MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by esperent | 2026-02-05 00:44:00+00:00
> If the models don't get to the point where they can correct fixes on their own

Depending on what you're working on, they are already at that point. I'm not into any kind of AI maximalist "I don't read code" BS (I read a lot of code), but I've been building a fairly expensive web app to manage my business using Astro + React and I have yet to find any bug or usability issue that Claude Code can't fix much faster than I would have (+). I've been able to build out, in a month, a fully TDD app that would have conservatively taken me a year by myself.

(+) Except for making the UI beautiful. It's crap at that.

The key that made it click is exactly what the person describes here: using specs that describe the key architecture and use cases of each section. So I have docs/specs with files like layout.md (overall site shell info), ui-components.md, auth.md, database.md, data.md, and lots more for each section of functionality in the app. If I'm doing work that touches ui, I reference layout and ui-components so that the agent doesn't invent a custom button component. If I'm doing database work, reference database.md so that it knows we're using drizzle + libsql, etc.

This extends up to higher level components where the spec also briefly explains the actual goal.

Then each feature building session follows a pattern: brainstorm and create design doc + initial spec (updates or new files) -> write a technical plan clearly following TDD, designed for batches of parallel subagents to work on -> have Claude implement the technical plan -> manual testing (often, I'll identify problems and request changes here) -> automated testing (much stricter linting, knip etc. than I would use for myself) -> finally, update the spec docs again based on the actual work that was done.

My role is less about writing code and more about providing strict guardrails. The spec docs are an important part of that.
by johnfn | 2026-02-05 00:44:08+00:00
I think if OP had said "I miss getting paid for (a particular type of) thinking hard" I would find it to be a lot more agreeable. But he's just saying he misses it in general. I think that's what I (and, from OP's summary, many other people) find confusing. Can't you still do it? AI is not physically preventing you from thinking hard.
Show HN: Moonlit – Slowed and nightcore web player for YouTube and TikTok
by wastu | 2026-02-05 00:44:46+00:00
I built this because I like listening to slowed music but searching for pre-made versions is a pain.

Moonlit grabs tracks from YouTube or TikTok using yt-dlp on the backend, then lets you adjust pitch, reverb, and playback speed in real-time in your browser with the Web Audio API and/or signalsmith-stretch.

Replace youtube.com or tiktok.com with moonlit.wastu.net in the URL. There's a userscript too if you want a button on those sites.

Features: pitch lock & shifting, reverb, lyrics support, WAV export, self-hostable with Docker.

Demo: https://moonlit.wastu.net

Code: https://github.com/bgwastu/moonlit
by maxglute | 2026-02-05 00:45:26+00:00
1. No one sane trusts EU after RU sanctions either.

2. Euro share of SWIFT shrunk from ~40% to ~20% post URK war. Part of this technical (t2 reforms), i.e. actual reduction not as dramatic, but Euro as toxic as USD with even less leverage.

Meanwhile PRC went from single digit % cross border settlements 10 years ago to 50%+, plenty of the world trust PRC with their money, not just money but PRC alternative to SWIFT financial plumbing, CIPS. Meanwhile PRC also recycling it's surplus USD to lending... i.e. they're financing more than imf/worldbank/paris club right now. Another indicator that countries "trusts" PRC to manage monetary system, or rather they balancing from losing trust of west.

TBH trust is western mindless muh reserve orthodoxy nonesense. Ultimately PRC has much stronger reserve posture for the same reason US did... for 80+ years countries needed USD for US techstack and then petrodollar, aka modernity was locked behind USD, all the other muh reserve "needs" is downstream of that. Need > trust.

Ironically where trust actually comes in is whether PRC TRUSTS others. Qiushi suggests PRC stable reserve functions something like panda bond lending, where PRC lends liquidity to trusted VIP (real economy) players. Everyone else can keep gambling with USD reserve with high likelihood of debasement. It looks like PRC doesn't want be THE reserve, they want to be VIP reserve while THE (USD) reserve burns.
by torginus | 2026-02-05 00:45:34+00:00
I'm clueless about this whole thing, but from my EE education I remember that in general:

Taylor approximations converge slowly in terms of error if the function they're representing is discontinuous (the error disappears quadratically if continuous, linearly if not), and they tend to create highly energetic swings near discontinuties (similarly to Fourier series with Gibbs oscillations).

Moreover, Taylor series are inherently nonlinear, and much of the mathematical toolset around AI assumes general linearity (cue linear algebra), with the exception of sigmoids , and going beyond cubic approximations tends to make errors worse (as expressed in SNR).
by tln | 2026-02-05 00:45:55+00:00
I like how Drizzle provides several options for the migrations.

1. DB is source of truth, generate TS from DB
2. TS to DB direct sync, no migration files
3. TS source, Drizzle generates and applies SQL
4. TS source, Drizzle generates SQL, runtime application
5. TS source, Drizzle generates SQL, manual application
6. TS source, Drizzle outputs SQL, Atlas application
by tzs | 2026-02-05 00:46:15+00:00
Well then, it's good you didn't say that then, considering that ivermectin has been on the WHO list of essential medicines since 1987 and its discoverers were awarded the 2015 Nobel Price in Physiology or Medicine for it.

Saying that something might be "finally something" that ivermectin can help with would have been embarrassing.

It would have been especially embarrassing because the link you gave gives two things ivermectin helps with. After concluding that ivermectin did not affect the guinea worms it says:

> No adverse reaction to treatment was seen. It appears that ivermectin can be used safely as mass chemotherapy against onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis in areas where guinea-worm is also endemic.

They are saying that if a patient has onchocerciasis or lymphatic filariasis it is safe to use go ahead and use ivermectin (which is the normal treatment for those) to treat those, even if the patient has guinea worms.

So good thing you didn't say it!
by ggm | 2026-02-05 00:46:34+00:00
I don't understand how foveated tracking won't cause a sense that peripheral vision is fuzzy. Or how it will track saccades, and so avoid fringe effects.

But, the "I don't understand" is strong in this. it doesn't mean "it can't work" but I don't understand how it avoids the problems.

Maybe the size of the computed foveal coverage area is made big enough, to cover the movement? But if you move your eyes suddenly, there's got to be some lag while it computes the missing pixels. So you'd see the same as when Netflix ups the coding rate: crude render becomes clearer. Banded would become smooth transitions.
by stephenr | 2026-02-05 00:46:56+00:00
Trusting spicy autocomplete to fact check something is already a bonkers concept.

Trusting a spicy autocomplete created with the explicit purpose of promoting the views of a white nationalist man child who thinks he's Tony Stark in real life, is batshit crazy.

You might as well trust a magic 8 ball to tell if something is true.
by ChuckMcM | 2026-02-05 00:47:24+00:00
What tomuchtodo said. When I left Sun in 1995 I had 8,000 shares, which in 1998 would have paid off my house, and when I sold them when Oracle bought Sun after a reverse 3:1 split, the total would not even buy a new car. Can be a painful lesson, certainly it leaves an impression.
by zozbot234 | 2026-02-05 00:47:35+00:00
GPU lifecycle is 1-3 years because GPUs are becoming obsolete for cutting-edge work (especially re: power use) in that timeframe. This is good news if you'd like to see expanded use of AI. Production walls at fabs will matter little since future silicon dies will be capable of far more per unit area than current ones, so there will be plenty of incentive to upgrade.
by verdverm | 2026-02-05 00:48:10+00:00
> By giving access to a clone of the infrastructure, agents can explore, run commands, test things before writing the IaC, giving them better context and a place to test ideas and changes before deploying.

And you thought the costs for burning tokens was high... let's amp it up by spinning up a bunch of cloud infra and let the agents fumble about.

DevOps is my gig, I use agents extensively, I would never do this. This is so wasteful
by datsci_est_2015 | 2026-02-05 00:49:27+00:00
Once there’s a fascist regime with ambitions of world domination that documents their horrors more thoroughly (and has their enemies document their horrors more thoroughly) than the Nazis then we can start referencing that regime instead.

Conveniently, at least in the US, WW2 is old enough to be “history” rather than “politics”, compared to Korea and Vietnam. Or, at least that’s the excuse I was given in AP US History when the curriculum suddenly ended at 1950. So WW2 will continue to be the most well-documented topic that we’re all educated enough about to collectively reference.

Trust me, I’d much rather speak plainly about the horrors of the atrocities that the US committed in the 20th century American but we’re not there yet because the people who grew up in the nation while it committed those atrocities still run the government and basically the nation in general.
by cptroot | 2026-02-05 00:50:14+00:00
I don't think this is an accurate characterization of the error magnitude? Their error plots (from appendix 3) are all showing `log_10(|Y - \dot{Y}|)` as having a median of ~-3 (difference of 0.001) and a max of ~1.5 (difference of 0.035), and this is with only 3 Taylor terms.
by nemomarx | 2026-02-05 00:50:24+00:00
I guess the same way a virus is a disease, in that a small living thing gets inside you and harms you / causes immune system reactions?

I think technically you get a parasite and then it causes a disease in reaction, but if it's a parasite you can spread it's basically fine to model it / talk about eradicating it in the same way right?
by TacticalCoder | 2026-02-05 00:51:01+00:00
As to me reading that Bill Gates' wife left him because he caught STD from eastern women on Epstein's island [1] makes me glad I never jumped on the Billy Boy cheerleading squad.

Apparently the founder of Microsoft caught viruses as easily as Windows.

[1] it's not exactly how she framed it but we can connect the dots: email leaks shows he got STD from easter women he met through Epstein, Billy Boy probably lied to her wife at first, then she got STD too, went to the doctor, learn she had a STD and now says: "His relation with Epstein is why we got divorced". That's not far-fetched and has to be close to what happened. Until she literally means Billy Boy and Jeffrey were gay but I doubt it.
by mag123c | 2026-02-05 00:51:07+00:00
Good question! Honestly, the README is a bit misleading - ratatui is just for the terminal UI, not performance. Let me clarify

The actual speed comes from

1.simd-json: This is the big one. It uses CPU SIMD instructions to parse multiple JSON bytes in parallel at the hardware level. We're talking ~3 GiB/s vs ~300 MB/s with standard parsers.

2.rayon: Dead simple parallel processing. Instead of parsing 2,000 files one by one, it spreads them across all CPU cores.

3.Rust itself: No GC means no random pauses when you're crunching through gigabytes of data. The original Node.js version would just... freeze sometimes.

The 40s → 0.04s improvement basically "what if we actually used the hardware properly?" SIMD for parsing, all cores for parallelism, no GC getting in the way.
(I should probably fix that README line - thanks for pointing it out!)
by akst | 2026-02-05 00:51:21+00:00
I take it because copyright was used to hurt independent and smaller harmless creators, they’re dislike of AI is entirely consistent with that given smaller creatives are being harmed in a sense with their work mimicked and work deprived of them.

Personally I think creatives have an edge as I personally don’t think AI is great at exercising discretion in creativity or design. Which you can see in coding agents their discretion in design is often arbitrary and poor. So I think at least for now that’s still where humans tend to out perform AI
by dragonwriter | 2026-02-05 00:51:22+00:00
> But I am having trouble justifying in an consistent manner why Grok / X should be liable here instead of the user.

This seems to rest on false assumptions that: (1) legal liability is exclusive, and (2) investigation of X is not important both to X’s liability and to pursuing the users, to the extent that they would also be subject to liability.

X/xAI may be liable for any or all of the following reasons:

* xAI generated virtual child pornography with the likenesses of actual children, which is generally illegal, even if that service was procured by a third party.

* X and xAI distributed virtual child pornography with the likenesses of actual children, which is generally illegal, irrespective of who generated and supplied them.

* To the extent that liability for either of the first two bullet points would be eliminated or mitigated by absence of knowledge at the time of the prohibited content and prompt action when the actor became aware, X often punished users for the prompts proucing the virtual child pornography without taking prompt action to remove the xAI-generated virtual child pornography resulting from the prompt, demonstrating knowledge and intent.

* When the epidemic of grok-generated nonconsensual, including child, pornography drew attention, X and xAI responded by attempting to monetize the capacity by limiting the tool to only paid X subscribers, showing an attempt to commercially profit from it, which is, again, generally illegal.
by cal_dent | 2026-02-05 00:51:25+00:00
The thing about a lot of this is the implicit admittance that true power always lies with national government. It feels like many governments have forgotten that but (i suspect partly as a result of Covid, partly Trump's antics) some are slowly starting to remember that.

For all tech's influence, when push comes to shove they all line up to brown nose whoever is in power when they wield the power of the nation state
by popalchemist | 2026-02-05 00:51:35+00:00
The for-profit part may or may not be a qualifier, but the architecture of a centralized service means they automatically become the scene of the crime -- either dissemination or storing of illegal material. Whereas if Stability creates a model, and others use their model locally, the relationship of Stability to the crime is ad-hoc. They aren't an accessory.
by gpm | 2026-02-05 00:51:40+00:00
The MP representing the NDP in this matter is also the MP who represents Canada's northernmost territory (Nunavut). They are clear on who the adversary is, like almost all Canadians are, it is the US. No one else is threatening our territory, whether it's threatening Canada all at once, refusing to officially recognize our arctic territory (even while asking for permission to go through it), threatening to attempt to encircle us by taking arctic territory from an ally that we (and the US, oddly) are bound by treaty to defend, or just pretending our prime minister is a governor of a piece of the states.

Russia is an afterthought at best. They don't border us particularly directly in the arctic (compared to the US anyways). They don't have a modern navy that poses us an actual threat. Even the strongest part of their army - their land army - isn't able to successfully invade a neighbouring country at this point. We don't even have a land border with them.
by keeda | 2026-02-05 00:51:43+00:00
Important snippet that has bearing on the adoption of AI as a whole:

> “Disorganized data silos” have been an issue for Copilot, analysts wrote.

This is true in almost every large organization, and will affect every enterprise AI product out there. There was a relevant subthread just a couple of days ago recounting this exact, same dynamic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46861209

In fact, Palantir's secret sauce may not be their tech, but their "Forward Deployed Engineers" model (i.e. a rebranding of "partner engineers embedded within their customers' organizations"). Because it turns out that's a lot of what they do is navigating these bureaucratic and political hurdles to unlock access to the data: https://nabeelqu.co/reflections-on-palantir

It gets even worse if you consider this data is going to be extremely messy, with multiple bespoke, partially-duplicate / overlapping, potentially conflicting versions of the data with varying levels of out-of-datedness, scattered across these silos. (I would know, in a past life, I worked on a months-long project called, self-explanatorily enough, "Stale Docs".)

Yeah, untangling these bureaucratic webs and data horrors is not a quarter-long or year-long project, so investors are gonna be waiting a long time for the impact of AI to be visible. On the bright side, as TFA also hints at, AI providers themselves have been severely capacity-constrained. So hopefully by the time these issues get sorted out enough new capacity would be coming online to actually serve that traffic.

In the meantime, I expect a prolonged period of AI companies feverishly splurging on AI CapEx spend even as Wall Street punishes them repeatedly for the lack of impact of AI being reflected anywhere.
by alexhans | 2026-02-05 00:52:11+00:00
You're right. Control is the big one and both privacy and cost are only possible because you have control. It's a similar benefit to the one of Linux distros or open source software.

The rest of your points are why I mentioned AI evals and regressions. I share your sentiment. I've pitched it in the past as "We can’t compare what we can’t measure" and "Can I trust this to run on its own?" and how automation requires intent and understanding your risk profile. None of this is new for anyone who has designed software with sufficient impact in the past, of course.

Since you're interested in combating non-determinism, I wonder if you've reached the same conclusion of reducing the spaces where it can occur and compound making the "LLM" parts as minimal as possible between solid deterministic and well-tested building blocks (e.g. https://alexhans.github.io/posts/series/evals/error-compound... ).
by eek2121 | 2026-02-05 00:52:12+00:00
Arcade machines were so weird (and amazing). Example: A TON of effort was put into copy protection, for example. There are still a few games that haven't completely been broken into, despite being 30-40 years old.

The systems from the 80s-90s were also very odd/exotic. Some systems (like certain variants of Street Fighter II) had interesting bugs that needed to be worked around.
by panick21_ | 2026-02-05 00:52:52+00:00
That not totally true. Yes, HS2 spend additional billions on tunneling. But even without that you don't magically solve all the issues and in some places where they do tunneling its actually not completely stupid. Tunneling accounts for a few billions, not many 10s of billions.

And you don't get magically rid of all issues with people complaining, because guess what, other people live on that other imaginary route that lives in your head, and they would demand tunnels too.

And its really the politicians fault, a few people who don't like the look of the train should not have the power to stop it, specially not in a place as centralized as England.
by zipy124 | 2026-02-05 00:52:54+00:00
Yeh but in a company of 100 employees for software of 30k a year, it's more than worth it to take your standard 50k (GBP) dev and have them replaced it. It's a one time cost, and the support time will certainly be less than 50% of their time every year so it saves money.

There are many companies that operate like this all over the world. Outside of the hyper-growth tech VC world cutting costs is a very real target and given how cheap Devs are outside of America it's almost always worth it.
by SilenN | 2026-02-05 00:53:46+00:00
Thanks! I do have a section on this in the article "Why genetic algorithms aren't state of the art"

"Physics simulation involves discontinuities (contacts, friction regimes), long rollouts, and chaotic dynamics where small parameter changes lead to large outcome differences. Even with simulator internals, differentiating through thousands of unstable timesteps would yield noisy, high-variance gradients. Evolution is simpler and more robust for this regime."
"The real tradeoff is sample-efficient but complex (RL) vs compute hungry but simple (GA). DQN extracts learning signal from every timestep and assigns credit to individual actions."

DQN likely would have handled this much better.
by enceladus06 | 2026-02-05 00:54:13+00:00
Exactly, but it's less effort to steal a gun or have someone else purchase a gun for you then to 3d print a gun.

But even then it's not that difficult, it's entirely possible and legal in many states to print a polymer lower for a AR15 or Glock 17. Then go buy a parts kit from PSA $450 and have fun zero background check or sales tax required as the smaller gun parts stores do not have multistate business nexuses.

It is also not difficult to 3dprint a glock switch, even though they illegal per the NFA https://3dgo.app/models/makerworld/2035005.

This is 100% virtue-signaling from politicians.
by popalchemist | 2026-02-05 00:54:35+00:00
I don't think people are concerned about the models' math being biased/tainted (people know of it but that largely doesn't factor into the "security concerns" that people cite.) Typically, it's about how do we know that our data is not going to be seen by a 3rd party. That's what I'm speaking to. Running on your own infra, you can guarantee there are no phone-homes.
by justin66 | 2026-02-05 00:54:50+00:00
To add a little clarity, here's a link to (perhaps ironically) the Post's own reporting on the event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washin...

https://archive.is/2rJgD

The key thing is, the endorsement was already written and Bezos intervened to prevent its publication. This was sort of a double-whammy: not just the paper engaging in an act of cowardice, but Bezos finally performing the sort of editorial interference everyone was worried he'd perform when he bought the paper.
by sunsunsunsun | 2026-02-05 00:54:55+00:00
Considering the usage of LLMs by many people as a sort of friend or psychologist we also get to look forward to a new form a control over people. These things earn peoples "trust" and there is no reason why it couldn't be used to sway peoples opinions. Not to mention the devious and subtle ways it can advertise to people.

Also, these productivity gains arent used to reduce working time for the same number of people, but instead to reduce the number of people needed to do the same amount of work. Working people get to see the productivity benefits via worsening material conditions.
by keyle | 2026-02-05 00:55:29+00:00
I like their models. They're powerful. But...

Who do they think believe the whole "don't be evil" in 2026?

We know what's around the corner. Enshitification, loss of trust, frog boiling, account restrictions and upsell, advertising, degradation of service, data sold for advertising and worse.

Y'ain't kidding anyone with this stuff. You're only providing screenshots for future memes.