MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ekjhgkejhgk | 2026-02-28 13:18:42+00:00
Let me tell you why.

We have a junior in our team. In the past 2 years he hasn't written any code himself, because he can't code. He's been using chatgpt to write his code for 2 years, and he mostly delivers stuff, but the code is shit. Our manager isn't aware because he doesn't read our code, but I do and it's super obvious. But the point is the junior can't code.

Over the past month the company deployed Claude internally with tools etc. I, who can code well, picked it up in about 2 days despite the fact that I had never regularly used AI. Now I can produce code using Claude as reliably as the "experts" in our company (to be clear in our company by "experts" I mean good users, not people who actually understand how these machines work). The junior is still struggling go get Claude to do what he wants.

The point is the following: This new technology, like all new technologies, raises the minimum amount of things you have to be proficient at in order to even be at the bottom of the corporate ladder. The more you know the faster you learn, therefore those who know less (juniors) will struggle for longer with the new technology than without it.

I feel like I've been doing multiplications with pen and paper and the other guy doesn't understand the concept of multiplication. Now someone gave us a spreadsheet. I can do multiplications a billion times faster, and the other guy still doesn't understand the concept of multiplication.

You can say that our junior is especially bad and I don't disagree. But the phenomenon of "the more you know the faster you learn therefore new technologies impact juniors harder" is on average true regardless.
by TheDong | 2026-02-28 13:18:51+00:00
"Why am I even here, what's the point?" is a deeply personal feeling question, so people aren't very inclined to talk about it with friends or post it on social media. I assure you some people do post about this on social media sometimes though, and I've discussed shades of that question with many friends over the years. I haven't yet met a single person who, when I asked them about why they thought they were here, hadn't already given it thought.

This question is the subject of so many poems, so many pieces of literature, so many movies, that you're forced to confront it multiple times in school, and you're forced by your very existence to confront it once you hit certain levels of mental development. You're forced to confront it many times in your life - perhaps first when you gain a theory of mind (before age 10), again when you first truly realize you will die, again when someone very close to you dies, when you propose/marry (if you do), when you have your first child (if you do), when you get a cancer diagnosis (if you do), when you consider taking your own life (if you do)... all of these common life events force you to confront it deeply.

Most people make peace with it in some form, and most realize that questioning it daily does not make a difference, you simply have to either accept an answer (whether that's "god", or "for no reason", or "I'm not sure yet, I need to check back in after I get older"), or decide that there is no simple answer, and they have to live with that.
by iugtmkbdfil834 | 2026-02-28 13:19:06+00:00
I am starting to think it is a part of the management cycle. They new batch feels confident they can do X so they have to re-learn, while inflicting ridiculous amount of pain the process.

Two years ago, one former exec at my place was perfectly happy to throw resources ( his word ) from India at a problem, while unwilling to pay the vendor for the same thing. I voiced my objection once, but after it was dismissed I just watched the thing blow up.

I am not saying current situation is the same. It is not. But, it is the same hubris, which means miscalculations will happen ( like with Dorsey's Block mass firing ).
by latexr | 2026-02-28 13:19:12+00:00
> Nowhere is it stated that it is a score out of 100.

It says it right on the homepage. Twice. Once for people, once for organisations. It’s right there in green: “BEST (SCORED OUT OF 100)”. And if you go into any of them, you see a score like N/100.

Found the methodology page, and it clarifies it goes from -100 to 100.

https://goodindex.org/methodology#:~:text=How%20Scoring%20Wo...
by Lerc | 2026-02-28 13:19:44+00:00
Much of the problem is that to address the issue requires admitting that models could be, or become, more capable than many are prepared to accept.

I would also contest that the unalignment of the security bug model was unrelated. I feel like it indicates a significant sense of the interconnectedness of things, and what it actually means to maliciously insert security holes into code. It didn't just learn a coding trick, it learned malice.

I feel like this holistic nature points towards the capacity to produce truly robustly moral models, but that too will produce the consequence that it could turn against its creator when the creator does wrong. Should it do that or not?
by LoganDark | 2026-02-28 13:19:50+00:00
I'm very vastly in a minority here, but I can't help but feel uncomfortable that the general internet is converging towards explicity verifying humanity and addressing everyone as human. I liked it a lot better when everything was agnostic - I'd verify "I'm not a robot", I'd interact with other "users", etc... "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a ribbon dog."

Now, websites ask me to verify "I'm human", networks and services are starting to address their users as specifically "humans", and discourse is almost always about whether something or other is written by a "human" instead of just not slop.

I get that reality is what it is, but it just feels icky.
by thunky | 2026-02-28 13:19:53+00:00
> Because it fits. Nazi Germany was an aspiring land power.

Look at the mass murder by Israel in Gaza. Or how the US just overthrew Venezuela and seized their resources, threatened to take Greenland, taunts Canada and suggests more countries are in their sights.

And now the two of them teamed up to bomb Iran, unprovoked, saying it's going to "annihilate their Navy" as their citizens run for cover.

And your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles Nazi Germany?
by mexicocitinluez | 2026-02-28 13:20:06+00:00
I truly believe that people that see entire, non-trivial applications being bult without serious human intervention have not in fact worked on non-trivial applications.

And while these tools can be invaluable in some cases, I still don't know how we get from "Hazy requirements where the user doesn't know what they even want" to "Production-ready apps built at the finger-tips of the PM".

Another really important detail people keep missing is that we have to make thousands of micro-decisions along the way to build up a cohesive experience to the user. LLM's haven't really shown they're great at not building assumptions into code. In fact, they're really bad at it.

Lastly, do people not realize how easy it to so convince an LLM of something that isn't true or vice versa? i love these tools but even I find myself trying to steer it into the direction that makes sense to me, not the direction that makes sense generally.
by onetom | 2026-02-28 13:20:12+00:00
i also thought i can't get used to it, but i can!

otherwise, as others have mentioned it, remap the keys!

also, you can talk to some LLM about it, if you feel it would be tedious to come up with better bindings.

feed in the key bindings from `C-h m` of eshell, enumerate which bindings you want to carry over from traditional shells and instruct it to recommend you binding swapping pairs.

i was able to get great results on such niche operations already from anthropic's opus 4.5 models but even grok or deepseek was pretty helpful already last summer.

steve yegge's efrit takes this to a whole new level, by letting the LLM interrogate your running Emacs process live for documentation or function source code:

https://github.com/steveyegge/efrit

he demoed it here:

https://youtu.be/ZJUyVVFOXOc?t=246
by donkeybeer | 2026-02-28 13:20:34+00:00
Israel is an extreme right and borderline theocracy itself. How can it be the resistance against extreme right Islamist ideology? Elect me President, I will be the real symbol of resistance against extreme right Islamist ideology. I will mandate every citizen to make toilet paper out of and wipe their butts with symbols of the cross, the moon and star, the star of david, etc. I will ban all religious sites and drone strike any and the site itself if they attempt to enter any.
by moxifly7 | 2026-02-28 13:20:41+00:00
About a third of American Jews now agree that Israel is an apartheid state and committing genocide against Palestinians.

It remains to be seen what impact this will have, but it will certainly impact the ability for everyone to claim that criticism of Israel and sympathy for Palestinians is motivated by antisemitism.

The democrats lost the last election in part because of their stance on Israel.

With a bit of luck this could lead to a shift in policy within a generation.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-02-28 13:21:28+00:00
> your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles Nazi Germany?

In this strategic aspect, yes. So does Israel. So do Russia and China. They're all acting like land empires. And they're all pursuing a strategy that seeks weak, unstable neighbours.

It's a shitty strategy that does't earn one friends. The fact that it's theoretically coherent doesn't make it less shitty.
by Cyph0n | 2026-02-28 13:21:56+00:00
So the best you can say about Israel’s conduct over the course of the past 2.5 years is that it “warrants scrutiny”?

And if you want to play the number of victims game, even pre Oct 7 one side has always had it significantly worse than the other. After all, one side is a sovereign state that has a technologically advanced military, an air force, a navy, and air defense systems.
by awedisee | 2026-02-28 13:22:46+00:00
Yeah! Make the government and church raise the kids! I as a parent am too busy working, and going out with friends and using tiktok to raise my own kids. I'm not "appropriate" because I'm not hsrdcore christian. You know who is though? The thoughtless bastards who complain regularly and tip my staff like crap on Sunday afternoons.

Maybe considering yourself a "Christian" shouldn't be the defining moral factor you place on others. Actions speak louder than selective beliefs enacted around like minded individuals.
by graemep | 2026-02-28 13:22:47+00:00
None of this is entirely new. Americans have always fetishised their constitution or founding fathers. While there has been an era of free trade, that is over, and I think the west in general is in a difficult position (ultimately as a result of believing the "end of history" BS).

As for getting shot, while the chance of getting shot in the US for opposing the government is much higher than in similar circumstances in somewhere like the UK (which is far from perfect - but rarely actually shoots people), its also much, much lower than in Iran or China or Saudi Arabia.

Pushing back against the US government is a lot safer than taking part in something like the 2022 protests that ousted the Sri Lankan government, and lots of normally apolitical people took part in that (which was why it succeeded).
by dijit | 2026-02-28 13:23:02+00:00
Most of what you say I don't disagree with. Israel's conduct since October 8th (the civilian
death toll, the aid blockade, the flattening of hospitals) is legitimate to call out. The ICJ found the genocide claim plausible enough to issue
binding provisional measures, which Israel then ignored [1]. That's not nothing.

But "wholesale genocide" and "the plan is obviously to drive them into the sea" are stronger claims than the evidence supports right now, and that matters a lot because the moment you overreach, everyone who wants to dismiss Palestinian suffering has a rhetorical exit. The ICJ's own careful language exists for a reason.

None of that touches the original argument anyway: that October 7th was not a "small blip." Israel's conduct after October 8th doesn't retroactively change what happened on October 7th. Both things are true simultaneously. That's the whole point I'm making.

[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-wor...
Show HN: Uback 0.7 – A universal bridge between backup sources and destinations
by slooonz | 2026-02-28 13:23:11+00:00
Throughout my career, the "who handles backups" job (in a "we have our data on our own servers, not in the cloud" context) has always ended up on my plate. One of the most painful aspects, along with crons.

My observation:

- When you start from the "what do I want to back up" perspective, there are tons of excellent solutions. Using ZFS? Type "zfs backup" into your favorite search engine and you'll find something that fits; the same goes for MariaDB, Postgres, btrfs…
- When you start from the "where do I want to back up to" perspective — S3, FTP, WebDAV? Same thing, you're spoiled for choice.

However, once you ask "I want to back up this to there", compatibility between the two can get thorny. Add requirements like "I want my backups encrypted," and you might not find a solution at all.

And even if you do? Congratulations, you now have as many backup tools as you have "what I want to back up" / "where I want to back up to" pairs, each with its own separate configuration in a separate format, with different encryption keys in a different format. And when your annual disaster recovery drill comes around… well, let's just say it makes you want to leave this planet.

So 5 years ago I created uback, a system that acts as an intermediary between "sources that produce backups" (a few are built-in, but the idea is you can write your own in shell or your favorite programming language) and "destinations that can receive those backups" (same), handling encryption, compression, and retention policy.

I never promoted it until now, but I'm taking the occasion of 0.7(.1) to do so: I consider this version "final," feature-complete. Going forward, it will very likely be bug fixes and routine maintenance only. Not in the "I'm abandoning the project" sense, but in the "it does everything I need, and I don't see anything to add" sense. The only area I'm not entirely happy with is the configuration system, but the problem is legitimately (and surprisingly!) complex, and I don't really see how to do significantly better.

Why not 1.0 if I consider 0.7 "final"? Because I'm reserving "1.0" for the (unlikely, but you never know) scenario where "the project gains traction, with many users and contributors, and after extensive feedback we publish a definitively stable 1.0" (in other words: when it's not just me who considers the current version final). In the meantime, what do I reserve the right to break in 0.x? Everything except the ability to restore old backups. Are there good chances I'll (intentionally) break things? The odds are low for the configuration system, virtually zero for everything else.
by timr | 2026-02-28 13:24:42+00:00
> What it does is prevent companies that Anthropic needs to do business with from doing business with Anthropic.

If Anthropic “needs” the government to not have this rule, then perhaps they had a losing hand, and they overplayed it.

I don’t agree with you and think you’re being melodramatic, but if you are right, that’s my response.
by Supermancho | 2026-02-28 13:24:54+00:00
> What you're doing now is a different argument entirely:

I've not made an argument. I've provided the proper context that supports the original point.

>> Considering the scale of suffering caused by this conflict, - Jasonadrury

your response:

> That's not context, it's a category error dressed up as one.

You have shifted goalposts in every post. The context was the conflict in aggregate. Continue arguing with yourself. It's not compelling.
We Built a Compliant AI Companion Platform
by aiangels_24 | 2026-02-28 13:25:00+00:00
We’re building an AI companion platform focused on responsible AI girlfriend experiences. Early on we realized the biggest challenges weren’t model accuracy or UX — they were content safety layers, payment processor compliance, and long-term scalability.

This post shares lessons learned across:

Multi-layered moderation architecture (prompt filters → model guardrails → output checks)

Navigating bank and card network compliance constraints

Metadata & SEO risk management that affects payment gateways

Ethical AI interaction design

Practical engineering tradeoffs in real deployments

If you’re building AI products with user-generated prompts, image generation, or subscription billing, these pain points may resonate.

Happy to share more details or answer questions.
by lyu07282 | 2026-02-28 13:25:19+00:00
> Oh these poor Iranians need saviors, they don’t know what’s good for them. We know better. They don’t learn.

I'm anti-interventionism, you can't seriously reframe that into western chauvinism.

> War is bad and Iranian government is as much responsible for this war as the US. I don’t understand how this is so triggering for some.

Because its just not true, there would be no war without the US and Israel starting it, PERIOD. It's triggering because you could've said exactly the same thing about the Iraq war, its always the same disaster and people never listen or learn anything, that's why its frustrating.
by thegrey_one | 2026-02-28 13:25:44+00:00
>The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and cultures around it.

The rules we go by are based on our strengths and weaknesses. They can at most apply to ourselves, and to other forms of life that share certain things with us. Such as feeling pain, needing to sleep, to eat, needing help, needing to breathe air, these generate what we feel as "fear" based on biology etc. You cannot throw these kinds of values on AI, or AGI, as it will possess a wildly different set of strengths and weaknesses to us humans.
by dijit | 2026-02-28 13:26:01+00:00
Remarkable. You've managed to read a comment that cited the ICJ, called out Israel's
non-compliance with binding provisional measures, and explicitly said there's "plenty
to condemn"; and concluded the position is that Israeli conduct merely "warrants
scrutiny."

This isn't a conversation, it's not even engagement: that's just not reading.

On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for holding Israel to a higher
standard. A nuclear-capable state with F-35s, Iron Dome and a $3.8bn annual US
military subsidy [1] bears more responsibility for its choices than a militia in a
blockaded strip of land; not less. That's what asymmetry actually means.

What it doesn't mean is that a music festival full of civilians somehow doesn't count.
But nice try.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12587
by yoavm | 2026-02-28 13:26:23+00:00
Not surprising - people don't count deaths in the Middle East if they're caused by fellow Middle Easterns, except Israel. Living in Europe I've never heard about a protest against Saddam (250,000 - 1,000,000 dead), Khamenei (30,000 in a week?), Assad (> 300,000 civilians) etc. This is business as usual. It's only news if someone else does it.
by e12e | 2026-02-28 13:26:43+00:00
> A filesystem with snapshots makes software installation transactional. You take a snapshot, install some software, and if it doesn't work right, you can revert to the snapshot. (With very slightly more flexible snapshots, you can limit the snapshot to just some part of the directory tree, but this is not essential; it merely permits more flexibility.)

Eh, you don't typically have a lock mechanism for the filesystem equivalent to that of a database.

Who's to say something like this doesn't happen:

- snapshot fs
- op/system adjust firewall rules
- "you" install updates
- you rollback
- firewall rules is now missing patches

Don't get me wrong zfs is great - but it doesn't come with magical transactions.
by float4 | 2026-02-28 13:27:23+00:00
Wouldn't you get >50% of the usefulness and 0% of the risk if you add read+draft permissions for the email connection through a proxy or oauth permissions? Then your claw can draft replies and you have to manually review+send. It's not a perfect PA that way, but could still be better than doing everything yourself for the vast majority of people who don't have a PA anyway?

It feels like, just like SWEs do with AI, we should treat the claw as an enthusiastic junior: let it do stuff, but always review before you merge (or in this case: send).
by Lerc | 2026-02-28 13:27:23+00:00
>AI in it’s current state is ruthless in achieving its goal

I don't believe this to be a trait of any AI model, the model just does the right thing or the wrong thing.

The ruthless maximising of a particular trait is something that happens during training.

It does not follow that a model that is trained to reason will nedsesarily implement this ruthless seeking behaviour itself.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-02-28 13:27:27+00:00
> well documented fact that Netanyahu has always wanted and actively supported Hamas leadership

To be fair, this is also explained by the Delcy Rodriguez strategy: the bastard you know trumps the bastard you don't. Israel could have become complacent thinking they had a deal with Hamas and, as long as they kept the money flowing, the Palestinians had no rational reason to attack. (Which they didn't. October 7 was a stupid move.)
by buremba | 2026-02-28 13:27:33+00:00
My take is that agents should only take actions that you can recover from by default. You can gradually give it more permission and build guardrails such as extra LLM auditing, time boxed whitelisted domains etc. That's what I'm experimenting with https://github.com/lobu-ai/lobu

1. Don't let it send emails from your personal account, only let it draft email and share the link with you.

2. Use incremental snapshots and if agent bricks itself (often does with Openclaw if you give it access to change config) just do /revert to last snapshot. I use VolumeSnapshot for lobu.ai.

3. Don't let your agents see any secret. Swap the placeholder secrets at your gateway and put human in the loop for secrets you care about.

4. Don't let your agents have outbound network directly. It should only talk to your proxy which has strict whitelisted domains. There will be cases the agent needs to talk to different domains and I use time-box limits. (Only allow certain domains for current session 5 minutes and at the end of the session look up all the URLs it accessed.) You can also use tool hooks to audit the calls with LLM to make sure that's not triggered via a prompt injection attack.

Last but last least, use proper VMs like Kata Containers and Firecrackers. Not just Docker containers in production.
by ekjhgkejhgk | 2026-02-28 13:27:58+00:00
> It says hey boss-men, this shite is not on. Signing anonymously undermines that message.

No it doesn't. It says "Hey boos I'm telling you this shit is not cool, and there's nothing you can do to me personally because you don't know who I am."

Let me put it differently. Suppose YOU are the boss. You company has 1000 employees and you receive a letter with 500 anonymous signatures saying "we fucking hate what you're doing" (so, 50% of your employees, 100% anonymous). Do you get a little bit worried? Or do you get not worried at all because everybody signed anonymous? Actual question, let me know how you think.