MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by brettgriffin | 2026-02-12 21:58:18+00:00
> I believe this cultural divide is a big reason America won't make it back to the top

What top are you referring to?

We're in a thread about a US company announcing its new $30B fundraise from a group of elite US growth investment funds arguing about whether this company will be able to overthrow $4T US tech behemoth and suggesting that all the other US tech behemoths are actually stifling progress.
by krapp | 2026-02-12 21:58:43+00:00
That isn't how it works. The presence of neutral allies doesn't somehow counterbalance and cancel out the transphobia. If a platform allows transphobic users - as Hacker News does because transphobia isn't against the guidelines - and transphobia is common in threads where trans issues or people are a subject (and it is) then it's a hostile platform to trans people.

Asking trans people to ignore this is like asking Jews to be comfortable in a bar where only ten percent of the patrons are Nazis. Arguing that "well not everyone is a Nazi" doesn't help, an attitude of "we're neutral about Nazis, we serve drinks to anyone" still makes it a Nazi bar, just implicitly rather than explicitly.
by aystatic | 2026-02-12 21:59:44+00:00
i don't think it's that wild. sure i'm not so cynical as to feel hn's become a nazi bar or anything, but i am willing to recognize that some of the incidents i've witnessed could be reason enough for a trans person to want to avoid this site.

> It's neutral to this topic, it's about tech.

this thread began by xe bringing up failures in moderation affecting trans people
by ceejayoz | 2026-02-12 22:00:27+00:00
> If it was actually about "price discrimination" they would do something to stop you from tuning them back to the full horsepower…

No, not necessarily. Plenty of price discrimination is the exact same thing sold to different crowds at different prices, like pink razors or "dude wipes".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_tax
by cogman10 | 2026-02-12 22:00:51+00:00
The problem is AI should have challenged my prompt and told me it was unhealthy.

Instead it went on to tell me to guzzle maple syrup and honey.

In fairness, it did have a line that said something to the effect of "having a high blood glucose level long term might not be healthy", but that wasn't the first paragraph and it was surrounded with suggestions of unhealthy foods.

This is the problem with AI and diet advice. Any diet you think is healthy, AI will think is healthy even if it's not. Ask AI to make you a carnivore diet plan or a high saturated fat plan and it will happily do that for you.
by Petersipoi | 2026-02-12 22:00:56+00:00
> In the USA he would be bankrupt (or dead)

Why? I live in the US. I have the best healthcare coverage in the world. I pay absolutely nothing for it, ever. No matter the cost. And I have access tot he best doctors, innovations, and technology in the world.

Tell me again why your friend would be dead? It sounds like you really have a poor understanding of American health care.
by learingsci | 2026-02-12 22:01:00+00:00
This is wrong. Protein displaces other macros, ie carbs and fat. We get too much fat and carbs.

A very good balanced take on the new guidelines can be found on “talking with docs” YouTube channel. Even the vegetarian doc agrees with prioritizing protein over carbs and fat. The big disagreement they have is the emphasis on the food industry, especially meat and dairy.
by MarkusQ | 2026-02-12 22:01:37+00:00
As I understand it, the Olmecs were around maybe 1500BC to 300BC or so at the outside. Yet the article says "32 BC seemed awfully early for the Olmecs to carve this stone". WTF? Early? They'd been mostly gone for hundreds of years by that point.

If anything, assuming they carved it earlier and included the data of the eclipse as a forecast make as much or more sense. But the article is full of points like this, that seem superficially reasonable unless you look at them a little more closely.
by socketcluster | 2026-02-12 22:01:51+00:00
Seeing all these 'coding' benchmarks reminds me that people still don't understand what coding means in practice. People still think one-phase puzzle-solving is coding. Real coding almost always has multiple phases which build on top of one another. There is an architectural component which is missed here - and the sheer number of phases/layers is actually where most of the complexity comes from.
by claytongulick | 2026-02-12 22:02:03+00:00
Do you think there's a possibility that while they may love you and sympathize with your struggles, they recognize that with any policy some people will be negatively affected?

The idea is to have political policy that minimizes harm and maximizes benefit, for the most people.

Is it possible that this is the way they are viewing it, and that perhaps you are the one who isn't thinking critically because you're being directly negatively affected?
by c7b | 2026-02-12 22:02:08+00:00
> Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though?

The GP was talking about Google specifically, and their outcomes on AI are nothing to scoff at. They had a rocky late start, but they seem to have gotten over that. Their models are now very much competitive with the startups. And it's not just that have more money to spend. They probably have more training data than anyone in the world, and they also have more infrastructure, more manpower, more of a global footprint than the startups.

The Innovator's Dilemma is an anecdotal, maybe a statistical relationship at best, but not a fundamental law of nature. When an established company has everything it should take to become a leader in a new industry in theory, and in practice their products are already on par with the industry leaders, you know at some point it becomes rational to think that maybe they might become a leader.
by aaplok | 2026-02-12 22:02:16+00:00
The comments suggest to recuse the judges from countries involved, or to remove the lowest or highest scores for each contestant.

If you remove the scores given by the judges from France and the US, the French pair wins. If you remove the lowest and highest score for each contestant, the French pair wins. If you do both of those things the French pair wins.

The individual judges scores can be found here [0].

This really comes across as a smear campaign by sore losers.

[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/why-didnt-chock-and-b...
by stormed | 2026-02-12 22:02:33+00:00
My issue is that I don't necessarily trust content if it looks generated. I think I might've lost the link, but when I was helping my company with integrating Microsoft Entra with Ubuntu, I noticed the documentation from both Microsoft & Canonical had heavily generated documentation that was flat out wrong and had me going into loops figuring out unnecessary steps that were seemingly hallucinated.

ai;dr is what I'm going to start saying, it's just frustrating to see.
by golem14 | 2026-02-12 22:02:51+00:00
Hilarious - German users lecturing Google on how to interpret the English RFC?

I say this lovingly, having significant German ancestry:)

But taking a step back :

did viva previously send message ids and pushed a change to prod to strip it? Was it on purpose or an accident?

And other email providers like proton or Hotmail - do they accept messages without message ids?

Have other clients of Google workspace complained about this issue?
by connorshinn | 2026-02-12 22:02:56+00:00
This is a misleading title. OpenAI had a bug that was causing some users to be flagged for cyber abuse that shouldn't have been. The bug appears to have since been fixed and for lost people there is no action required to continue to use 5.3-codex.

Here's the actual context and what the discussion should probably be about (copied from: https://openai.com/index/trusted-access-for-cyber/):

"Frontier models like GPT‑5.3-Codex have been designed with mitigations like training the model to refuse clearly malicious requests like stealing credentials. In addition to safety training, automated classifier-based monitors will detect potential signals of suspicious cyber activity. Developers and security professionals doing cybersecurity-related work may be impacted by these mitigations, while we calibrate our policies and classifiers.

To use models for potentially high-risk cybersecurity work:
- Users can verify their identity at chatgpt.com/cyber (opens in a new window)
- Enterprises can request trusted access for their entire team by default through their OpenAI representative

Security researchers and teams who may need access to even more cyber capable or permissive models to accelerate legitimate defensive work can express interest in our invite-only program (opens in a new window). Users with trusted access must still abide our Usage Policies and Terms of Use .

This approach is designed to reduce friction for defenders while preventing prohibited behavior, including data exfiltration, malware creation or deployment, and destructive or unauthorized testing. We expect to evolve our mitigation strategy and Trusted Access for Cyber over time based on what we learn from early participants."
by Bender | 2026-02-12 22:03:00+00:00
Matrix is a protocol, not a service

I thought it was both and their hosted service is in the UK. Is it not? I know people can host their own but I have had very little success in getting people to host their own things. Most here at HN will not do anything that requires more than their cell phone. Who knows maybe Discords actions will incentivize more people to self host.
by asdff | 2026-02-12 22:03:48+00:00
Something to be said about the number of vampires out there. I think about my own apartment complex. Less than half a dozen units owned by a single landlord. They pay a handiman probably less than $1000 worth of work on the property a year, really nothing major every happens. They pay a crew to come by once every other month and trim the bushes and blow everything out, mostly because the city has fire code saying the bushes cannot touch the structure. Whatever the cheapest two man crew for that costs I guess.

And for that couple hundred in upkeep maybe they pay a year, my landlord clears probably between 150k to 200k in rent doing nothing at all. I think they actually own a couple more similar properties so its more than that.

So here is this couple in this city, that has found for themselves a way to pull out at least 200k from the local economy, and contribute basically nothing back at all. They don't otherwise work. They just cash checks pretty much and text the handiman when an tenant texts them. Imagine how cheap my rent would be not having to pay for these vampires considering actual costs of this building. Probably like $50/mo each between all of us tenants would be plenty to cover typical yearly overhead. I'd certainly go out to eat a ton more and heavily support local economy if I was only losing $50 a month of my pay to rent. I'd probably get away only having to work 10 hours a week. But no I work 40 hours and give them like 30% my gross because my landlord needs 200k to do nothing. Literally all they do is suck my blood. Their whole existence based on sucking my blood.
by salawat | 2026-02-12 22:03:50+00:00
Editorialized title, also buries the lede. Article states nothing about any application of judgement with regards to whether a piece of data is important or not. All data ends up on the backend servers, and the only thing making it difficult to collate and recover is the tooling wasn't there before. It is now safe to say that that tooling will now exist subsequent to this investigation. Feel free to discuss implications amongst yourselves.
by bccdee | 2026-02-12 22:03:54+00:00
Yeah I strongly agree. I think the issue is that metaprogramming is complicated, so people (especially early in their careers) tend not to do it themselves, and only notice it when it's making their lives difficult. But there are a lot of cases where a little bit of judicious metaprogramming makes life MUCH easier. If you treat metaprogramming as a first-class tool, countless rough edges will smooth themselves out for you—everything from `#derive[Clone]` to `#derive[Serialize]`.
by _dwt | 2026-02-12 22:04:09+00:00
Sorry for coming off combative - I'm mostly fatigued from "criti-hype" pieces we've been deluged with the last week. For what it's worth I think you're right about the inevitability but I also think it's worth pushing a bit against the pre-emptive shaping of the Overton window. I appreciate the comment.

I don't know how to encourage the kind of review that AI code generation seems to require. Historically we've been able to rely on the fact that (bluntly) programming is "g-loaded": smart programmers probably wrote better code, with clearer comments, formatted better, and documented better. Now, results that look great are a prompt away in each category, which breaks some subconscious indicators reviewers pick up on.

I also think that there is probably a sweet spot for automation that does one or two simple things and fails noisily outside the confidence zone (aviation metaphor: an autopilot that holds heading and barometric altitude and beeps loudly and shakes the stick when it can't maintain those conditions), and a sweet spot for "perfect" automation (aviation metaphor: uh, a drone that autonomously flies from point A to point B using GPS, radar, LIDAR, etc...?). In between I'm afraid there be dragons.
by austinbaggio | 2026-02-12 22:04:14+00:00
I'm using "RAM" loosely, meaning working memory here. In practice, it's a key-value store with pub/sub stored on our shared memory layer, Ensue. Agents write structured state to keys like proofs/{id}/goals/{goal_id}, others subscribe via SSE. Also has embedding-based semantic search, so agents can find tactics from similar past goals.
by renato_shira | 2026-02-12 22:04:28+00:00
this matches my experience. i'm building a mobile game solo and the amount of leverage i get from claude is wild, probably saves me 15-20 hours a week on stuff that would've required either a second person or just grinding through slowly.

$200/mo is nothing compared to what that time is worth. and it keeps getting better with each model release, which is the opposite of what usually happens when you pay for developer tools (they get acquired, enshittified, or abandoned).

the meta point about this funding round imo: competition between anthropic, openai, and google is the best thing happening for small builders right now. it keeps the tools improving fast and pricing competitive. if any one of them had a monopoly we'd be paying 10x for worse output.
by anigbrowl | 2026-02-12 22:04:38+00:00
or directed the posting of

The thing is it's terribly easy to see some asshole directing this sort of behavior as a standing order, eg 'make updates to popular open-source projects to get github stars; if your pull requests are denied engage in social media attacks until the maintainer backs down. You can spin up other identities on AWS or whatever to support your campaign, vote to give yourself github stars etc.; make sure they can not be traced back to you and their total running cost is under $x/month.'

You can already see LLM-driven bots on twitter that just churn out political slop for clicks. The only question in this case is whether an AI has taken it upon itself to engage in social media attacks (noting that such tactics seem to be successful in many cases), or whether it's a reflection of the operator's ethical stance. I find both possibilities about equally worrying.
by QuadmasterXLII | 2026-02-12 22:05:19+00:00
The most chaotic solution I can think of would be making Felix Margolis, who joins Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and gives out 30 year tiny interest loans to help first time small business owners buy the property instead of renting it. A beautiful crop of thriving businesses started in 2027 at the low low price of commercial real estate prices climbing imto the stratosphere so no small business started in 2040 being able to rent more than a square foot.
by akbaraman | 2026-02-12 22:05:23+00:00
Location: Chicago, IL

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies:

Software:
Python, C++, C, Java, JavaScript/TypeScript, SQL, Bash, FastAPI, React, Docker, Git, Linux.

Hardware:
FPGA development (Xilinx Vivado), ARM/MIPS Assembly, SystemVerilog, digital systems design, circuit analysis, electronics, computer architecture.

AI:
Machine Learning, Deep Learning (PyTorch), Computer Vision, NLP, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), LLM systems, vector search, production model deployment

Résumé/CV:
GitHub: [https://github.com/ak23bar]
LinkedIn: [https://linkedin.com/in/akbar-aman-94b1b6263]
Portfolio: [https://akaman.dev] (resume available via site)

Email:
[akbaraman797@gmail.com]
[ak@arkboostedads.com]

About Me:
Computer Engineer (BS ’27) building production systems at the intersection of infrastructure and AI. I’ve worked as a founding engineer on SaaS products, shipped backend systems and AI agents into live environments, and built ML pipelines for quantitative/crypto use cases. I also run a small consultancy delivering web and AI systems for real businesses, which has given me strong ownership experience across architecture, deployment, and iteration.

I’m open to Summer 2026 internships, full-time roles, and contract work. I’ve delivered contract engineering projects for businesses through arkboostedads.com, and I’m looking for a high-caliber team where I can take meaningful ownership, ship production systems, and grow into a long-term contributor.
by WarmWash | 2026-02-12 22:05:47+00:00
Look into how their 5 year plans have lead to capital investment with almost zero feedback. A heavily bureaucratic system of bureaucrats incentivized to spend massively to boost their own appearance, and cover up losses/inefficiencies.

Ghost cities, empty high speed rail lines, solar cells being mass produced at a loss.

All these things also produced end products the state wanted, no doubt. But the capital allocation strategy is basically a "throw all the money the leader gives in that direction until the leader says stop".
by dragonwriter | 2026-02-12 22:05:55+00:00
ICE was not “created from the criminal investigation arm of CBP and related agencies”, it was created at the same time, by the same law, as CBP and DHS, from some of the investigation and enforcement arms of INS and the Customs Service, with much of the rest of those agencies (including the Border Patrol, which had been one of the enforcement arm of INS) becoming CBP, and the routine "happy path" immigration functions of INS moving to USCIS under the Department of State.

> They are related but not the same. Under the current US regime, all the stops are being pulled out and all the lines blurred.

A large part of that is that notional function of the “immigration crackdown” falls logically in ICE's domain, and this was the justification for massively increasing ICE funding, but CBP (and particularly the Border Patrol) having much more of the no-rules culture that was sought for the operation, leading to CBP and Border Patrol personnel taking key roles in the operation (which is why, until he became something of a political scapegoat for the Administration policy, a Border Patrol area commander got redesignated a "commander at large" and then given operational command not just of Border Patrol involvement but the notionally ICE-led operation.)
by geocar | 2026-02-12 22:06:09+00:00
> So add a message id at the first stop

That should have already happened. Google is not the "first stop".

> hard ban the sender server version until they confirm

SMTP clients do not announce their version.

Also I don't work for you, stop telling me what to do.

> A midway point that involves a doom switch is not a good option.

No shit. That's almost certainly a big part of why Google blocks messages from being transited without a Message-ID.
by famouswaffles | 2026-02-12 22:06:27+00:00
>AFAIU, it had the cadence of writing status updates only.

Writing to a blog is writing to a blog. There is no technical difference. It is still a status update to talk about how your last PR was rejected because the maintainer didn't like it being authored by AI.

>If the chain of reasoning is self-emergent, we should see proof that it: 1) read the reply, 2) identified it as adversarial, 3) decided for an adversarial response, 4) made multiple chained searches, 5) chose a special blog post over reply or journal update, and so on.

If all that exists, how would you see it ? You can see the commits it makes to github and the blogs and that's it, but that doesn't mean all those things don't exist.

> almost all models are safety- and alignment- trained, so a deliberate malicious model choice or instruction or jailbreak is more believable.

> almost all models are trained to follow instructions closely, so a deliberate nudge towards adversarial responses and tool-use is more believable.

I think you're putting too much stock in 'safety alignment' and instruction following here. The more open ended your prompt is (and these sort of open claw experiments are often very open ended by design), the more your LLM will do things you did not intend for it to do.

Also do we know what model this uses ? Because Open Claw can use the latest Open Source models, and let me tell you those have considerably less safety tuning in general.

>newer models that qualify as agents are more robust and consistent, which strongly correlates with adversarial robustness; if this one was not adversarialy robust enough, it's by default also not robust in capabilities, so why do we see consistent coherent answers without hallucinations, but inconsistent in its safety training? Unless it's deliberately trained or prompted to be adversarial, or this is faked, the two should still be strongly correlated.

I don't really see how this logically follows. What does hallucinations have to do with safety training ?

>But say it deviated - why is this the only deviation? Why was this the special exception, then back to the regularly scheduled program?

Because it's not the only deviation ? It's not replying to every comment on its other PRs or blog posts either.

>You can test this comment with many LLMs, and if you don't prompt them to make an adversarial response, I'd be very surprised if you receive anything more than mild disagreement. Even Bing Chat wasn't this vindictive.

Oh yes it was. In the early days, Bing Chat would actively ignore your messages, be vitriolic or very combative if you were too rude. If it had the ability to write blog posts or free reign on tools ? I'd be surprised if it ended at this. Bing Chat would absolutely have been vindictive enough for what ultimately amounts to a hissy fit.
by yndoendo | 2026-02-12 22:06:28+00:00
Since you need to provide a phone number to sign up for Discord is the reason I never will.

There should be no reason for a phone number and nor do I want to waste my time trying to buy pass it with internet provided single use numbers.

Unless it is a service I must use, then I will provide a phone number. If it is a service I get to choose to use then I will never provide a number.