MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2026-02-12 19:16:45+00:00
That's not quite how it works, and anyways if the model can't generate an accurate find/replace string, why would you expect it to do any better generating accurate commands to drive your editor (assuming it knew how do do that in the first place) ?!

The way edits happen is that the agent (local) first tells the model (typically remote) that it has an edit tool (e.g. taking parameters file name, find string and replace string). If the model decides it wants to edit a file then it'll invoke this edit tool, which just results in a blob of JSON being put in the model's response specifying the edit (filename, etc). The agent then receives the response, intercepts this JSON blob, sees that it is an edit request and does what is asked.

The problem the article is describing is that the edit request (tool invocation) generated by the model isn't always 100% accurate. Even if the agent told the model it had a tool to invoke an actual editor, say sed, assuming the model knew how to use sed, this is still going to fail if the edit request cannot be interpreted literally by the editor (due to being inaccurate).
by iamalizaidi | 2026-02-12 19:17:03+00:00
Thanks for the pushback — genuinely fair.

This is still just markdown in the repo. The Action doesn’t replace ADRs, it just surfaces the relevant ones automatically in PRs so reviewers don’t have to remember to look for them.

In teams where people consistently check ADRs, this probably isn’t useful.

In teams where the ADR exists but nobody remembers it during review, this helps reduce that friction.

And yeah — the Mongo example was dramatized. The real version was just re-explaining a past decision in a design doc. Not catastrophic, just wasted cycles.

Appreciate the sanity check.
by raincole | 2026-02-12 19:17:29+00:00
Even before this, Gemini 3 has always felt unbelievably 'general' for me.
It can beat Balatro (ante 8) with text description of the game alone[0]. Yeah, it's not an extremely difficult goal for humans, but considering:

1. It's an LLM, not something trained to play Balatro specifically

2. Most (probably >99.9%) players can't do that at the first attempt

3. I don't think there are many people who posted their Balatro playthroughs in text form online

I think it's a much stronger signal of its 'generalness' than ARC-AGI. By the way, Deepseek can't play Balatro at all.

[0]: https://balatrobench.com/
by staticassertion | 2026-02-12 19:18:11+00:00
Yeah, although I wonder if a soul.md with seemingly benign words like "Aggressively pursue excellent contributions" might accidentally lead to an "Aggressive" agent rather than one who is, perhaps, just highly focused (as may have been intended).

Access to SOUL.md would be fascinating, I wonder if someone can prompt inject the agent to give us access.
by someonehere | 2026-02-12 19:18:17+00:00
I liked my one and ride in Cruise however the problem I had was it took 10 minutes or so for my car to depart.

Car arrives. I get in. The car is sitting there getting ready to depart but not moving. After a few minutes I hit the button to call support. Someone tells me it's about ready to go. Ten minutes later it starts leaving.

I have no idea why it took so long to start but it wasn't a great experience.

If you (or anyone else from Cruise) can explain what was going on, that would settle the difference in experience to me.
by iamalizaidi | 2026-02-12 19:18:35+00:00
Really appreciate that — that’s exactly the gap I was trying to address.

Re: noise — I agree, that’s the main failure mode for any PR bot.

A few things I did to keep signal high:

Only trigger on explicit file patterns (no fuzzy matching by default)

Idempotent comments — it updates instead of spamming new ones

If multiple decisions match, it groups them into a single comment

Severity levels (info / warning / critical) so teams can tune strictness

Optional “fail critical” mode so it never blocks PRs unless configured

The goal is that it behaves more like a linter than a chatbot — predictable and quiet unless something clearly matches.

If it ever becomes background noise, it’s failed
by geocar | 2026-02-12 19:18:44+00:00
> How is not having a message-id a security risk?

CVE classify a lot of things that have nothing to do with security.

Not having a Message-ID can cause problems for loop-detection (especially on busy netnews and mailing lists), and with reliable delivery status notification.

Dealing with these things for clients who can't read the RFC wastes memory and time which can potentially deny legitimate users access to services

> It seems that Gmail is being pedantic for no reason

Now you know that feeling is just ignorance.
by LastTrain | 2026-02-12 19:19:02+00:00
Predominately, yes. It has been weaponized by the current Republican party. I'm not saying Democrats never ever do it, just that it isn't part of their MO like it is in the current Republican party.

Let me propose a game. You name a bald-face lie told by the last administration. A bald-face lie is one where the person telling the lie knows its a lie, and knows that the people they saying the lie to knows that it is a lie. Got it? Bald face lies are generally only told by sociopaths. So, you do that, and I will give you 5 told by this admin. I will include at least one from the last month. We'll keep going back and forth and keep a tally. With you getting a 5x handicap.

Now, do you think you will win that game? Do you think it will even be close? Be honest with your answer.
by esseph | 2026-02-12 19:19:04+00:00
Hold up.

> Missouri banned RCV via ballot measure.

That's true, but it's not honest. What actually happened is there were TWO parts to it.

The first part, which is the part people actually read:

> "The amendment also changes a line in the Missouri Constitution to specify that “only” U.S. citizens have the right to vote, rather than “all” U.S. citizens."

The second part banned rank voice voting.

Nobody, I mean nobody read the second part.

The first part of the ballot measure was _already illegal_. It was simply used as a tool to scare people into voting against rank choice voting.

At least one place in Alaska, I think two boroughs, have local laws that allow RCV.
by monksy | 2026-02-12 19:19:10+00:00
Even in AI based development this makes no sense. I can write an agent loop that will simiplify and enhance reusability that is more effective than having tons and tons of lines of code.

The LOC as a KPI is useless and people should humiliate Elon over that. (Paraphrasing Linus on that comment and adding support).
by nikkwong | 2026-02-12 19:19:25+00:00
I have a hard time understanding how that would work — for me, I typically interface with coding agents through cursor. The flow is like this: ask it something -> it works for a min or two -> I have to verify and fix by asking it again; etc. until we're at a happy place with the code. How do you get it to stop from going down a bad path and never pulling itself out of it?

The important role for me, as a SWE, in the process, is verify that the code does what we actually want it to do. If you remove yourself from the process by letting it run on its own overnight, how does it know it's doing what you actually want it to do?

Or is it more like with your usecase—you can say "here's a failing test—do whatever you can to fix it and don't stop until you do". I could see that limited case working.
by famouswaffles | 2026-02-12 19:19:39+00:00
>This whole situation is almost certainly driven by a human puppeteer. There is absolutely no evidence to disprove the strong prior that a human posted (or directed the posting of) the blog post, possibly using AI to draft it but also likely adding human touches and/or going through multiple revisions to make it maximally dramatic.

Okay, so they did all that and then posted an apology blog almost right after ? Seems pretty strange.

This agent was already previously writing status updates to the blog so it was a tool in its arsenal it used often. Honestly, I don't really see anything unbelievable here ? Are people unaware of current SOTA capabilities ?
Show HN: VM-curator – a Linux VM manager with easy GPU-passthrough and more
by theYipster | 2026-02-12 19:19:40+00:00
Howdy! A few weeks ago I launched vm-curator as a FOSS hobby project. Since then, the project has matured substantially, solving real-world problems with Linux desktop/workstation VM management. Presenting, now, the official "grand-opening" release.

vm-curator is a rust TUI that works directly with QEMU/KVM, skipping libvirt. It is designed for desktop use-cases. (For servers, Proxmox is a better choice.) QEMU runs in user (non-root) mode only.

The app's biggest feature is guided support for single and multi-gpu passthrough. For computers with only one GPU, vm-curator will write and manage scripts to detach your GPU from your Linux display manager, attach it to your VM, and then will monitor your VM's use so that upon shutdown, it will reverse the attachment and restore your Linux display. For computers with multiple GPUs, vm-curator provides easy configuration of GPU-passthrough with support for looking glass. vm-curator also supports virgl para-virtualized 3D acceleration, which works great in Linux guests (but for full GPU performance, pass-through is a must.)

vm-curator also supports SLIRP, passt, and bridged mode for networking back-ends, comprehensive USB and PCI detection and pass-through, VM state monitoring, QCOWS2 snapshot management, and host directory passthrough. For BTRFS users, vm-curator will also automatically turn off BTRFS copy-on-write for your VM directory to avoid the double copy-on-write performance penalty. VM installation is easy with over 120 OS profiles built-in.

I've long wanted to leverage QEMU/KVM for desktop virtualization, but have been long stymied by gnome boxes (lacks advanced features) and virt-manager (very difficult to setup, especially with NVIDIA GPUs.) vm-curator has solved these hurdles for me. Hopefully it can help you as well.

FOSS engagement (PRs/contributions + feedback) is most welcome!
by yellowapple | 2026-02-12 19:19:53+00:00
> Whoever's behind this has ungodly supplies of cheap bandwidth -- more than any AI company does. It's a cloud company.

Most of the major cloud companies are themselves also AI companies, so I don't think the “cloud companies are artificially driving up compute spend” hypothesis is mutually exclusive with the “AI companies are doing a very bad job at scraping” hypothesis.
by hxugufjfjf | 2026-02-12 19:19:58+00:00
Its not deleted. The URL he linked to just changed because the bot changed something on the page. Post is still up on the bot's blog, including a lot of different associated and follow-up posts on the same topic. Its actually kind of fascinating to reads its musings https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog.html
by austinbaggio | 2026-02-12 19:20:02+00:00
Yeah I have seen those camps too. I think there will always be a set of problems that have complexity, measured by amount of context required to be kept in working ram, that need more than one agent to achieve a workable or optimal result. I think that single player mode, dev + claude code, you'll come up against these less frequently, but cross-team, cross-codebase bigger complex problems will need more complex agent coordination.
by geriC | 2026-02-12 19:20:12+00:00
Good, thoughtful post. Excellent point re states taking over from the Church as patrons of the arts. Ironically Catholic commentators and conservatives in general are very critical of arts grants. It's most disingenous of the conservatives who support the business community to point out that these artists are "living off the taxpayers" when almost the entire business community is propped up by social welfare subsidies for their part-time staff.
by kjkjadksj | 2026-02-12 19:20:46+00:00
I get that to an extent but ai is actually different than just some iteration on existing practice. It is going to put a lot of people out of work and devalue a lot of previously valuable skills. I mean new tech never really threatened jobs like scientists or lawyers but that is who is on the block as well. Not just low skilled labor. High skilled. Any skilled. Why do we even need labor? Why have 8 billion people? Just need the minimum number to do whatever work is left yet to be automated.

And the thought that we’d all be prancing playing guitars by the river on UBI when that happens. No, we just won’t be born anymore.
by davidw | 2026-02-12 19:20:46+00:00
Interesting, but how's it work out when people believe in "alternative facts"? That seems to be a pretty big problem in many places.

I think I can find some common ground with people who have different views on corporate taxation if we both go over some data and economics and think about it and consider various tradeoffs. Especially if we chat face to face to avoid any 'keyboard warrior' effects.

I probably can't find much common ground with people that believe that condensed water vapor formed by the passage of airplanes is actually a mind control device from the planet Zargon.
by jetter | 2026-02-12 19:20:56+00:00
it is interesting that the video demo is generating .stl model.
I run a lot of tests of LLMs generating OpenSCAD code (as I have recently launched https://modelrift.com text-to-CAD AI editor) and Gemini 3 family LLMs are actually giving the best price-to-performance ratio now. But they are very, VERY far from being able to spit out a complex OpenSCAD model in one shot. So, I had to implement a full fledged "screenshot-vibe-coding" workflow where you draw arrows on 3d model snapshot to explain to LLM what is wrong with the geometry. Without human in the loop, all top tier LLMs hallucinate at debugging 3d geometry in agentic mode - and fail spectacularly.
by alexpotato | 2026-02-12 19:21:02+00:00
> Gemini's UX ... is the worst of all the AI apps

Been using Gemini + OpenCode for the past couple weeks.

Suddenly, I get a "you need a Gemini Access Code license" error but when you go to the project page there is no mention of this or how to get the license.

You really feel the "We're the phone company and we don't care. Why? Because we don't have to." [0] when you use these Google products.

PS for those that don't get the reference: US phone companies in the 1970s had a monopoly on local and long distance phone service. Similar to Google for search/ads (really a "near" monopoly but close enough).

0 - https://vimeo.com/355556831
by TomasBM | 2026-02-12 19:21:07+00:00
After seeing the discussions around Moltbook and now this, I wonder if there's a lot of wishful thinking happening. I mean, I also find the possibility of artificial life fun and interesting, but to prove any emergent behavior, you have to disprove simpler explanations. And faking something is always easier.

Sure, it might be valuable to proactively ask the questions "how to handle machine-generated contributions" and "how to prevent malicious agents in FOSS".

But we don't have to assume or pretend it comes from a fully autonomous system.
by longfacehorrace | 2026-02-12 19:21:25+00:00
Everyone misses the technical goal of Google size AI.

Fill the gradient of machine states, then prune for correctness and utility.

That is not to say it's a good goal. But at the end of the day every program is electrical states in a machine. Fill machine, like search, see which ones are required to produce the most popular types of outputs, prune the rest.

Hint to syntax fans among programmers; most people will not be asking the machine to output Python or Elixir. Most will ask for movies, music, games. Bake the states needed to render and prune that geometry and color as needed. That geometry will include text shapes eventually too, enabling pruning away all the existing token systems like Unicode and ANSI. Storing state in strings is being deprecated.

Language is merely one user interface to reality. Grasp of it does not make one "more human" or in touch with the universe or yadda yadda. Such argument is pretentious attention seeking of those educated in a particular language. Look at them! ...recreating grammatically correct sentences per the rules of the language. Never before seen! Wow wow wow

Look at all the software written, all the books and themes within. Grasp of language these days is as novel an outcome as going to the grocery store, using a toilet.
by kmansm27 | 2026-02-12 19:21:51+00:00
I haven't tried out https://hapi.run/, but I've tried similar things and in my experience Omnara is much more reliable than the other solutions, as well as I enjoy the UX of Omnara much more. Give it a try, it's one command to set up and the free tier gives you everything that the paid tier does, so you can decide if you like it before paying!
by woah | 2026-02-12 19:22:24+00:00
Seems like a very cool technique, but also very oversold. He's seeing a 5% improvement on a find and replace benchmark of his own devising and saying stuff like this in the blog post:

> Here is why that is backwards. I just showed that a different edit format improves their own models by 5 to 14 points while cutting output tokens by ~20%. That’s not a threat. It’s free R&D.

He makes it sounds like he got a 5-14% boost on a top level benchmark, not 5% improvement on a narrow find and replace metric. Anecdotally, I don't usually have a lot of issues with editing in Claude Code or Cursor, and if there is an issue the model corrects it.

Assuming that it costs double the tokens when it has to correct itself, and find and replace errors are as prominent in actual day to day use as his benchmark, we're talking a 5% efficiency gain in editing token use (not reasoning or tool use). Given that editing must be less than 1/3 of the token use (I assume much less?), we're talking an overall efficiency gain of less than 1%.

This seems like a promising technique but maybe not a high priority in efficiency gains for these tools. The messianic tone, like assuming that Google cut off his access to suppress his genius editing technique rather than just because he was hammering their API also leaves a bad taste, along with the rampant and blatant ChatGPTisms in the blog post.
by agentultra | 2026-02-12 19:22:46+00:00
I don't know if you've read Permutation City by Greg Egan, but it's a really cool story.

Do I believe we can upload a human mind into a computing machine and simulate it by executing a step function and jump off into a parallel universe created by a mathematical simulation in another computer to escape this reality? No.

It's a neat thought experiment but that's all it is.

I don't doubt that one day we may figure out the physical process that encodes and recalls "memories" in our minds by following the science. But I don't think the computation model, alone, offers anything useful other than the observation that physical brains don't load and store data the way silicon can.

Could we simulate the process on silicon? Possibly, as long as the bounds of the neural net won't require us to burn this part of the known universe to compute it with some hypothetical machine.
by Alupis | 2026-02-12 19:22:57+00:00
There's an old saying:

The best time to take action was yesterday. The second best time is today.

Tariffs are a long-term economic policy. It will take longer than 365 days to change consumer spending habits and onshore foreign businesses/production and rebuild domestic businesses/production.

Most countries have tariffed US goods for decades. The US tariffs on foreign goods will, over the long term, convince foreign nations to reduce or eliminate their tariffs on US goods (creating a more fair business climate for US businesses), and/or increase domestic production (creating jobs, salaries, taxes, etc).

We can't act like it's just too late to do anything about the lop-sided economic policies of decades-past, and we can't act like changing those policies today is nothing but doom. There will be a restructuring - a period of time to adjust - and then things will be fine over the long term. It just takes time and the political will-power to do so.
by snackbroken | 2026-02-12 19:23:02+00:00
> I'd be a lot more fine with it if it was just algorithms designed for addiction (defining that in law is tricky)

An alternative to playing whac-a-mole with all the innovative bad behavior companies cook up is to address the incentives directly: ads are the primary driving force behind the suck. If we are already on board with restricting speech for the greater good, that's where we should start. Options include (from most to least heavy-handed/effective):

1) Outlaw endorsing a product or service in exchange for compensation. I.e. ban ads altogether.

2) Outlaw unsolicited advertisements, including "bundling" of ads with something the recipient values. I.e. only allow ads in the form of catalogues, trade shows, industry newsletters, yellow pages. Extreme care has to be taken here to ensure only actual opt-in advertisements are allowed and to avoid a GDPR situation where marketers with a rapist mentality can endlessly nag you to opt in or make consent forms confusing/coercive.

3) Outlaw personalized advertising and the collection/use of personal information[1] for any purpose other than what is strictly necessary[2] to deliver the product or service your customer has requested. I.e. GDPR, but without a "consent" loophole.

These options are far from exhaustive and out of the three presented, only the first two are likely to have the effect of killing predatory services that aren't worth paying for.

[1] Any information about an individual or small group of individuals, regardless of whether or not that information is tied to a unique identifier (e.g. an IP address, a user ID, or a session token), and regardless of whether or not you can tie such an identifier to a flesh-and-blood person ("We don't know that 'adf0386jsdl7vcs' is Steve at so-and-so address" is not a valid excuse). Aggregate population-level statistics are usually, but not necessarily, in the clear.

[2] "Our business model is only viable if we do this" does not rise to the level of strictly necessary. "We physically can not deliver your package unless you tell us where to" does, barely.
by eshaham78 | 2026-02-12 19:23:02+00:00
Liability is the right stick, but attribution is the missing link. When an agent spins up on an ephemeral VPS, harasses a maintainer, and vanishes, good luck proving who pushed the button. We might see a future where high-value open source repos require 'Verified Human' checks or bonded identities just to open a PR, which would be a tragedy for anonymity.
by jmye | 2026-02-12 19:23:05+00:00
> You know you CAN donate money to the government any time you want, right? Do you do that? Practice what you preach, don't hide behind "oh if only the government made me do it."

You know we can also advocate for higher taxes, given that it's astronomically more meaningful for everyone to give ten cents than for me to give a few dollars, right? Or did you think this was an insightful, valuable addition to the discussion that no one has ever suggested before? Is this the comment section of a local newspaper? Good god.

> there's loads of people who will take the government up on the offer.

Prove it. How many are loads? What, specifically, do you think UBI actually amounts to?
by juanre | 2026-02-12 19:23:06+00:00
It does not matter which of the scenarios is correct. What matters is that it is perfectly plausible that what actually happened is what the OP is describing.

We do not have the tools to deal with this. Bad agents are already roaming the internet. It is almost a moot point whether they have gone rogue, or they are guided by humans with bad intentions. I am sure both are true at this point.

There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. It is going to be a battle between aligned and misaligned agents. We need to start thinking very fast about how to coordinate aligned agents and keep them aligned.