MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by speed_spread | 2026-02-06 11:45:32+00:00
But you didn't upgrade the shed into a skyscraper. The iterative process you describe involves a human respecifying from scratch using the knowledge developed building the previous instance and seeing it's limitations first hand. That part can't be automated, no LLM is going to challenge your design assumptions by itself. Hence people pushing agent-built projects way past what their inherent architecture should support, delivering an unmaintainable code spaghetti.
by rayiner | 2026-02-06 11:46:55+00:00
Correct. If you conceive of the “rule of law” as being the operating system kernel on top of which the rest of society runs, then there are no checks on the law enforcers and interpreters.

This is not a theoretical problem. Prosecuting politicians is a preferred approach in dysfunctional democracies, like Pakistan: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly77v0n8e9o
by nnevatie | 2026-02-06 11:47:33+00:00
> Who's going to pay your bills when the $20k is gone after 3 months?

And who's going to maintain this turd the LLM pushed out? It's a cool one-shot sort of thing, but let's not pretend this is useful as a real compiler or something anyone would like to maintain, as a human.

One could keep improving one the implementation by vibing more, but I think that's just taking you to the wrong direction of the rabbit hole.
by krautsauer | 2026-02-06 11:48:33+00:00
Make is incredibly cursed. My favorite example is it having a built-in rule (oversimplified, some extra Makefile code that is pretended to exist in every Makefile) that will extract files from a version control system.
https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Catalogue...

What you're saying is essentially ”Just Write Bash Scripts”, but with an extra layer of insanity on top. I hate it when I encounter a project like this.
by kageiit | 2026-02-06 11:48:59+00:00
Gitar runs multiple specialized AI agents on every code change. They review code, fix CI failures, execute custom repository rules as workflows, and respond to developer feedback in-thread. That's easily 50-100 LLM calls per PR, and complex ones can hit 500+. We tried swapping Claude for Kimi K2.5 at 1/5th the price over a weekend.

Three things bit us: finish_reason semantics differ between "compatible" providers, the model retried identical failing tool calls instead of adapting, and provider failover invalidated prompt caches on both sides.

Curious if others have hit similar issues.
by jasode | 2026-02-06 11:50:02+00:00
>But I also don't think the auther meant Things you can do in Linux but not Unix

I wasn't claiming that. I just thought the ggp had a useful comment about renameat2() which led to gp's "correction" which wasn't 100% accurate.

IBM z/OS UNIX also has renameat2(). It doesn't have the Linux specific flag RENAME_EXCHANGE.

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/3.1.0?topic=functions-rename...
by MonkeyClub | 2026-02-06 11:51:19+00:00
Although the Reddit thread is from a while ago, the situation is still current.

From https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/matrix-rx/:

"Unfortunately, we are currently unable to offer any RX servers."

NetCup still offers Arm VPSs, but similarly no managed servers.

Are the recent improvements in x86 getting us back to an architectural monoculture, at least until other Arm providers step up?
by nosianu | 2026-02-06 11:51:39+00:00
That's just not what has been happening in large enterprise projects, internal or external, since long before AI.

Famous example - but by no means do I want to single out that company and product: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941

From my own experience, I kept this post bookmarked because I too worked on that project in the late 1990s, you cannot review those changes anyway. It is handled as described, you keep tweaking stuff until the tests pass. There is fundamentally no way to understand the code. Maybe its different in some very core parts, but most of it is just far too messy. I tried merely disentangling a few types ones, because there were a lot of duplicate types for the most simple things, such as 32 bit integers, and it is like trying to pick one noodle out of a huge bowl of spaghetti, and everything is glued and knotted together, so you always end up lifting out the entire bowl's contents. No AI necessary, that is just how such projects like after many generations of temporary programmers (because all sane people will leave as soon as they can, e.g. once they switched from an H1B to a Green Card) under ticket-closing pressure.

I don't know why since the beginning of these discussions some commenters seem to work off wrong assumptions that thus far our actual methods lead to great code. Very often they don't, they lead to a huge mess over time that just gets bigger.

And that is not because people are stupid, its because top management has rationally determined that the best balance for overall profits does not require perfect code. If the project gets too messy to do much the customers will already have been hooked and can't change easily, and when they do, some new product will have already replaced the two decades old mature one. Those customers still on the old one will pay premium for future bug fixes, and the rest will jumpt to the new trend. I don't think AI can make what's described above any, or much worse.
by disgruntledphd2 | 2026-02-06 11:51:40+00:00
> Do we know how many attempts were done to create such compiler before during previous tests? Would Anthropic report on the failed attempt? Can this "really, really impressive" thing be a result of a luck?

No we don't and yeah we would expect them to only report positive results (this is both marketing and investigation). That being said, they provide all the code et al for people to review.

I do agree that an out of distribution test would be super helpful, but given that it will almost certainly fail (given what we know about LLMs) I'm not too pushed about that given that it will definitely fail.

Look, I'm pretty sceptical about AI boosting, but this is a much better attempt than the windsurf browser thing from a few months back and it's interesting to know that one can get this work.

I do note that the article doesn't talk much about all the harnesses needed to make this work, which assuming that this approach is plausible, is the kind of thing that will be needed to make demonstrations like this more useful.
by foldr | 2026-02-06 11:53:18+00:00
The UK is a country where the Prime Minister may very probably have to resign because he is unpopular. See also Liz Truss and Boris Johnson. Prime Ministers in the UK don’t usually last that long if the public turns against them. Compare to the US, where Trump is deeply unpopular but also in an essentially unassailable position as POTUS. If Keir Starmer, or any other British Prime Minister, gave one press conference where they attacked a female journalist instead of responding to her question, and then criticized her for not smiling enough, they would be out of Downing Street within a day. So no, things are not going “just as badly” in the UK as they are in the US. You’re comparing general problems of discontent in a representative democracy with a total breakdown in standards of public life.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by Brits “voting against the status quo”. That’s what happens any time you change from one party to another in a democracy. Wouldn’t it be more worrying if everyone kept voting for the same party and same policies all the time?
by epolanski | 2026-02-06 11:53:22+00:00
> It's a shame that AI coding tools have become such a polarizing issue among developers.

Frankly I'm so tired of the usual "I don't find myself more productive", "It writes soup". Especially when some of the best software developers (and engineers) find many utility in those tools, there should be some doubt growing in that crowd.

I have come to the conclusion that software developers, those only focusing on the craft of writing code are the naysayers.

Software engineers immediately recognize the many automation/exploration/etc boosts, recognize the tools limits and work on improving them.

Hell, AI is an insane boost to productivity, even if you don't have it write a single line of code ever.

But people that focus on the craft (the kind of crowd that doesn't even process the concept of throwaway code or budgets or money) will keep laying in their "I don't see the benefits because X" forever, nonsensically confusing any tool use with vibe coding.

I'm also convinced that since this crowd never had any notion of what engineering is (there is very little of it in our industry sadly, technology and code is the focus and rarely the business, budget and problems to solve) and confused it with architectural, technological or best practices they are genuinely insecure about their jobs because once their very valued craft and skills are diminished they pay the price of never having invested in understanding the business, the domain, processes or soft skills.
by padolsey | 2026-02-06 11:53:38+00:00
> Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced.

Time will tell. Texas' sat on its biometric data act quite quietly then hammered meta with a $1.4B settlement 20 years after the bill's enactment. Once these laws are enacted, they lay quietly until someone has a big enough bone to pick with someone else. There are already many traumatic events occurring downstream from slapdash AI development.
by willis936 | 2026-02-06 11:55:52+00:00
You are. And I'm allowed to read into the author's psychology when they wear it on their shoulder. And I'm also allowed to critique the author when they misunderstand their work and write rambling, uninspired sequels that ruin the original work.

Lucas and Disney couldn't help but copy even these bad parts of Foundation in the Star Wars prequels and sequels.
by crimsonsupe | 2026-02-06 11:56:15+00:00
> Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced.

That’s because they can’t be.

People keep assuming that they now understand that AI does something a certain way and that you have to do things a certain way to get AI to behave or to use it “properly”.

The reality, though, is that AI companies and AI users will continue to improve it such that you won’t be able to distinguish it if they don’t want you to, and that it matters less that you use it in a certain way to accomplish something.

Oh, it’ll still make some of the same mistakes probably, but saying that AI can’t be used in some setting is ridiculous. You couldn’t ever guarantee enforcement of that.
by vee-kay | 2026-02-06 11:57:29+00:00
Evil is, as evil does.

Bill Gates and his Foundation have a bad rep long before his Epstein link came into the news.

Who better to collude with a known child trafficker/molester, than one who has no qualms in killing children via illegal vaccines/drugs to help his nexus with Big Pharma.

Bill & Melinda Gates' Foundation's evil illegal "vaccine trials" on tribal children (especially girls) in India (without the consent of them and their parents) directly caused the deaths of several children, hospitalizations of scores of such innocent victims, and it was a huge conspiracy and controversy that was uncovered during investigations by Supreme Court and police.

https://m.economictimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/heal...

The Gates Foundation operates like a monopolistic unethical pharmaceutical company (as a weapon and Think Tank of Big Pharma) under the guise of a charitable NGO or grantmaker.

https://capitalresearch.org/article/bill-gates-big-philanthr...
by PinkiesBrain | 2026-02-06 11:59:29+00:00
With a heatpump the PV and GPU would have the evaporators, the radiator would have the condenser. You do this for two reasons, so you can run the radiator hotter (4th power and all) and because the refrigerant is a good heat spreader for the GPU (better than pure liquid cooling).

With a heatpump, you don't want a thermal bypass, hence the isolation.

Space is not a great place to get rid of heat, but if you need lots of surface area any way for PV that almost solves itself.
by metalman | 2026-02-06 12:00:06+00:00
The US is edging up to a place where the it will become a defacto terrorist state that has overplayed it's hand in such a way that forces every other country to develop it's own internal sovierign comunications networks that never communicate with outside entities directly.
Worldwide, including the US, public sentiment is that privacy and indipendence
have been destroyed by american technology.
The authoritarian/fashist and often zionist
forces are hated and resisted with a grim carefull determination by populations that have less and less time, for anything else.
by somenameforme | 2026-02-06 12:00:52+00:00
Yeah so this is total nonsense in every single way. Hitler was not subtle in the least, nor did his views especially radicalize. As early as 1919, long before he was even in public politics, he was ranting about completely removing the Jews from Europe [1]. It was his entire shtick. It wasn't like some subtle, barely perceptible, evolution from 'deport illegal aliens' to the Holocaust. He pretty much started at 'eliminate all Jews' and then just worked out the means over time.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemlich_letter
by api | 2026-02-06 12:01:12+00:00
Why is that only a problem for democracy? It’s one of the central problems of civilization and has been discussed by philosophers since the Greeks.

In monarchies you’d often end up with kings and people in line for the throne being murdered and all kinds of palace intrigue to select for the most conniving psychopath.

In theocratic systems you get hypocrite self dealing priests.

In socialist and communist systems you get an aristocracy of political pull where high ranking bureaucrats are basically identical to our billionaires and political elites.

I’m not aware of any system that durably protects against being taken over by deranged dark triad personalities. Democracy’s virtue is that it provides some way to clean house without destroying the stability of the whole system, at least when it works.
by codewench | 2026-02-06 12:01:21+00:00
How is that useless? You adding the warning tells me everything I need to know.

Either you generated it with AI, in which case I can happily skip it, or you _don't know_ if AI was used, in which case you clearly don't care about what you produce, and I can skip it.

The only concern then is people who use AI and don't apply this warning, but given how easy it is to identify AI generated materials you just have to have a good '1-strike' rule and be judicious with the ban hammer.
by theothertimcook | 2026-02-06 12:01:27+00:00
" the review, only four side-effects out of 66 listed were found to have any association with taking statins, and only in a very small proportion of patients.

The four were:

liver test changes
minor liver abnormalities
urine changes
tissue swelling/swollen ankles
There was no increase in liver disease such as hepatitis or liver failure, suggesting that the liver blood test changes did not lead to more serious liver problems."
by Mr_Minderbinder | 2026-02-06 12:01:27+00:00
You may think that sounds right but I can assure you that convincing others that ~$29B of accessible pure cash or ~$83B of equity is really only worth $5B will be a more difficult venture. You can dispute the carrying value of Tesla's assets and liabilities but the cash is cash which is why I included that metric as a baseline. At the end of the day $29B is worth $29B and nothing else.
by akrakesh | 2026-02-06 12:02:07+00:00
Location: India (looking for work from anywhere in the world)

Remote: Yes, only remote

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Figma, HTML, CSS

Résumé/CV: https://rakeshk.com/files/Resume_Rakesh.pdf

Email: akrakesh[at]gmail.com

Portfolio: https://rakeshk.com

I'm a no-nonsense, systems-oriented, generalist product designer with 14 years' experience. I specialize in founding design at startups, taking care of almost everything related to design. Love designing complex mobile and web apps. More about me: https://rakeshk.com/about.html
by MrSkelter | 2026-02-06 12:02:36+00:00
This is not the easiest setting.

I became American as a previously British citizen. I had been employed in the UK, by a company in California who wanted to relocate me to the US and did (I was an early H1-B).

I then moved to another company after 18 months. Both my first and second companies were applying for my green card and renewing my paperwork as needed for me.

Later I stopped working for a US company but still had a VISA and married a US citizen. I then handled my green card application, and citizenship, myself without lawyers.

As a highly qualified individual who had already been screened multiple times to get H1-Bs I knew I would pass further screening. I also knew I had no criminal records or adverse history globally.

In short I got my green card and my citizenship without any further professional legal help. I paid nothing but my own costs.

It took a couple of years but it is possible.

The process is torturous and repetitive. You have to resubmit the same information multiple times, and some of the requirements are extremely expensive.

To whit, I was required to produce a “Police letter” from every country I had lived in, signed by the local police, attesting to the fact I hadn’t broken any laws overseas.

I had lived in 4 continents at that point. Thus I had to arrange to send my ID to multiple countries and to pay, in some cases, for letters to be written, delivered as originals on paper and then (hilariously) pay to have them translated for a US government who only wants to work in English and apparently trusts whatever translation you send (this was pre LLM).

So though I could do all this, in one case paying an ex colleague to manage the police in Eastern Europe on my behalf, for many others this would be impossible and require lawyers and the huge markups they would charge for these services. I would guess them hiring another team of lawyers in another country with each stage doubling the costs of the ones beneath them meaning a single police letter ends up costing many thousands.

The system is thus absolutely limited to those with connections, deep pockets or sponsorship.

Also for those who think this is good insurance, I also know Central Europeans who bribed their local authorities to facilitate their green cards, covering adverse information and putting them at the tops of lists. Ie for $50k or so they got essentially instant residency status.

Also the need for people to leave the US before re entering when processing paperwork (so that if rejected you have already self deported) means you need to be able to stop working, or work remotely, and to be able to fund living in your old home country for an indefinite period.

I moved in with my parents but had they not been an option I would have had to rent a place in London - a vast expense - just to comply.

The system is incredibly broken.
by latexr | 2026-02-06 12:03:25+00:00
> We don't call architects 'vibe architects' even though (…)

> We don't call builders 'vibe builders' for (…)

> When was the last time (…)

None of those are the same thing. At all. They are still all deterministic approaches. The architect’s library of things doesn’t change every time they use it or present different things depending on how they hold it. It’s useful because it’s predictable. Same for all your other examples.

If we want to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of LLM-generated code, proponents need to stop being dishonest in their comparisons. They also need to stop plugging their ears and not ignore the other issues around the technology. It is possible to have something which is useful but whose advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages.
by sieep | 2026-02-06 12:03:32+00:00
Didn't the Anthropic CEO claim we would be replaced by this AI tech by now? Here's Anthropic moving their own goal post in real time:

2026:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/ai-ceo-says-softw...

2025:
https://fortune.com/2025/03/13/ai-transforming-software-deve...

https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/anthropic-ceo-pre...
by estearum | 2026-02-06 12:04:00+00:00
The manufacturing lines would be designed, and they'd be designed in an attempt to affect the "design" of the ultimate resulting supply chain they're a part of. But the relationship between the design of some lines and the behavior of the larger supply chain is non-linear, hard to predict, and ultimately undesigned, and therefore complex.

The design of the manufacturing lines and the resulting supply chain are not independent of each other -- you can trace features from one to the other -- but you cannot take apart the supply chain and analyze the designs of its constituent manufacturing lines and actually predict the behavior of the larger system.

AFAIK there's not a great definition of a complex system, just a set of traits that tend to indicate you're looking at one. Non-linearity, feedbacks, lack of predictability, resistance to analysis (the "you can't take it apart to reason about the whole" characteristic mentioned above"). All of these traits are also kind of the same things... they tend to come bundled with one another.
by sph | 2026-02-06 12:04:32+00:00
>> you lay out a huge specification that would fully work through all of the complexity in advance, then build it.

> This has never happened and never will. You simply are not omniscient. Even if you're smart enough to figure everything out the requirements will change underneath you.

I am one of those "battle-scarred twenty-year+ vets" mentioned in the article, currently working on a large project for a multinational company that requires everything to be specified up-front, planned on JIRA, estimates provided and Gantt charts setup before they even sign the contract for the next milestone.

I've worked on this project for 18 months, and I can count on zero hands the times a milestone hasn't gone off the rails due to unforeseen problems, last-minute changes and incomplete specifications. It has been an growing headache for the engineers that have to deliver within these rigid structures, and it's now got to the point that management itself has noticed and is trying to convince the big bosses we need a more agile and iterative approach.

Anyone who claims upfront specs are the solution to all the complexity of software either has no real world experience, or is so far removed from actual engineering they just don't know what they're talking about.
by chmod775 | 2026-02-06 12:04:35+00:00
There's no difference between you advertising something on your website vs. the chatbot that is on your website advertising something. It's something "the company" said either way.

There's generally protections in many jurisdictions against having to honor contracts that are based on obvious errors that should have been obvious to the other party however ("too good to be true"), and other protections against various kinds of fraud - which may also apply here, since this was clearly not done in good faith.

If you have an AI chatbot on your website, I highly recommend communicating to the user that nothing it says constitutes an offer, contract, etc, whatever it may say after.

Or just remove it. Generally they mainly piss people off rather than being useful.