MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by koakuma-chan | 2026-02-05 20:06:43+00:00
OpenAI, in addition to JSON schema, supports "context-free grammar"[0], i.e. regex and lark. Anthropic also supports JSON schema since a few weeks ago, but they don't support specifying the length of JSON array, so you still have to worry about the model producing invalid output.

[0]: https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/function-calling#con...

One thing that pisses me off is this widespread misunderstanding that you can just fall back to function calling (Anthropic's function calling accepts JSON schema for arguments), and that it's the same as structured outputs. It is not. They just dump the JSON schema into the context without doing the actual structured outputs. Vercel's AI SDK does that and it pisses me off because doing that only confuses the model and prefilling works much better.
by cwillu | 2026-02-05 20:06:53+00:00
“For certain tax and criminal investigations, French law operates a distinction between legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. While litigation privilege is always protected, legal advice privilege is not protected when (i) the investigation pertains to tax fraud, corruption, influence peddling, terrorism financing and money laundering offenses, and (ii) the legal opinions, correspondence or exhibits that are in possession of, or were communicated by, the lawyer or the client were used for committing or facilitating the commission of said offenses. This exception applies to materials that were not prepared in the context of a litigation proceeding and is strictly controlled; a judge makes the final determination as to which materials can be disclosed.”

Seems like it's not a literal get-out-of-jail-free in france.
by jeroenhd | 2026-02-05 20:07:34+00:00
The fact it couldn't actually stick to the 16 bit ABI so it had to cheat and call out to GCC to get the system to boot says a lot.

Without enough examples to copy from (despite CPU manuals being available in the training set) the approach failed. I wonder how well it'll do when you throw it a new/imaginary instruction set/CPU architecture; I bet it'll fail in similar ways.
by soumik1236 | 2026-02-05 20:07:37+00:00
Welcome to Chatly – Chat and Earn Rewards for Your Time!
Chatly is a unique and user-friendly app where you can chat with others, participate in communities, and earn small rewards for your activity and engagement. It's a fun and interactive way to connect with like-minded people and earn little incentives along the way.

What is Chatly?

Chatly is a community-based social app that encourages healthy interaction and engagement. It rewards users for their time spent chatting, participating in group discussions, joining topic-based rooms, and staying active within the app.

You don’t need any technical skills—just join conversations and interact respectfully with others. Chatly brings together communication and engagement-based micro-rewards in one safe and user-friendly app.

Key Features

Join Topic-Based Chat Rooms – Chat about your favorite topics with others

Connect & Engage – Interact with real users across the world

Earn Engagement Points – Earn small rewards for being an active, positive participant

Simple and Easy Interface – Beginner-friendly chat UI with zero learning curve

Safe and Private – No data misuse, no spamming, and fully secure user experience

Dark Mode Available – Chat comfortably at night

Wallet System – Track your reward points in your in-app wallet

Multiple Redemption Options – Redeem your points via supported platforms like UPI, Paytm, or PayPal (subject to availability and local policies)

No Ads Clicking Required – This is not an ad-clicking or task-based app

Important Notice

Chatly is not a get-rich-quick app, financial app, or investment platform. All rewards are small and are meant for engagement and entertainment purposes only. We do not offer cash prizes, lottery wins, or guaranteed earnings.

Who Should Use Chatly?

Chatly is perfect for:

Social users who love chatting and meeting new people

Those who want to earn small incentives for their time

Users who value community engagement and good conversations

People looking for a friendly, moderated chat environment

Privacy & Safety

We follow strict privacy protocols and never sell or share your personal data. You are in control of what you share. Chatly uses encrypted communication and stores minimal data to provide a safe experience.

How to Get Started

Download and install Chatly from the Play Store

Register or sign in as a guest

Join chatrooms and start interacting

Earn engagement points and track them in your wallet

Redeem rewards after reaching the minimum threshold

Support & Feedback

We are constantly improving Chatly based on your feedback.
by karmasimida | 2026-02-05 20:07:50+00:00
> With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works.

> With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deeply, runs longer, and asks less of the human.

Ain't the UX is the exact opposite? Codex thinks much longer before gives you back the answer.
by xandrius | 2026-02-05 20:07:58+00:00
Why even come to this site if you're so anti-innovation?

Today with LLMs you can literally spend 5 minutes defining what you want to get, press send, go grab a coffee and come back to a working POC of something, in literally any programming language.

This is literally stuff of wonders and magic that redefines how we interface with computers and code. And the only thing you can think of is to ask if it can do something completely novel (that it's so hard to even quantity for humans that we don't have software patents mainly for that reason).

And the same model can also answer you if you ask it about maths, making you an itinerary or a recipe for lasagnas. C'mon now.
by nodja | 2026-02-05 20:08:03+00:00
> A year or more ago, I read that both Anthropic and OpenAI were losing money on every single request even for their paid subscribers, and I don't know if that has changed with more efficient hardware/software improvements/caching.

This is obviously not true, you can use real data and common sense.

Just look up a similar sized open weights model on openrouter and compare the prices. You'll note the similar sized model is often much cheaper than what anthropic/openai provide.

Example: Let's compare claude 4 models with deepseek. Claude 4 is ~400B params so it's best to compare with something like deepseek V3 which is 680B params.

Even if we compare the cheapest claude model to the most expensive deepseek provider we have claude charging $1/M for input and $5/M for output, while deepseek providers charge $0.4/M and $1.2/M, a fifth of the price, you can get it as cheap as $.27 input $0.4 output.

As you can see, even if we skew things overly in favor of claude, the story is clear, claude token prices are much higher than they could've been. The difference in prices is because anthropic also needs to pay for training costs, while openrouter providers just need to worry on making serving models profitable. Deepseek is also not as capable as claude which also puts down pressure on the prices.

There's still a chance that anthropic/openai models are losing money on inference, if for example they're somehow much larger than expected, the 400B param number is not official, just speculative from how it performs, this is only taking into account API prices, subscriptions and free user will of course skew the real profitability numbers, etc.

Price sources:

https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-v3.2-speciale

https://claude.com/pricing#api
by jcalvinowens | 2026-02-05 20:08:13+00:00
Surely you agree that directly copying existing code into a different language is still plagiarism?

I completely agree that "reweite this existing codebase into a new language" could be a very powerful tool. But the article is making much bolder claims. And the result was more limited in capability, so you can't even really claim they've achieved the rewrite skill yet.
by arionmiles | 2026-02-05 20:08:32+00:00
There's a research paper from the University of Liverpool, published in 2006 where researchers asked people to draw bicycles from memory and how people overestimate their understanding of basic things. It was a very fun and short read.

It's called "The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work" by Rebecca Lawson.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/bf03195929.pdf
by steveklabnik | 2026-02-05 20:08:45+00:00
I used to answer security vulnerability emails to Rust. We'd regularly get "someone ran an automated tool and reports something that's not real." Like, complaints about CORS settings on rust-lang.org that would let people steal cookies. The website does not use cookies.

I wonder if it's gotten actively worse these days. But the newness would be the scale, not the quality itself.
by 6510 | 2026-02-05 20:09:06+00:00
In the future there will be one giant AI on premise with many physical bodies made in our own image to micromanage the humans. All conversations are monitored, depending on the complexity of your query and who you are talking to tokens are deducted from your account. A complex double-entry book keeping system divides the tokens and quality of the response over the things the company should be doing. Things will be neither investor, employee nor customer centric but 100% AI centric.
by bigbadfeline | 2026-02-05 20:09:31+00:00
> The ethos assumes a world in which Bitcoin has become widely accepted as a currency... That world wasn't necessarily impossible.

That world has always been a hallucination at best and a cruel deception at worst, but it's never been possible and never will be.

> Bitcoin was never adopted as a currency

It was and it is, it's not a central bank currency but the promise of BTC is the opposite of that. BTC is officially tradable in the US, you can exchange it for dollars to pay your taxes.

> so there was no way to anchor its value.

The promise of BTC has never been "anchored value"... it's always been a "to the moon" scam.

> It's still possible that the US government could... anchor the price of BTC, the whitepaper ethos could find a foothold.

That cannot happen without invalidating everything written in the white paper, in other words that wouldn't be Bitcoin anymore and nothing like that could function in the current financial system.
by epolanski | 2026-02-05 20:09:34+00:00
From my limited testing 4.6 is able to do more profound analysis on codebases and catches bugs and oddities better.

I had two different PRs with some odd edge case (thankfully catched by tests), 4.5 kept running in circles, kept creating test files and running `node -e` or `python 3` scripts all over and couldn't progress.

4.6 thought and thought in both cases around 10 minutes and found a 2 line fix for a very complex and hard to catch regression in the data flow without having to test, just thinking.
by pear01 | 2026-02-05 20:10:01+00:00
Good luck trying to subject them to the same level of scrutiny. They live in places with high walls and armed guards, a lot of them don't even drive themselves if they drive at all. Even when using helicopters or planes their private ownership means a lower level of scrutiny. "The plane" was a big part of how Epstein was able to do what he did. Obviously, these types never step foot on public transit.

Even if hypothetically speaking you could support volunteers to follow them around and film them, I would think the asymmetry of resources would practically make it impossible. It's not about privacy, it's about wealth. Take their wealth away and then they'll actually have to live the way they tell you to. They don't care because they don't live in the world they are creating, you do.
by pixl97 | 2026-02-05 20:10:16+00:00
And if you were in a simulation now?

Your response is at the level of a thought terminating cliche. You gain no insight on the operation of the machine with your line of thought. You can't make future predictions on behavior. You can't make sense of past responses.

It's even funnier in the sense of humans and feeling wetness... you don't. You only feel temperature change.
by jqpabc123 | 2026-02-05 20:10:44+00:00
Modern LLMs do not fail because they are poorly engineered. They fail because they are embedded, partially-blind inference systems.

Modern LLMs fail to achieve "intelligence" --- and this is a direct result of their design and engineering --- or rather the lack thereof.

A "partial-blind inference system" has no effective sense of judgment and thus can't tell the difference between fact and fiction.

The most amazing part to me is the number of CEOs who have been convinced that a "partial-blind inference system" has the potential to replace their employees. Which likewise demonstrates a lack of judgment.
by toomuchtodo | 2026-02-05 20:10:54+00:00
As a very curious autodidact, I strongly agree, but this talent is rare and can punch it's own ticket (broadly speaking). These people innovate and build systems for others to maintain, in my experience. But, to your point, we should figure out the sorting hat for folks who want to radically own these on prem systems [1] if they are needed.

[1] https://xkcd.com/705/
by arjie | 2026-02-05 20:11:05+00:00
Really don't like this engagement-bait style "suddenly stops" / "have quietly" and all this stuff. It's no wonder it works. The headline from the CIA is far more staid and off the front page in comparison https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46891794

It's not even a bad submission saying that he mirrored it here: https://simonw.github.io/cia-world-factbook-2020/
by palmotea | 2026-02-05 20:11:10+00:00
What I mean by "stuck in the past" is you're stuck on old criticisms that seem more and more precious given how bad things are getting.

Sure, dwell on Manufacturing Consent in the 90s when journalism was strong and better resourced. But nowadays it seems quaint, like a picky review of a fancy 5-star restaurant when the restaurant industry is collapsing and people may not be able to afford food.

Journalism is collapsing, to be replaced by something worse, not better.
by alexsherrick | 2026-02-05 20:11:17+00:00
Hey HN, I built this because I made a super tasty Texas white queso, but then I didn't know where I should keep the recipe. I also realized recipe sites kind of suck. So in the end I made a Github for recipes.

Import any recipe URL and it strips out the life stories and ads. The main thing: you can fork and edit recipes, and it keeps version history so you remember what you actually changed. It's been fun for me because I'm cooking a lot more now because it's easy to keep track of.

I also threw in a scan recipe which uses AI to parse out the text so that it should be easy to import recipes from photos/print/etc.

SvelteKit + Cloudflare Pages + D1. iOS app is live, Android in beta.

Happy to answer any questions.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-02-05 20:11:26+00:00
> How much do we believe the current administration values "intelligence"?

Broadly? A lot. Donald Trump is wickedly smart. So is Stephen Miller. Susie Wiles. Hegseth is an idiot, but he's Chip 'n' Dale to Marco Rubio. (Our planes aren't falling off our carriers any more. And the raid on Caracas was executed flawlessly. That isn't something numpties can pull off.)
by toomanyrichies | 2026-02-05 20:12:15+00:00
"Thankfully, we live in a beautifully democratic and capitalistic society where we can fight in court."

Of course he's "thankful" for that, since in our "beautifully democratic and capitalistic" society, Flock can use their $658 million of VC funding [1] to wage lawfare against the have-nots with their armies of lobbyists and lawyers. [2]

1. https://websets.exa.ai/websets/directory/flock-safety-fundin...

2. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyis...
by bdangubic | 2026-02-05 20:12:16+00:00
I have no issues getting paid my rates which is what I am worth (one of the most important careeer things I advise youngsters is to know what they are worth, the sooner you know the better).

while this is certainly not age discrimination I was just making a point that what sometimes looks like age discrimination it may not actually be that.

and most of the good money is definitely not in “big tech” (though too many people in our industry think that…)
by bizzleDawg | 2026-02-05 20:13:00+00:00
Only in the same way that the pixels displayed in a browser are not a tree structure that you can diff - the diffing happens at a higher level of abstraction than what's rendered.

Diffing and only updating the parts of the TUI which have changed does make sense if you consider the alternative is to rewrite the entire screen every "frame". There are other ways to abstract this, e.g. a library like tqmd for python may well have a significantly more simple abstraction than a tree for storing what it's going to update next for the progress bar widget than claude, but it also provides a much more simple interface.

To me it seems more fair game to attack it for being written in JS than for using a particular "rendering" technique to minimise updates sent to the terminal.
by ChrisArchitect | 2026-02-05 20:13:31+00:00
5 months ago;

Source article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-st...

Discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45119847

and at the same time:

Pump the Brakes on Your Police Department's Use of Flock Safety

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45128605
by pkoiralap | 2026-02-05 20:13:38+00:00
In the 1930s, when electronic calculators were first introduced, there was a widespread belief that accounting as a career was finished. Instead, the opposite became true. Accounting as a profession grew, becoming far more analytical/strategic than it had been previously.

You are correct that these models primarily address problems that have already been solved. However, that has always been the case for the majority of technical challenges. Before LLMs, we would often spend days searching Stack Overflow to find and adapt the right solution.

Another way to look at this is through the lens of problem decomposition as well. If a complex problem is a collection of sub-problems, receiving immediate solutions for those components accelerates the path to the final result.

For example, I was recently struggling with a UI feature where I wanted cards to follow a fan-like arc. I couldn't quite get the implementation right until I gave it to Gemini. It didn't solve the entire problem for me, but it suggested an approach involving polar coordinates and sine/cosine values. I was able to take that foundational logic turn it into a feature I wanted.

Was it a 100x productivity gain? No. But it was easily a 2x gain, because it replaced hours of searching and waiting for a mental breakthrough with immediate direction.

There was also a relevant thread on Hacker News recently regarding "vibe coding":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45205232

The developer created a unique game using scroll behavior as the primary input. While the technical aspects of scroll events are certainly "solved" problems, the creative application was novel.
by jcalvinowens | 2026-02-05 20:14:02+00:00
IMHO a new architecture doesn't really make it any more interesting: there's too many examples of adding new architectures in the existing codebases. Maybe if the new machine had some bizarre novel property, I suppose, but I can't come up with a good example.

If the model were retrained without any of the existing compilers/toolchains in its training set, and it could still do something like this, that would be very compelling to me.
by barefootsanders | 2026-02-05 20:14:42+00:00
OP here. I built skillthis.ai, a tool that takes a description of your professional expertise and generates a Claude Code skill file (a markdown prompt file that customizes Claude's behavior for specific tasks).

155 people used it over 3.5 weeks. I analyzed the results and found some patterns I didn't expect.

The headline finding: someone typed "I a bartender" (12 characters, with a typo) and scored 85/100. A 15,576-character technical specification about development process analysis scored 72/100. The bartender input was reproducible, I ran it twice.

More surprisingly, "hey bro" scored 88/100. The system generated a "Casual Communication Skill" and suggested adding "quantifiable success metrics." The grading algorithm clearly has issues (acknowledged in the post).

What actually predicted quality:
- Specific, well-understood domains (plumber, bartender, OKR expert)
- Task-oriented descriptions (what you do vs. what you are)
- Brevity with clarity (top scores averaged under 100 characters)
- Named frameworks or methodologies

What didn't: length (negatively correlated with score), vague enthusiasm, attempts to jailbreak or override Claude's behavior.

The tool uses Claude to generate the skill, then a separate Claude call to grade it. The grading inconsistency is a known problem. I built a guided question flow to address the input quality issue, which asks three follow-up questions when input is too vague.

Stack: Next.js, Supabase, Claude API. Blog post has links to every skill mentioned so you can see the actual outputs.
by pixl97 | 2026-02-05 20:14:47+00:00
Ah yes, when the first result on Google is from a group known as a right wing think tank...

>American Enterprise Institute, a prominent center-right think tank in Washington, D.C., that promotes free enterprise, limited government, and individual liberty through research and policy advocacy in areas like economics, foreign policy, and social studies

I too can get paid think tanks to publish hundreds of reports on how communists are taking over America... Doesn't mean communists are actually taking over America.
Ask HN: Why not have a news channel that views the world as deterministic?
by amichail | 2026-02-05 20:15:00+00:00
What if a news channel treated the world as fundamentally deterministic, reporting events as the inevitable outcomes of prior causes rather than personal decisions?

Every story would trace the chain of events, historical context, and systemic influences that led to it. Headlines might focus less on “who did what” and more on “how conditions converged to make this happen.” For example, instead of “Mayor Makes Controversial Decision,” it could read: “Economic pressures, council dynamics, and policy history converge to shape mayor’s recent decision.”

This approach could offer:

* Deeper understanding of systemic causes behind social, political, and economic events

* Predictions about future outcomes based on historical patterns

* A more empathetic lens on human behavior, since people are seen as shaped by circumstances rather than free choice

One reason this does not exist might be the immense research burden and complexity. AI could make it feasible, automatically mapping causal chains, summarizing historical context, and highlighting patterns at scale.

It would be a blend of investigative journalism, historical analysis, and predictive modeling, a news channel that explains why things happen rather than what happened.

What do you think of this idea?
by MagicMoonlight | 2026-02-05 20:15:02+00:00
For ML it makes sense, because you’re using so much compute that renting it is just burning money.

For most businesses, it’s a false economy. Hardware is cheap, but having proper redundancy and multiple sites isn’t. Having a 24/7 team available to respond to issues isn’t.

What happens if their data centre loses power? What if it burns down?
by lifeisstillgood | 2026-02-05 20:15:21+00:00
>>> Galileo Galilei handled this really well

Errr… Galileo was asked to write a book discussing both sides of the heliocentric / geocentric debate … and so wrote a book with two characters having a debate while walking in a garden - one named (I paraphrase for effect) “Galileo” and one named “Pope Simplehead”

Needless to say the next twenty years under house arrest gave him a lot of time to think about character names :-)