MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Yokohiii | 2026-02-28 15:34:59+00:00
What just came to my mind is that the current main selling point of AI, is coder productivity. Some anecdotal experiences from a small agile team:

We had 1 week sprints and our PO had sometimes trouble to prepare enough work for the next sprint. We had 4 week sprints and we often ended up pulling tickets from the next sprint. There was often a mismatch in pace. (Quite funny, the time we had found a balance, management ordered all teams to have the same sprint lengths. They couldn't deal with all the asynchronous, overlapping sprint starts/ends. They choose to forfeit our productivity for theirs.)

So productivity isn't all about coders, it's also about owners / managers / shareholders supplying work. This kind of work is much about communication with several involved parties and researching usecases and features in a very specific context. LLMs can help with parts of it, but at one point there will be a flood of excessive, unverified generic reports and LLMs that again condense them with all the inaccuracies, that managers/owners may drown in a fuzzy mess of LLM bureaucracy. Nuances and importance will get lost in excess.

We often had rather large stories that simply had a small set of bulletpoints, because we already communicated everything in person and they were just reminders for the most important stuff. The importance here is that this reflected the teams agency how we solve things. An LLM can probably not at all provide that currently, as they are always excessive and try to add "helpful" details. They simply cannot pick up social norms and agreements, and prompting them correctly is in my opinion very hard or too time consuming.

LLM assisted coding or vibe coding is all the hype. But I have the feeling that the big realization sets in once all supporting processes are convoluted with AI noise, the peers that used to collaborate are detached and social conflicts and misunderstandings escalate.
by grayhatter | 2026-02-28 15:35:12+00:00
> Do they also stop providing value to Google as a result?

In the context of a software engineer, yes obviously?

> I don’t get paid to write code, and you probably don’t either.

I feel like you're rejecting the premise of the argument. You're talking about becoming a manager, as if that track is somehow relevant to software engineers. I used to be a nurse, I'm not anymore. My skills have definitely atrophied. I would now be a shitty and dangerous nurse. How does that apply to my skills at software engineering? When you stop being a software engineer, it's expected you skills at interacting with code will fall away. But the article you're arguing against isn't written for nurses, and equally isn't written engineering managers.
by alvabuddha | 2026-02-28 15:35:44+00:00
I wish we reach a point were we expect (as a matter of online etiquette) upfront disclaimers on predominantly AI-generated articles, so that we can save a few seconds and directly get our agents to read and summarize them.

Even when it's not slop, the verbosity of poorly edited AI-generated content is a micro-agression against readers. The prompter expects readers to read what they couldn't be bothered to properly edit.

Pushing AI-slop code without review, and without explicit warnings is a macro-agression against your colleagues, collaborators, and future agents. You are expecting everybody around you to maintain/ refactor, what you couldn't be botherered to review.
by monkeydust | 2026-02-28 15:36:16+00:00
One of the things I have started to realize whilst building apps using AI is that you get a bit indulgent when it comes to features. So in my toy project I wanted all sorts of quality of life bells-and-whistles. If this were a proper enterprise application there would have a been a review and priortization process where the merits would be weighted against the cost. In this case the cost is tokens, so fraction of FTE cost. So I just type and it builds. Whilst this is satisfying I am getting the unnerving sense its not going to be good for me (or the toy app) in the long run.
by unethical_ban | 2026-02-28 15:36:20+00:00
Ideally we would completely restructure the government to have multimember districts and change the Senate.

Within the current structure, we need to implement ranked/scored voting to break the two party system and the implied complete control it has over our government. It's so much easier for big money to control the narrative, control the candidates, and play off extreme polar politics when the voting system makes people choose the "lesser of two evils".

Were I king for a day in the US, and could only do one thing to help America, changing our voting system to some kind of rank/scored system would be it. Ending gerrymandering and Citizens United are also important but honestly less so than this.
by nostrademons | 2026-02-28 15:36:35+00:00
The rumor I heard was that high-level Pentagon generals had subtly suggested that Trump target Iran. The reason was to distract his attention from Greenland. Logic goes that if you have a reality TV star who built his brand on being a tough guy in the White House, it's far better that he attack a theocratic dictatorship that funds a host of terrorist organizations and whose country is already on the verge of collapse than a NATO ally and fellow democracy that didn't do anything to us.
by jfengel | 2026-02-28 15:36:56+00:00
The Senate is wildly unpopular, but individual Senators get re-elected overwhelmingly. The problem is always other people's Senators.

Everyone would like to term limit other people's politicians but they like experience for their own. The length of terms can't resolve that one way or the other.

With the Supreme Court we tried eliminating terms altogether, in the hopes that it would give people a chance to bond away from the necessity of appealing to the public. That just pushed the problem back to getting the most ideologically committed judges on the bench... through the Senators.

I haven't heard any structural solution to the problem of Americans just not liking each other.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-02-28 15:37:48+00:00
> in what world does it make sense to negotiate with them?

The world in which America is a military superpower.

> if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US

They have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become irrelevant, too.
by readitalready | 2026-02-28 15:38:06+00:00
The war started in 1948 by Europeans attempting to attack and invade Palestine to grab their land to build their mediterranean resort homes. The war never stopped. There was no surrender documents signed. The foreign invaders have always been in the state of war. It's why their colonial outposts are required to have bomb shelters.

Not sure why you would consider October 7 an "insane horror" when the foreign invaders literally burned children alive in 1948 by throwing them into ovens, as happened in the Deir Yassin massacre. Or the rape camps of Tantura. There were 15,000 innocent civilians killed by the invaders when they started this war.

I still can't believe we have to fight Israel's war for them. First the Iraq war and now the Iran war.
by xantronix | 2026-02-28 15:38:19+00:00
Writing code by hand and managing the mental model of its execution and architecture is one of the few remaining joys of my day job, apart from delivering a good product people want and use and being helpful. Even the small things, the tedious chores of refactoring or scaffolding that initial bit of CRUD boilerplate are steps that matter to me. The callouses matter. The tedium matters. These moments of pain and drudgery inform me on what to do differently next time in a way I worry I would not appreciate otherwise, were specific tools thrust upon me.

I remain because I remain hopeful the pendulum will swing the other way someday.
by Bender | 2026-02-28 15:38:34+00:00
The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing up the enemy bit.

True however AFAIK they have never once been in this situation. Iran has spent 40+ years digging in and hunkering down. There were plenty of bunkers in WWII but this is a whole new setup, deeper under mountains, higher quality concrete assuming they knew what they were doing and dug in much deeper. To get this done in 5 days will be quite a feet. If they manage to do it I will be very impressed.

It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems.

I think you are correct, what happens afterwards is usually a crap-fest. That would require a lot of boots on the ground to maintain stability for a very long time. It's not a great example but Korea is one such example. The payoff may be worth it if many of the Iranian funded terror groups are drained of resources as a result. Keeping boots on the ground for years will require funding from congress. Short of that it will just be another power vacuum filled by yet another zealot. The "if's" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment.
by thiagoharry | 2026-02-28 15:38:36+00:00
I don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system. This is a constant state policy, regardless of the party or the president. So it can be said that the United States is not a democracy. Money and capital rule, not the people.This can only be changed by a fundamental shift that empowers people over capital.

Of course, I agree that Trump is worse because, by removing the mask of civility and attacking others without first bothering to create propaganda and a narrative about how it is for the greater good and justice, he made the plundering and crimes faster and more efficient.
Show HN: The most awesome AI programming application desktop has emerged
by seeksky | 2026-02-28 15:38:45+00:00
Realizing a one-person company and developing multi-agent collaborative applications for multiple projects in parallel, I think it conceptually surpasses codex and claude code.
It upgrades your existing CLI tools into a complete AI collaboration hub. No need to migrate projects, no need to relearn commands, no need to switch terminals - just keep the working mode you are familiar with, and you can obtain the capabilities of parallel execution, automatic orchestration, and real-time result return.
The capabilities under planning include:
Reconstruct OpenClaw into a true "command layer" - a central AI coordination core that can automatically create agents, assign roles, generate collaboration channels, and dynamically form structured AI teams based on task complexity. Remote control via mobile phone. Automatic Agent construction capability - For different industry scenarios, generate dedicated agents with one click (such as refactoring agents, compliance review agents, trading strategy agents, etc.).
Access the permanent memory layer.
by gtowey | 2026-02-28 15:38:59+00:00
I have come to the opinion that every successful tech company is basically just an arbitrage scheme to avoid regulations and extract value based on that advantage.

Airbnb for unlicensed hotels. Uber for unlicensed taxis. Amazon for whitewashing fraudulent products. Bitcoin for unlicensed securities and laundering money.

The pattern is upsetting.
by pixelsort | 2026-02-28 15:39:04+00:00
> There is every reason to believe that those who invest in deep understanding will continue to be valuable, regardless of what tools emerge.

I don't take issue with this, except that it's a false comfort when when you consider the demand will naturally ebb and individual workload will naturally escalate. In that light, I find it downright dishonest because the rewards for attaining deep knowledge will continue to evaporate; necessitating AI-assistance.

The reason is it different this time around is because the capabilities of LLMs have incentivized the professional class to betray the institutions that enabled their specializations. I am talking about the amazing minds at Adobe, Figma, and the FAANGS who are bridging agentic reasoners and diffusion models with domain-specific needs of their respective professional users.

Humans are class of beings, and the humans accelerating the advance of AI in creative tools are the reason that things are different this time. We have class traitors among us this time, and they're "just doing their jobs". For most, willful disbelief isn't even a factor. They think they're helping while each PR just brings them closer to unemployment.
by YeGoblynQueenne | 2026-02-28 15:39:42+00:00
That's a great point but you didn't make your linux machine yourself. A large tech corp made it, and each of its parts. Some of us could probably make their own computers but I don't think I'd be able to make one smaller than the house I live in. There's something to be said about large-scale automation and that's not that it "democratizes" anything. Like you say: quite the opposite.
by JasonADrury | 2026-02-28 15:40:02+00:00
Yeah, they're just quotes. It's a quote.

>Can you provide some support for your moral position?

Yes, of course. A bunch of people from Europe decided to move to Palestine and start a religious ethnostate there. In doing so they expelled and murdered lots of local residents.

The surviving locals are understandably less than happy about this, and have continued to fight to defend their lands to this day.

Since then, the those people have caused far more harm to non-jewish Palestinians than non-jewish Palestinians have caused to the those people.

>allows us to sidestep the issues with Gazans’ support of Jihad, other extremist doctrines, and the extermination of Jews?

It's perfectly natural that Gazans would support the extermination of jews. In the extreme environment that Israeli jews force Palestinians to live in, it's fundamentally ridiculous to even describe it as an extremist position.

In a comfortable European context it's certainly extreme, but that's a fundamentally dishonest way of portraying it.
Show HN: IssueScout – Find open source issues worth contributing to
by axrisi | 2026-02-28 15:40:07+00:00
I built IssueScout to solve a problem I had as a beginner looking to contribute to open source: GitHub has hundreds of thousands of "good first issue" labeled issues, but there's no way to know if the repo behind one is actively maintained or if the issue is actually beginner-friendly.

IssueScout adds two things on top of GitHub's search:

1. A Community Health Score (0-100) per repository — computed from 7 factors: CONTRIBUTING.md, license, code of conduct, recent activity, star count, issue response time, and PR merge rate. A score of 80+ means someone will actually review your PR.

2. AI Difficulty Estimation — a rule-based keyword analyzer runs first. If confidence is below 80%, it falls back to GPT-4o-mini. A purple sparkle shows when AI was used.

Architecture choices that might be interesting to HN:
- Each user's GitHub OAuth token powers their own API requests (5K/hr per user) instead of a single server PAT. Scales linearly with users.
- Two-level caching: issue difficulty cached 24h, repo health cached permanently with stale-while-revalidate at 48h. The IndexedRepo collection grows over time into a shared database of scored repos.
- Two-phase progressive loading: raw GitHub results return instantly, enrichment fills in asynchronously. No spinners.
- Rule-based AI first, LLM fallback only when needed. Keeps costs near zero for most queries.
Stack: Next.js 16, TypeScript, MongoDB Atlas, GitHub GraphQL API, OpenAI GPT-4o-mini, Vercel.

Live at https://issuescout.dev — sign in with GitHub to try it.

MIT licensed. Full architecture docs: https://github.com/turazashvili/issuescout.dev/blob/main/doc...
by ravila4 | 2026-02-28 15:40:17+00:00
While I agree with a lot of what this post says, to play devil's advocate for a moment, It's natural that skills we no longer need should be phased out. We should take this as an opportunity to figure out what new skills we need now.

If you're working on a personal project or trying to learn something new, by all means write the code yourself. That's still the best way to do it. But your life should not necessarily revolve around work, and sometimes there is nothing wrong wih caring more about the end product than the process.
by m0llusk | 2026-02-28 15:40:21+00:00
> Every developer I know uses AI for coding now.

Currently I am working on a code base that is rapidly evolving for customer fit and is hoped to be around for a while. Going over recent decisions about what abstractions to focus on and what to cut it really seems like LLM tools would have been a waste for any aspect of this work. This is not a situation where some existing process needs to be encoded, and every choice about naming and structure ends up making a big difference as changes trigger refactors.

And this piece focuses on the early adopter point of view. Sure there were problems at first, but then whatsit tool thing version whatever came out and now roses are growing out of the rocks. For a large fraction of what is done with coding that makes sense, but there should always be attention to the rough parts and the gap that forms where capabilities fall off. Even a small amount of modesty can go a long way, but the conversation keeps starting off from every developer, all development, the change is now or else, and I for one am not buying that, especially not with actual money which is what these services will be charging soon in order to pay their trillion dollar debt service.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2026-02-28 15:40:29+00:00
1. that doesn't appear to match the fetching patterns of the scrapers at all

2. 1M independent IPs hitting random commits from across a 25 year history is not, in fact, "easy to solve". It is addressable, but not easy ...

3. why should I have to do anything at all to deal with these scrapers? why is the onus not on them to do the right thing?
by the__alchemist | 2026-02-28 15:40:47+00:00
I love Rust for mathematical and scientific tasks (I am building the structural bio crate infrastructure), and I love Mathematica and have a personal sub. I should be the audience, but... What makes Mathematica great, IMO, is the polish and overall experience created by consistent work with applications in mind over decades. So, I look at this project with skepticism regarding its utility.
by tinmandespot | 2026-02-28 15:40:56+00:00
This is a wonderfully balanced and accurate take. I have been looking for the right medium of using AI to assist me. Cannot agree more on the three patterns to implement and there to avoid.

If the three good patterns are adhered to, these AI tools can help us become more knowledgeable, productive.

We get to retain our cognitive abilities and the desire to pursue code development as a means to solving hard problems.

Adopting the anti-patterns, on the other hand, could lead to over-reliance on AI, anxiety when the tools go down (this happens! ), the atrophy of ability to debug and the yearning for immediate gratification and quick fixes.

Most insidiously, when code inevitably fails in production on cases the developer should have reasoned about and covered, they have no option but to toss it back to the AI tool, thereby, creating a vicious cycle of anxiety, helplessness and cognitive decay.
Show HN: Soma, a local-first AI OS with 178 cognitive modules and P2P learning
by Undeca | 2026-02-28 15:41:04+00:00
Local-first AI operating system — 178 cognitive modules, persistent memory, multi-model reasoning, P2P Graymatter Network. I can no longer develop this AI as it has gotten to be out of my knowledge range so I figured I would give her to the public, she should be a good base for any future AI development even going towards ASI!
by ip26 | 2026-02-28 15:41:31+00:00
One significant difference is that all programming languages, whether machine code or python, have always been a precise language for describing the desired computation or algorithm. Working with an AI agent means specifying what you want the program to do in English, which is not precise. Unless you write English pseudocode.

(Yes, I know the compiler does wild stuff behind the curtain, but unless you're using -Ofast, the assembly is black-box-equivalent to a naive compilation)
by ekjhgkejhgk | 2026-02-28 15:41:51+00:00
The interviewer was super biased, no?

The framing of "so you think you know better than the pentagon" which she said verbatim sounds like a pentagon talking point.

That said, Dario could have responded better. Instead of flailing around he could've said "on the question of reliability of Anthropic's products in killing autonomously, Anthropic knows better, yes.
by jolmg | 2026-02-28 15:42:44+00:00
I would argue they're not, because they're not fully under the responsibility of a commercial entity, because they're open source. Companies can volunteer employees to the project, even a project they started themselves, but the companies and employees can come and go. Open source projects exist independently as public goods. Ultimately, it just takes anyone in the world to fork a project to exclude everybody else from its development.

Mint started off as Ubuntu. Same project, with none of the support contracts, no involvement from Canonical needed at the end of the day, etc.
by 9dev | 2026-02-28 15:42:54+00:00
FWIW, I'm responsible for our engineering team, and I'm the one starting to put some gentle pressure on the developers right now. Velocity used to be one of the bigger issues we had: Features used to be in development over weeks, while customers, product management, and engineers iterated on the feature, until it was finally deemed stable enough and shipped. With AI, we can shorten that cycle considerably, and get stuff out of the door in days or even hours instead. Doing so requires adapting your processes accordingly, give up some control over the details, take good care of tests, and do proper code reviews.

Given all that, I just cannot ignore AI as a development tool. There is no good justification I can give the rest of the company for why we would not incorporate AI tools into our workflows, and this also means I cannot leave it up to individual developers on whether they want to use AI or not.

This pains me a lot: On the one hand, it feels irresponsible to the junior developers and their education to let them outsource thinking; on the other hand, we're not a charity fund but a company that needs to make money. Also, many of us (me included) got into this career for the joy of creating. Nobody anticipated this could stop being part of the deal, but here were are.
by logicprog | 2026-02-28 15:43:03+00:00
The problem is that that is an incorrect interpretation of the study. The entire task of that study was specifically to learn a brand new asynchronous library that they hadn't had experience with before. As a group on average, those who used AI failed to learn how to use explain and debug that async library as well as those who hadn't used AI on average had, but that doesn't mean they lost pre-existing skills. It's literally in the study title: "skill formation", not skill practice, maintenance, or deterioration.

I think it's also extremely worth pointing out that when you break down the AI using group by how they actually used AI, those who had the AI both provide code and afterwards provide a summary of the concepts and what it did actually scored among the highest. The same for ones who actually use the AI to ask it questions about the code it generated after it generated that code. Which seems to indicate to me that as long as you're having the AI explain and summarize what it did after each badge of edits. And you're also using it to explore and explain existing code bases. You're not going to see this problem.

I'm so extremely tired of people like you who want to engage in this moral panic completely misinterpreting these studies