scattered across several repositories, no comprehensive examples, etc.

Absolutely awful piece of software from this end (training the last gen).
by anovikov | 2026-02-06 11:23:48+00:00
Question is - why would anyone with cash immigrate to US? Doing business there does not require citizenship. What is it more than doing business that attracts people if one has a citizenship of just about any first world country? I mean, America is about making money, but those people already have money, what else? Citizenship for kids? Just give birth in US. Question again, is why. Top concern for the rich is taxes. US is unique by forcing people to pay taxes even if they live abroad full time as long as they hold citizenship. Why then?
by saberience | 2026-02-06 11:25:10+00:00
It’s a huge difference having a loaded barbell which can move in every dimension on your shoulders versus a calf raise machine which is fixed in place and cannot move around!

I’ve squatted barbells since roughly 2006 and the feeling of having more than 100kg on your shoulders is very intense, even if you’ve trained up to it. It feels like it’s crushing your whole body and even breathing is hard.

The idea that an untrained person could put a 180kg barbell on their shoulders and be comfortable AND move around is laughable, they would collapse very quickly.
by mlrtime | 2026-02-06 11:25:57+00:00
You joke, but the more I iterate on a plan before any code, the more successful the first pass is.

1) Tell claude my idea with as much as I know, ask it to ask me questions. This could go on for a few rounds. (Opus)

2) Run a validate skill on the plan, reviewer with a different prompt (Opus)

3) codex reviews the plan, always finds a few small items after the above 2.

4) claude opus implements in 1 shot, usually 99% accurate, then I manually test.

If I stay on target with those steps I always have good outcomes, but it is time consuming.
by Nevermark | 2026-02-06 11:26:22+00:00
Yes, most languages allow C type code, if that’s what you are trying to do.

Java with only primitive values, arrays, and classes only with fields and static methods.

But that wouldn’t be idiomatic Java, so typically non-explicit abstractions such as polymorphism have code generated for them that you don’t have explicit control over.

C is consistently low level because that’s all you get. Down to direct access to addressing and RAM, the stack frame, etc. as with assembly.
by DenisDolya | 2026-02-06 11:26:27+00:00
This is an impressive piece of engineering, no doubt. The API is clean, performance work is serious, and it’s clear a lot of effort went into making this fast. But let’s be honest: without autograd and a real training ecosystem, this is not a PyTorch replacement, it’s a very nice numerical toolbox. Also, tying GPU acceleration mostly to Metal makes this far less useful outside the Apple ecosystem. Right now, it looks like a technically excellent project searching for its real-world niche. If you add proper differentiation, broader GPU support, and prove that this scales with real users, then it could become something truly important. Until then, it’s great work — but not a revolution.
by ljm | 2026-02-06 11:26:40+00:00
This is the bit that struck me as odd. The author is creating issue slop but blames the contributor for treating it as genuine. The author wants to continue creating slop issues and decides that blocking all external contributions is the solution, rather than spending less time creating slop.

Their slop issues do not actually have value because the fixes based on the slop are equal in their sloppiness.

Author could instead create these slop issues in a place where external contributors can't see them instead of shitting on the contributors for not reading their mind.

Really bizarre lack of self awareness. How do the internal contributors deal with the slop? I wonder what they say about this person in private.
by rl3 | 2026-02-06 11:26:47+00:00
Your question was this:

>So what’s the difference in risk of ssh software vulns and other software vulns?

I proceeded to explain how large companies think about the issue and what their rationale is for not exposing SSH endpoints to the public internet. On the technical side, I compared SSH to WireGuard.

For that comparison, the chattiness of their respective protocols was directly relevant.

Likewise complexity: between two highly-audited pieces of software, the silent one that's vastly simpler tends to win from a security perspective.

All of those points seem highly relevant to your question.

>... but thats not going to make you correct in the original question.

If you can elucidate what I said that was incorrect, I'm all ears.
by SeriousM | 2026-02-06 11:26:56+00:00
The comments of the article just identify how much unaware the people are.

> Put it behind a tunnel, vpn etc and most of issues suddenly becomes no issue. I use wireguard to access openclaw. So there is no open port online.

Don't they realise that openclaw is not just insecure to operate in a DMZ jet it also just executes whatever text it finds.

The future is bright, my friends.
by dns_snek | 2026-02-06 11:27:01+00:00
> We don't call architects 'vibe architects' even though they copy-paste 4/5th of your next house and use a library of things in their work!

Architect's copy-pasting is equivalent to a software developer reusing a tried and tested code library. Generating or writing new code is fundamentally different and not at all comparable.

> We don't call builders 'vibe builders' for using earth-moving machines instead of a shovel...

We would call them "vibe builders" if their machines threw bricks around randomly and the builders focused all of their time on engineering complex scaffolding around the machines to get the bricks flying roughly in the right direction.

But we don't because their machines, like our compilers and linters, do one job and they do it predictably. Most trades spend obscene amounts of money on tools that produce repeatable results.

> That's a lot of years! They're still called architects.

Because they still architect, they don't subcontract their core duties to architecture students overseas and just sign their name under it.

I find it fitting and amusing that people who are uncritical towards the quality of LLM-generated work seem to make the same sorts of reasoning errors that LLMs do. Something about blind spots?
by vee-kay | 2026-02-06 11:27:30+00:00
If Bill Gates was merely using his vast wealth to whitewash his image, after a career as a ruthless businessman, that's understandable (though not agreeable) because that's what billionaires (who became so, by being ruthless and competitive) tend to do.

But Bill Gates has been using his vast wealth as a weapon and Think Tank for Big Pharma - he is actively using his wealth and clout (under guise of charity) to harm and kill poor people and innocent children (by doing experiments on them with unproven/dubious drugs as "clinical trials") without their consent.

Now that is pure evil.
by rsynnott | 2026-02-06 11:27:35+00:00
> EVs before Teslas were basically niche experiments.

The Nissan Leaf (which predates any Tesla production car) was pretty much an electric version of previous Nissan cars. The VW eGolf (contemporaneous with the Tesla Model S) was _literally_ an electric version of a previous VW car. The VW ID.3 and 4, which are currently leading the European market, are also pretty much like VW electric cars. In practice, 'weird' electric cars mostly failed.
by nosianu | 2026-02-06 11:28:12+00:00
> So literally every article will be labeled as AI assisted and it will be meaningless.

The web novel website RoyalRoad has two different tags that stories can/should add: AI-Assisted and AI-Generated.

Their policy: https://www.royalroad.com/blog/57/royal-road-ai-text-policy

> In this policy, we are going to separate the use of AI for text, into 3 categories: General Assistive Technologies, AI-Assisted, AI-Generated

The first category does not require tagging the story, only the other two do.

> The new tags are as such:

> AI-Assisted: The author has used an AI tool for editing or proofreading. The story thus reflects the author’s creativity and structure, but it may use the AI’s voice and tone. There may be some negligible amount of snippets generated by AI.

> AI-Generated: The story was generated using an AI tool; the author prompted and directed the process, and edited the result.
by layer8 | 2026-02-06 11:28:40+00:00
It would make sense to have a more general law about accountability for the contents of news. If news is significantly misleading or plagiarizing, it shouldn’t matter if it is due to the use of AI or not, the human editorship should be liable in either case.

This is a concept at least in some EU countries, that there has to always be one person responsible in terms of press law for what is being published.
by elAhmo | 2026-02-06 11:28:57+00:00
> Never had a clear spec in my life.

Just because you haven't or you work in a particular way, doesn't mean everyone does things the same way.

Likewise, on your last point, just because someone is using AI in their work, doesn't mean they don't have hard skills and know-how. Author of this article Mitchell is a great example of that - someone who proved to be able to produce great software and, when talking about individuals who made a dent in the industry, definitely had/has an impactful career.
by magicalhippo | 2026-02-06 11:30:09+00:00
Here in Norway they didn't want to send the bZ4K to a large cold weather range test recently performed[1].

Suzuki, which has a model based on the Toyota Urban Cruiser, disappointed quite a lot, with lowest range of those tested at 224 km (140 miles) and a 40% deviance from WLTP (best ones had 30% deviance).

Maybe decent in warmer climates, but probably not something for us further north.

On top was the Lucid Air, with 520 km (323 miles). The test started at -20C (-4F) and ended up at -30C (-22F), so the cars that went the furthest had it tougher.

[1]: https://www.tek.no/nyheter/nyhet/i/d4mMkA/verdens-stoerste-r...
by MomsAVoxell | 2026-02-06 11:30:20+00:00
Fully agree with how it seems Asimov has misunderstood something, or perhaps been myopic about seeing the world of 1984 with commitment .. another thing that killed his analysis for me was that he didn’t seem to understand the immensely dire conditions of 1984, vis a vis low quality razors, etc., nor that the sociological aspects he implies as banal (implying orwells disregard for proles) were as a consequence of years of brutal war. Asimov didn’t seem to want to scratch deeper into 1984 - he was, I believe, more responding to the world of 1980, which was after all an entirely different yet strikingly similar world to the novel, kind of like political parties.

I have respect for both authors, but for sure I’d rather have a drink and share a sausage with Orwell at a party than wall-flower with the collective absorbing Asimovs rants didactic. Pretty sure the gin’d be cheap anyway.