MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by BobaFloutist | 2026-03-05 19:59:59+00:00
But AI provides the illusion of communication. Since the AI has no direct access to the user's brain, and has to go off the words they provide, if we're assuming that the person isn't capable generating words that accurately communicate their thoughts, the AI is getting all its information from the same flawed words we'd have access to if they didn't use AI, but destroying any signal encoded in the specific mistakes or choices they've made in its process of shaping their thoughts into something more polished.

AIs don't violate entropy, and can't create information from nothing. They can interpret, and expand, and maybe, just maybe, tease out meaning that a human would have missed. But the more sensitively they're tuned to pick up on small nuances, they more likely they're going to interpret a pattern that isn't there, and the more they're tuned to avoid over-interpretation, the more likely they are to miss something that is there, the same as how a human can aim to interpret something with high or low context.

The difference is, by filtering it through an AI, you're taking that capability out of other people's hands, you're (often intentionally) flattening and damaging signals people usually use to choose how to distribute their attention (often with the cry of "But it's not fair that people want to spend their attention on things that I'm not good at, I have to use AI to convince people to look at my work that they would prefer not to!!"), and when you do that without acknowledging the use of AI, it feels a lot like you don't care about any negative effects your actions have on the existing ecosystems of human creativity and communication, and you're going to get an appropriately hostile response.
by stoleckipawel | 2026-03-05 20:00:29+00:00
This article series explores how frame graph architectures reduce transient VRAM usage in real-time renderers.

A frame graph models rendering as a DAG of passes and resources, allowing the engine to automatically analyze:

resource lifetimes

pass dependencies

synchronization barriers

memory reuse opportunities

Because the system knows exactly when resources are created and no longer needed, it can alias memory between non-overlapping resources.

In practice this can significantly reduce transient GPU memory usage — often up to ~50% less VRAM in large render pipelines.

Beyond memory savings, frame graphs also provide:

• automatic pass scheduling
• automatic GPU barrier insertion
• fewer pipeline stalls
• fewer synchronization bugs

The series walks through the full progression:

1. Theory
The DAG model behind frame graphs and resource lifetime tracking.

2. Build
Implementing a working frame graph in C++.

3. Beyond MVP
Optimizations like split barriers and async compute.

4. Scale
How production engines scale the system to hundreds of passes.

Examples and patterns are applicable to modern graphics APIs such as Vulkan and Direct3D 12.
by PaulHoule | 2026-03-05 20:00:35+00:00
This is why the cloud wins. It gets updated and you can't do anything about it but the trade off is you never get harassed about how you need to update. 1% of the agony of software updates is the updating, 99% of it is the update trying to sell you on updating or using the update as a pretense to sell you something else.
by trhway | 2026-03-05 20:01:23+00:00
> low-flying objects and the interception trajectories needed

that is the key. It is much more easy from all the aspects - logistics, cost, agility, etc... - to discover and intercept from a higher flying drone.

>radar guided

FPV, in visual and IR, cost pennies and available in millions units from Alibaba, while those military radars cost a lot and not many of them are available.

The radar guided AA is used and works where needed and not much other options - like for cruise missiles, 850km/h. You can see videos - the window of opportunity is usually short as cruise missile is also relatively low flying.
by prestodigital | 2026-03-05 20:01:27+00:00
A few years back, I had this idea for a streaming radio app... one that provided presets in the way an old school head unit in a car does. AI has made it possible for me to create an app in Flutter with a GCP backend, published to iOS and Android, including support for Android Auto. I'm really excited to share it with you and get feedback. There's an easter egg to unlock premium: long press on the logo on the top left. I'll include the link to the Google Group which gives you access to the Android testing link. Hit me up for iPhone.
by NotJustBinary | 2026-03-05 20:01:30+00:00
To add some more technical context for those interested, the most challenging part was the 6 level binary adder tree. In Chisel, it’s easy to write reduceTree(_ +& _), but at 130nm, the routing congestion becomes real when you're trying to meet a 10ns period with 86k cells. I ended up manually inserting pipeline registers between the 3rd and 4th levels of the tree to balance the slack.
I’m also curious about the Hold Violations I encountered. OpenROAD handled them by inserting massive amounts of buffer padding, which is why the utilization is around 39% despite the logic being quite dense. Has anyone here had experience balancing area vs hold-slack for high-speed dataflow like this?
by jay_kyburz | 2026-03-05 20:01:42+00:00
I think its important to remember that humans are not that far removed from the native animals that we share the earth with. Civilization is just a thin layer of rules we use to try and keep the peace between us.

Just being born doesn't entitle somebody to food and shelter, you have to go out and find it. You have to work.

A magpie is not provided food and shelter, it has to hunt, fight for territory, and build its nest.

Humans don't have some inalienable "worth". But if you can work, you might choose to trade it for some food and shelter.

AI is not going change that. We might think the AI owners have a moral obligation to feed people who can't find work, but there is no guarantee this will happen.

Also, for the short term at least, we need to stop talking about AI like its a thing, and talk about the companies that build and own the AI. Why would Google build an AI that can do everyone's job, then turn around and start building farms to feed us for free?

Do we perhaps imagine our Governments are going to start building super automated farms to feed us. How are they going to pay Google for the AI with no tax income?
Ask HN: Resources to make devs more AI aware
by myworkaccount2 | 2026-03-05 20:01:49+00:00
Apparently a new order has been handed from higher leadership for devs to keep up with the new trends in AI.

And it has landed on my plate to put together meeting where i explain the latest and greatest in AI assisted development to a room full of old school java devs.

Please help!
by thewebguyd | 2026-03-05 20:01:56+00:00
> A patient observer of the war in Ukraine could have updated some war doctrines.

A patient observer? Any random idiot of the street that cares to watch the news occasionally could've figured that out.

> If you are an American tax payer, I would understand it if you were banging your head on the table right now

Oh I am, and my representatives hear from me very, very often. Unfortunately, it falls on deaf ears. Seemingly no one around me cares, and our leaders certainly don't. I feel like I'm going insane and living in some kind of weird bizzaro world.
by mindslight | 2026-03-05 20:03:04+00:00
I'd really like to see citations to the opposite. After all, the main function of most homeowners' insurance policies is to keep banks whole regardless what happens.

In my experience insurance companies just ask you a bunch of big-picture or specific questions (eg swimming pool), reserve the right to inspect even though they never do, and then jack the rates for all the unknown unknowns.

I suppose there is a legal path of being criminally charged by fire investigators for having performed unsafe wiring (non-Listed power handling equipment as part of the fixed wiring), and then the insurance company denying you because of that criminality. Or in states where DIY wiring is not illegal, perhaps declaring that the wiring itself is "illegal" (as it goes against the NEC (despite the NEC not being openly published as we generally expect from laws!)) and then hanging their hat on illegality regardless of criminality? But does any of this happen in practice?

Surely if they were concerned about fires caused by dodgy electronics, they'd address all of the people using non-NRTL-tested GENSYM brands from Amazon et al. They've got no ability to post-facto deny based on this (said devices aren't illegal), but they could surely make it an explicit condition of policies.
How do I get startups to use my open-code project?
by ErezShahaf | 2026-03-05 20:03:07+00:00
I recently noticed that some easy tickets I get during my day job can be solved with a single prompt, so I built a simple open-code orchestration system between Jiran, Coding agents (cursor/claude), and github.

The goal is to automate the easy tickets that every decent engineer will solve in roughly the same way, and let us just accept a ready PR.

Now I'm stuck on a different problem: how do you get the first real startups to actually try an open source tool like this?

I have posted about my tool in X, reddit, and here. I have received stars and even some positive comments so it does seem like there is some interest in the idea, but AFAIK there isn't a startup that actually uses it.

I'm really not sure how to go about it, I'm not trying to make money from it, so I don't want to start cold approaching companies - but I like building stuff in my spare time and would have loved to see it really being used by startups.

How do I do that?

Repo if anyone is curious:
https://github.com/ErezShahaf/Anabranch
by salawat | 2026-03-05 20:03:21+00:00
Mwahahahahaha! Suffer, devs, SUFFER! KNOW MY PAIN!

Ah hem... Welcome to the wonderful world of Quality Assurance, software developing audience. That part of the job, after you yeet your code over the fence, where the job is to bridge the gap between your madness, and the madness of the rest of the business. Here you will find: frustration, an ever present sense the rest of the world is just out to make your life more difficult, a creeping sense of despair, a hot ice pick in the back of your mind every time the language model does something syntactically valid, but completely nonsensical in the real world, the development of an ever increasing time horizon over which you can accurately predict the future, but no one will believe you anyway, a smoldering hatred of the overly confident executive with an over developed capacity for risk tolerance; a desire to run away and start a farm, and finally, a fundamental distrust of everything software, and all the people who write it.

Don't forget your complimentary test framework and swag bag on your way out, and remember, you're here forever. You can try to check out, but you can never leave.
by mothballed | 2026-03-05 20:04:18+00:00
This is such a cunningly disingenuous portrayal though when you're just leaving it at that, the US has provided billions in aid already and allocated hundreds of million more for this year. Yet the counter argument here is to just ignore all of that and pretend like they've gotten zero through omission of all the times they haven't, while relying on a totally uncited assertion that none of this year's allocation has been spent.
by dlubarov | 2026-03-05 20:04:42+00:00
> There were no Israelis [...]

Israel has existed for 78 years now, and it didn't take long for us to update language, like replacing "Jewish militias" with "Israeli forces" to reflect the present reality. Such updates happened universally, across nations and languages (Arabic included).

Even political leaders who don't recognize Israel as a state still mostly refer to it by name. The few holdouts who refuse to say "Israel" are doing so out of hatred, not because 78 years wasn't enough time to work out the proper linguistic updates.

> you would still want to clarify that

Yes, but not by changing the statement and sanitizing its meaning. The usual method is to add bracketed context, like "The Great Satan [reference to the US]".

> Don't Israelis also refer to themselves as "the Jews", though? As in, "eternal homeland of The Jews", "Netanyahu is the leader of the Jewish people", etc.?

Both are in fact references to the Jews, not to Israel. The latter is just a weird metaphorical statement.
by pixl97 | 2026-03-05 20:05:18+00:00
I mean, the AI companies want it this way, but the same laws of information apply to them too. They can patent whatever they want, but as we see other nations use their models to distill information to other models with almost nothing they can do about it.

Patents, copyright, lawsuits are all post ad hoc actions which mean the milk has already been stolen. And it only works if the rule of law is something that is respected, that's not going so well lately.

We are seeing this in that there is little to no moat between the models, nearly everyone with the needed compute seems to catch up pretty quickly. And when said rivalries cross national boarders the only solution to these problems quickly becomes violence.

With how information works AI wins this game in the long run. Individual humans scale poorly and their ability to individually acquire information is a slow process. Looking at this on a company by company basis is not the proper way to show how the future with models is going to play out.
by jasode | 2026-03-05 20:05:31+00:00
>, and this article reveals nothing new

>Thats what the second chance pool is for

>Creating a new URL with effectively the same info but further removed from the primary source is not good HN etiquette.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with all the above and thank the submitter for this article. It is sufficiently different from the primary source and did add new information (meta commentary) that I like. The title is also catchier which may explain its rise to the front page. (Because more of us recognize "Github" than "Cline").

The original source is fine but it gets deep into the weeds of the various config files. That's all wonderful but that actually isn't what I need.

On the other hand, this thread's article is more meta commentary of generalized lessons, more "case study" or "executive briefing" style. That's the right level for me at the moment.

If I was a hacker trying to re-create this exploit -- or a coding a monitoring tool that tries to prevent these kinds of attacks, I would prefer the original article's very detailed info.

On the other hand, if I just want some highlights that raises my awareness of "AI tricking AI", this article that's a level removed from the original is better for that purpose. Sometimes, the derived article is better because it presents information in a different way for a different purpose/audience. A "second chance pool" doesn't help a lot of us because it still doesn't change the article to a shorter meta commentary type of article that we prefer.
by diego_moita | 2026-03-05 20:05:55+00:00
Because he focuses in the story of luxury watches, Graham sees only the brand tricks that work mostly for rich people.

There are brands for non-rich: Linux is a very strong brand but virtually free and non-exclusive at all (think Android phones). Patriotism and country reputation might also be thought as brands. E.g. would Portugal's tourist boom happen without the Portuguese tarts popularity?

Edit: my watch is a Pebble.
by Esophagus4 | 2026-03-05 20:06:42+00:00
You have no idea whether the US will put boots on the ground or not. You also have no idea who the next leader will be.

You are putting your argument in a smaller and smaller box so it doesn’t fall apart.

Btw on Polymarket the chances of US forces entering Iran this year are 60%. The odds of the regime falling this year are 50/50.

So I repeat: you have no idea what the next government will be like. No one does. Everything is uncertain right now.
by mconti | 2026-03-05 20:06:43+00:00
One interesting angle here is the “epistemic asymmetry” point.

Even if providers comply with documentation requirements under the EU AI Act, downstream deployers still can’t realistically audit a model’s behavior at the level of training data or causal reasoning.

Curious how ML practitioners here think about this.

Is this asymmetry something that can realistically be reduced with interpretability / mechanistic transparency research, or is it fundamentally structural for large-scale models?
by 7777777phil | 2026-03-05 20:07:09+00:00
Nationalization assumes AGI creates a monopoly worth seizing. But if multiple labs converge simultaneously and price it toward marginal cost, there's nothing to nationalize. The question is whether governments coordinate before commoditization makes the whole debate moot. History suggests they don't: https://philippdubach.com/posts/is-ai-really-eating-the-worl...
by nickslaughter02 | 2026-03-05 20:07:15+00:00
Hacker News damaged the link: https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal/pull/1922#issu...

> To require devices to conduct commercially reasonable age assurance for users under the age of 18 at the point of device activation, unlocking the ability to enforce all other digital privacy and safety laws for underage users
by mrtksn | 2026-03-05 20:07:33+00:00
Isn’t it actually quite fair that if you are not compliant with whatever the government wants you to do you will be supplying chain risk?

For example from history we know that Schindler from Schindler's List was indeed a supply chain risk. He harbored persecuted people, he took and sabotaged government contracts. He did the moral but anti-government and illegal things. He was corrupt traitor from governments perspective.

The current US government already is labeled as fascist by many, the guy who designated Anthropic supply chain risk is allegedly a war criminal.

I don’t see why anyone not into these things would not be a supply chain risk.

I know that its very unpopular or divisive to say this but Anthropic can be a hero only after all this is over. At this time people in charge do double tap on survivors and take pride for not having conscience, they give speeches about these things.
by stego-tech | 2026-03-05 20:07:36+00:00
As the commenter points out, they don't have one.

They're all too happy to downvote and naysay anyone demanding change, but never have an alternative beyond personal nihilism or fatalism. "This is definitely a problem, but fuck if I know how to solve it, and if I can't solve it then nobody else can discuss solving it either."

I hate it.
by sillysaurusx | 2026-03-05 20:08:16+00:00
You may want to look over this thread from cperciva: https://x.com/cperciva/status/2029645027358495156

I too tried Codex and found it similarly hard to control over long contexts. It ended up coding an app that spit out millions of tiny files which were technically smaller than the original files it was supposed to optimize, except due to there being millions of them, actual hard drive usage was 18x larger. It seemed to work well until a certain point, and I suspect that point was context window overflow / compaction. Happy to provide you with the full session if it helps.

I’ll give Codex another shot with 1M. It just seemed like cperciva’s case and my own might be similar in that once the context window overflows (or refuses to fill) Codex seems to lose something essential, whereas Claude keeps it. What that thing is, I have no idea, but I’m hoping longer context will preserve it.
by busterarm | 2026-03-05 20:08:17+00:00
I did click vouch, but I also still stick by what I said because I see all sorts of personal, emotional crusades against various tech figures reposted, signal-boosted, amplified, etc. on this board. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just asking people to pause and think about what the comments would look like if this were in response to some other characters...
by joquarky | 2026-03-05 20:09:17+00:00
I was watching a film from 1959 where the main character just swaps headlights and tires from completely different cars like they were just nominally interchangeable.

It feels like the era of standardization already came and went. It seems like product designers are now being deliberately obtuse so that their product quirks create lock-in and therefore more revenue. I expect that genAI will put fuel on this fire.
by overfeed | 2026-03-05 20:09:17+00:00
> The code comparison in this demonstrates a relatively strong case that the expression of the idea is significantly different from that of the original code.

Can I use one AI agent to write detailed tests based on disassembled Windows, and another to write code that passes those same function-level tests? If so, I'm about to relicense Windows 11 - eat my shorts, ReactOS!
by yndoendo | 2026-03-05 20:09:45+00:00
I recommend _Alchemy: The Surprising Power of Ideas That Don't Make Sense_ by Rory Sutherland [0]. It will help improve the understanding of marketing and hows business operate. This is an over simplified summary.

There are mainly two reasons people buy something.

1) It is seen as good deal.

2) It is seen as luxury.

Your premise hinges on only #1 and ignores #2. #1 is also limited to select products. How many bed sheets or cars do you need?

It also rejects the Friedman doctrine [1]. The continual following of this doctrine is what has lead to the enshitification of many products and services. Non-living wages also came out of following it. Living wages harms profits.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26210508-alchemy

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
by bee_rider | 2026-03-05 20:10:11+00:00
It’s sort of hard to unravel what’s part of the brand, it’s all imagination anyway.

The watch manufacturer, as part of their reputation, buys “premium” internal components. And then the hardcore watch-heads get to know that this model has that premium movement. Everybody in the club gets to signal to each other by knowing internal details that outsiders don’t notice (or even details that can’t be noticed, I mean, I assume by nowadays non-premium-brand movements are functionally identical to the premium ones).
by pixl97 | 2026-03-05 20:10:13+00:00
Dinosaurs lived 100 million years, before they didn't.

And walls between France and Germany were effective, until they weren't.

Hell, even the 'people' is the problem doesn't work well for things like Moloch problems. Which people? The problem can no longer be pointed at any individual but a super-organizational response. Once you have an issue that is abstracted from it's base components, then any agent capable of parsing the abstraction can be part of influencing it and becoming part of Moloch.
by nine_k | 2026-03-05 20:10:22+00:00
Shooting Patriots at flying lawn mowers (I suppose you mean Shaheds, Gerberas, and the like) is crazy. Patriots are key to shooting down ballistic missiles.

To the best of my knowledge, the explosives-laden lawn mowers flying over Ukraine are mostly destroyed by cannon fire from the ground, cannon / machine-gun fire from aircraft (including converted GA aircraft), and interceptor drones.

I expect the US armed forces to be testing oodles of various cheap drones by now. E.g. the US has used Shahed-lookalike drones while attacking Iran recently.
by taurath | 2026-03-05 20:10:23+00:00
No, we’re Russia now. You go in, soak up the blame and attention for the Principle’s abhorrent and violent actions, grift a few hundred million dollars from contracts that you have sole authority over, and are discarded, now filthy rich.

Much of the tech economy seems to work like this - join or make a company doing morally reprehensible things, get your RSUs, get your house, and retire. I’ve never seen it be so cut and dry how easy it is to trade humanity for money as this age in this country. I hope nobody can sleep at night and I hope they’re miserable forever for the harm they inclict on innocents.