MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jtrn | 2026-02-13 22:26:59+00:00
This is my favorite field for me to have opinions about, without not having any training or skill. Fundamental research i just a something I enjoy thinking about, even tho I am psychologist. I try to pull inn my experience from the clinic and clinical research when i read theoretical physics. Don't take this text to seriously, its just my attempt at understanding whats going on.

I am generally very skeptical about work on this level of abstraction.
only after choosing Klein signature instead of physical spacetime, complexifying momenta, restricting to a "half-collinear" regime that doesn't exist in our universe, and picking a specific kinematic sub-region. Then they check the result against internal consistency conditions of the same mathematical system.
This pattern should worry anyone familiar with the replication crisis.
The conditions this field operates under are a near-perfect match for what psychology has identified as maximising systematic overconfidence: extreme researcher degrees of freedom (choose your signature, regime, helicity, ordering until something simplifies), no external feedback loop (the specific regimes studied have no experimental counterpart), survivorship bias (ugly results don't get published, so the field builds a narrative of "hidden simplicity" from the survivors), and tiny expert communities where fewer than a dozen people worldwide can fully verify any given result.

The standard defence is that the underlying theory — Yang-Mills / QCD — is experimentally verified to extraordinary precision. True. But the leap from "this theory matches collider data" to "therefore this formula in an unphysical signature reveals deep truth about nature" has several unsupported steps that the field tends to hand-wave past.

Compare to evolution: fossils, genetics, biogeography, embryology, molecular clocks, observed speciation — independent lines of evidence from different fields, different centuries, different methods, all converging. That's what robust external validation looks like. "Our formula satisfies the soft theorem" is not that.

This isn't a claim that the math is wrong. It's a claim that the epistemic conditions are exactly the ones where humans fool themselves most reliably, and that the field's confidence in the physical significance of these results outstrips the available evidence.

I wrote up a more detailed critique in a substack: https://jonnordland.substack.com/p/the-psychologists-case-ag...
by httpsterio | 2026-02-13 22:27:09+00:00
SwiftKey also crashes daily. There's no good keyboard for iphones, at least for my stubby fingers. I've literally won local mobile typing speed contests (so it's not user error I dare say) and the last five-ish years that I've been on ios have been a total and utter misery. If I had some cash floating around I would be back on android.
by stevage | 2026-02-13 22:27:48+00:00
The author misses the point. Yes, probably in this case there was a human in close proximity to the bot, who we can put blame on. But very soon that assumption will break down. There will be bots only very loosely directed by a human. There'll be bots summoning other bots. There'll be bots theoretically under control of humans who have no idea what they are doing, or even that they have a bot.

So dismissing all the discussion on the basis that that may not apply in this specific instance is not especially helpful.
by bdcravens | 2026-02-13 22:28:01+00:00
Now part of Freelancer.com, was a company previously called Rent a Coder.

On one hand, "coder" is a qualified job title, and we're not dehumanizing the quality of the work done. On the other hand, certain qualified work can easily, and sometimes with better results, be done by an AI. Including "human" in the name of the company can communicate clearly to those who want, or need, to hire in meatspace.
by d4rkp4ttern | 2026-02-13 22:28:11+00:00
Indeed. Over a few days of iterations I had this TUI built for fast full-text search of Claude Code or Codex sessions using Ratatui (and Tantivy for the full-text search index). I would never have dreamed of this pre coding agents.

https://pchalasani.github.io/claude-code-tools/tools/aichat/...
Show HN: TrustVector – Trust evaluations for AI models, agents, & MCP
by hckdisc | 2026-02-13 22:28:34+00:00
We built TrustVector (trustvector.dev for website) because “which model/agent/tool should we trust?” keeps getting answered with vibes, marketing, or outdated benchmarks. And a lot of our enterprise customers kept asking about it.

TrustVector is an open-source evaluation framework + public directory where each system gets a multi-dimensional trust score across:
- Security (prompt injection/jailbreak resistance, data leakage)
- Privacy & compliance
- Trust & transparency (hallucination/bias, documentation quality)
- Performance & reliability
- Operational excellence

Key idea: every score is evidence-based (sources + confidence), and you can re-weight dimensions CVSS-style depending on your use case.

Current coverage: 100+ evaluations across models, agents, and MCP servers.

GitHub + methodology are linked from the site. I’d love feedback on:
1) whether the dimensions/weighting are sane,
2) what evidence sources we’re missing,
3) What contribution workflow would make this actually community-maintained?

(Also: this project is not affiliated with trustvector.ai.)
by aranw | 2026-02-13 22:28:37+00:00
I asked claude to use this and create a ham salad sandwich with no onion for me https://gist.github.com/aranw/c2b59f42b20eb47e01bc66841233c2...

I'll email this over to my local bakery on Monday for my lunch order might need to make some modifications for there build environment
by refulgentis | 2026-02-13 22:29:20+00:00
I don't know, I think this line of reasoning leads somewhere pretty uncomfortable. If we spread responsibility across "the people who built the tools, the industry leaders hyping AI, and the general zeitgeist," we've basically described... the weather. Nobody is responsible because everybody is responsible.
The software engineer who set up an unsupervised AI blog didn't do it because Sam Altman held a keynote. They did it because they thought it'd be cool and didn't think through the consequences. That's a very normal, very human thing to do, and it's also very clearly their thing that they did.
"An AI agent that requires constant vigilance from its human operator is too flawed to use": I mean, that's a toaster. Leave it unattended and it'll burn your house down. We don't typically blame the zeitgeist of Big Toast for that.
by Bhuvishi | 2026-02-13 22:29:34+00:00
Location: Sunnyvale, CA / Blacksburg, VA
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: Python, PyTorch, TensorFlow, LangChain, Hugging Face Transformers, OpenAI/Claude APIs, Java, C/C++, React, Next.js, TypeScript, JavaScript, Node.js, MongoDB, Flask, FastAPI, Docker, Git
Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-g1-1DMBVcPDhg78NHKPt-enGPz...
Email: bhuvishib@vt.edu
by array_key_first | 2026-02-13 22:29:45+00:00
This is so out of touch. Coal is the most expensive electricity source in the US and it's not even close. We have an administration pushing coal.

That means you get worse air, worse water, AND you pay more for it. Some of y'all are so delusional that you're not only fine with getting fucked up the ass, you're actually willing to pay more for it!
by hckdisc | 2026-02-13 22:29:53+00:00
More technical detail (so this thread doesn’t become “sounds cool”):

- Data format: each evaluation is structured JSON in /data, and the site renders from that.
- Scoring: overall score is computed from the 5 dimensions; you can compute custom scores by applying your own weights (CVSS-style).
- Evidence: each dimension includes citations + a confidence level, so disagreements can be about the evidence, not vibes.

If you want to critique one thing: pick a single evaluation you know well and tell me what’s wrong/missing in the evidence, then we’ll fix the methodology or the rubric.
by jcgrillo | 2026-02-13 22:30:30+00:00
We say "you shot someone" when you shoot someone with a gun not "you operated a gun manufactured by X which shot someone" because it's understood that it was your decision to pull the trigger not the gun manufacturer's. Similarly we don't blame automobile manufacturers when someone does something stupid with their automobiles--even "self-driving" ones. The situation here is the same. Ultimately if you choose to operate a tool irresponsibly, you should get the blame.
by Toutouxc | 2026-02-13 22:30:52+00:00
> Clearly tapping a letter “taps” a different letter

My iPad Mini 6 sometimes gets into this state, especially after deleting something, when tapping one of the keys in the lower right corner becomes completely impossible, it always registers as this different key (I don't have the iPad nearby to check which one), and it stays broken like this until I press a few other keys. It's incredibly frustrating and it's been there since day 1.
by wtallis | 2026-02-13 22:31:03+00:00
I don't think there's much need to worry that putting the blame on the humans rather than the bots would lead to the people selling footguns going unscathed. It doesn't seem plausible to me that people would be willing to place all the blame on the individual end users once the problem has become widespread. At the moment, there seems to be pretty high brand awareness of the major AI model providers even when they're acting as a backend for other services with their own brand identity.
by deafpolygon | 2026-02-13 22:31:12+00:00
I am not having that much problem with it — it’s been relatively easy to ‘train’ it to make the correct corrections, and I rarely have any problems with autocorrect. it usually does the right thing.

the thing is, when you do make a typo… just double tap the word (to select) and it will usually highlight the previous spelling. undo that, around 3 or 4 times, and it will simply stop autocorrecting that.

i find people who experience the most trouble with the keyboard are the ones who aren’t very patient, and keep tapping around like crazy - it’s not a physical keyboard.

- To select all, if you don’t have any selections — just simply triple-tap a word, and it will select the entire paragraph text.

- If you have text selected and you want to de-select, just tap in any area outside of the selection. If you have any ‘word’ selected, and you want to select a different word, double tap another word.

- If you have the Copy | Paste | etc bubble, you have to de-select the text before you can do anything else. (De-select by tapping anywhere /outside/ the selection).

- If you want to select a phrase or longer string, you need to tap at the beginning of the word once and WAIT for the cursor to move and blink again. If you do it too quickly, you might end up selecting more than you intended. If you did it right, it should just land right under your tap. Then double tap the cursor and drag up or down to select your longer text.

It works very reliably for me, and I’ve learned to type long prose on my phone quite well.
by ThrowawayR2 | 2026-02-13 22:31:23+00:00
Duplicate submission.

- Resist and Unsubscribe (resistandunsubscribe.com)
4 points by znq 1 day ago | 2 comments

- Resist and Unsubscribe (resistandunsubscribe.com)
39 points by rapnie 1 day ago | 6 comments

- Resist and Unsubscribe (resistandunsubscribe.com)
4 points by rpgbr 8 days ago |

- Resist and Unsubscribe (resistandunsubscribe.com)
26 points by dougb5 8 days ago | 6 comments

- Resist and Unsubscribe (resistandunsubscribe.com)
4 points by gizzlon 9 days ago |

- Resist and Unsubscribe (resistandunsubscribe.com)
3 points by mooreds 11 days ago | 3 comments

- Resist and Unsubscribe from the tech companies that are enabling this (resistandunsubscribe.com)
16 points by sbachman 13 days ago | 7 comments

- Resist and Unsubscribe (resistandunsubscribe.com)
5 points by ptrhvns 14 days ago | 1 comment
by perrygeo | 2026-02-13 22:31:26+00:00
> The features I am currently working on cannot be vibe-coded, because no AI can understand the context.

It's always possible to improve understanding and put the context into writing, usually just that no one has. Clean up the variable names and docs and the language models (and other developers!) will understand the context better. This amounts to doubling down on clear technical communications.

Another way to say it: LLMs are pattern matching machines. So in a twisted way, I see LLMs driving code quality improvements - if only to make the LLMs more effective. Improve the pattern, improve the pattern matching.
by foldr | 2026-02-13 22:31:30+00:00
> These laws can only be used by the EU commission against specific companies.

In the UK at least, the GDPR was incorporated into UK law (where it remains, essentially unmodified, even after Brexit). So it is certainly not necessary to get the EU commission involved to enforce the law. In the UK, the ICO is the relevant regulator. There are other national regulators that enforce the GDPR, such as the French CNIL.
by assaddayinh | 2026-02-13 22:31:33+00:00
The proof is in the pudding. You can not conquer with so few so much unless, the locals welcome you as a useful liberator from grotesq tyranny and try to use you as a tool of liberation. The conquistadores are a display of how volatile tyranny based empires are. To then only be replaced by even more tyranny, after the chaos of revolution and disease.
by dakolli | 2026-02-13 22:31:36+00:00
Yeah but you know what, this is a complete psyop.

They just want people to think the barrier of entry has dropped to the ground and that value of labour is getting squashed, so society writes a permission slip for them to completely depress wages and remove bargaining chips from the working class.

Don't fall for this, they want to destroy any labor that deals with computer I/0, not just SWE. This is the only value "agentic tooling" provides to society, slaves for the ruling class. They yearn for the opportunity to own slaves again.

It can't do most of your work, and you know that if you work on anything serious. But If C-suite who hasn't dealt with code in two decades, thinks this is the case because everyone is running around saying its true they're going to make sure they replace humans with these bot slaves, they really do just want slaves, they have no intention of innovating with these slaves. People need to work to eat, now unless LLMs are creating new types of machines that need new types of jobs, like previous forms of automation, then I don't see why they should be replacing the human input.

If these things are so good for business, and are pushing software development velocity.. Why is everything falling apart? Why does the bulk of low stakes software suck. Why is Windows 11 so bad? Why aren't top hedge funds, medical device manufactures (places where software quality is high stakes) replacing all their labor? Where are the new industries? They don't do anything novel, they only serve to replace inputs previously supplied by humans so the ruling class can finally get back to good old feeling of having slaves that can't complain.
by Oras | 2026-02-13 22:31:37+00:00
Rubbish article, you only need to go to about page with mission statement see the word “safe”

> We are building safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome

https://openai.com/about/

I am more concerned about the amount of rubbish making it to HN front page recently
by Manuel_D | 2026-02-13 22:31:45+00:00
> Clearly the government would love to just take all your information directly when you open an account, as that would be even better for them, but due to the 4th amendment they can't do that

This is just factually wrong. The Bank Secrecy Act specifically requires that banks to provide this info. The 4th amendment does not prohibit this. If a bank refused to provide this required information, the government would go in and get that information directly.

Again, no law is being avoided. You just don't like the law.
by Soupy | 2026-02-13 22:31:54+00:00
I've decided to open source cmux - a small minimal set of shell commands geared towards Claude Code to help manage the worktree lifecycle, especially when building with 5-10 parallel agents across multiple features. I've been using this for the past few months and have experienced a monstrous increase in output and my ability to keep proper context.

Free, open source, MIT-licensed, with simplicity as a core tenant.
by hackingonempty | 2026-02-13 22:31:55+00:00
Possible AI threats barely register compared to the actual rising spectre of nuclear war. The USA, long a rogue state that invaded others at is convenience, is systematically dismantling the world order installed to prevent another world war, has allowed arms control treaties to expire and is talking about developing new nuclear weapons and testing, has already threatened to invade its allies, is pulling out of treaties that might prevent mass destabilization caused by rising sea levels and climate change, and more.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has good reasons to set the doomsday clock at 85 seconds to midnight, closer to doomsday than ever before.
by zozbot234 | 2026-02-13 22:32:20+00:00
> Once somebody cracks the memory problem and ships an agent that progressively understands the business and the codebase, then I'll start worrying.

Um, you do realize that "the memory" is just a text file (or a bunch of interlinked text files) written in plain English? You can write these things out yourself. This is how you use AI effectively, by playing to its strengths and not expecting it to have a crystal ball.
by computator | 2026-02-13 22:32:24+00:00
I have a weird long-shot idea for GPT to make a new discovery in physics: Ask it to find a mathematical relationship between some combination of the fundamental physical constants[1]. If it finds (for example) a formula that relates electron mass, Bohr radius, and speed of light to a high degree of precision, that might indicate an area of physics to explore further if those constants were thought to be independent.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physical_constants
by gucduck | 2026-02-13 22:32:42+00:00
Really appreciate you trying it out.

The answer-before-results flow was intentional to avoid anchoring, and the skip option is there to keep participation low pressure.

On accuracy, I’m a bit cautious. Since it’s self selected, it won’t be statistically representative. The hope is that with enough diverse participation, it can still produce meaningful directional signal.

That tradeoff between accessibility and representativeness is basically the core experiment.
by pveierland | 2026-02-13 22:33:34+00:00
This is something I noticed in the xAI All Hands hiring promotion this week as well. None of the 9 teams presented is a safety team - and safety was mentioned 0 times in the presentation. "Immense economic prosperity" got 2 shout-outs though. Personally I'm doubtful that truthmaxxing alone will provide sufficient guidance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOVnB88Cd1A
Show HN: Infoseclist.com – Compare 90 cybersecurity tools ranked by practition
by aleks5678 | 2026-02-13 22:34:01+00:00
Hey HN, I built InfoSecList.com because I got tired of the way security teams evaluate tools.

Every time we needed a new DAST scanner or pentest vendor, it was the same drill: Google around, read SEO-optimized listicles written by people who never used the tools, sit through 3-5 sales demos, and hope for the best.

InfoSecList is a directory of 90+ cybersecurity tools and services across 21 categories. Every listing gets two scores from practitioners:

- Market Score (1-5): industry adoption and brand recognition
- Value Score (1-5): actual value for money based on usage

You can browse by category (DAST, SAST, SCA, pentest services, bug bounty platforms, etc.), compare tools side-by-side, or look up alternatives to specific products.

A few things that might be interesting technically:

- Data lives in a Google Sheet, served via a PHP proxy as CSV, parsed client-side
- Pages are dynamic SPA-style but with clean URLs for SEO
- Each tool/alternative/category page generates its own structured data and meta tags from the CSV data at runtime
- No framework, no build step. Plain HTML, CSS, vanilla JS

No accounts, no gated content, no pay-to-rank. Happy to answer any questions about the approach or the security tool landscape.

Stack: Apache, vanilla JS, Google Sheets as CMS, Let's Encrypt

Follow-up Comment (if asked about data/methodology)

The scores come from a combination of:
- Gartner/Forrester positioning for Market Score
- Community sentiment (Reddit, HN, security forums) for both scores
- Direct practitioner feedback from CISOs and security engineers
- Pricing transparency and free tier availability for Value Score

We deliberately keep it simple with two 1-5 scores rather than trying to build a complex weighted system. The goal is to help someone go from "I need a DAST tool" to a shortlist of 3-4 options in under 5 minutes.

Open source tools like Nmap, OWASP ZAP, and Trivy tend to score 5/5 on Value. Enterprise tools like CrowdStrike and Mandiant score 5/5 on Market but lower on Value due to pricing.

Follow-up Comment (if asked about business model)

Right now it's free with no monetization. Long term we're considering:
- Featured listings (clearly marked, doesn't affect scores)
- Lead gen for vendors (opt-in only, buyer initiates contact)

We won't do pay-to-rank. The scores stay independent.
by spwa4 | 2026-02-13 22:34:17+00:00
If you actually read the post you'll see the reasons to call him a liar:

1) faking benchmarks and lying about a model he profited from commercially (ie. fraud)

2) implying that only a few people (like himself) saw COVID coming. This is a lie: it was the New York Times that published a huge article on the coronavirus at the time indicated, and he, of course, didn't see it coming

3) he doesn't just fail to disclose his commercial interests in what he's peddling, he denies them

4) he confidently states that AI builds the next generation of AI, which he can't know, and has not been stated anywhere

The list goes on.
by ianbutler | 2026-02-13 22:34:37+00:00
I really think the doom consensus is largely an online phenomena. We're in a tense period like the early 80s, and that would be true without AI in the mix, but I think its a matter of perspective. We're certainly still way ahead of the 1910s and the 1940s for instance (it's on us btw to make sure we don't fall to that in time).

Every generation has its strains and the internet just amplifies it because outrage is currency. Those strains are things you only start to notice as you start to get older so they seem novel when in reality in the scheme of humanity is basically standard.

Fwiw if the market actually priced it in it would be in freefall since the market would be shortly irrelevant. We are due for a correction soon though.

Internet discourse is a facsimile of real life and often not how real life operates in my experience.

So I see all the discourse around extremes on either end and based on lived experience and working in the field think theres a much neater middle ground we'll ultimately arrive at thanks to people working very hard to land the plane so to speak.
by PeterWhittaker | 2026-02-13 22:34:54+00:00
There are some applications/systems for which certifying bodies forbid the use of web management because of vulnerabilities in both the protocols and the clients and servers. For example, in my daily, several national cyber organizations (NSA, CSE, GCHQ, etc.) have such direction. That's why our main product line is managed using a TUI accessed at the local console or over SSH (with very, very carefully curated SELinux MAC, among other things).

Having said that....

If one is willing to build one's own HTTP server with integrated MAC, etc., and is able to demonstrate mitigations against known vulnerabilities, one may be able to get the certifying bodies on board. Time will tell.

Yes, this is very niche, but TUIs are in general niche.