MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Terr_ | 2026-03-05 03:15:01+00:00
> the story happens to gloss over the facts about the legal status and focuses on the hardship

Suppose you have a "civil infraction" against you, like an unpaid parking ticket, running across the road in an unsafe way, or overstaying a visa. It's terms of US law categories, it's less than graffiti on a fence. In this case you were "indeed in violation" of it.

However, what happens next is some recently hired weirdos in mismatched camo-gear claiming to be police (with no ID) surround you on the the sidewalk, drag you into a van, and imprison you for months without trial. You are purposefully shuffled between different prisons in different states to prevent your own lawyer from being able to find you.

Meanwhile, some internet dude nicknamed 0x40 comes along and says: "Ugh, why do you guys keep glossing over the facts about their parking tickets to focus on the hardship? Yes, it's a hardship to be split from your family, I can't deny that, but..."

In short, one of the several problems right now is the that even for people who did something wrong, the "hardship" is frequently illegal and disproportional. The truthfulness of the cause does not justify the effect.
by sg17gweedo | 2026-03-05 03:15:45+00:00
Every other AI deals with long conversations by forgetting parts of them. We found a better way.

Every AI has a context window. Think of it as the AI's short-term memory, the amount of text it can hold in its mind at once. For the best models right now, that's somewhere between 128K and 200K tokens. Sounds like a lot. It's not.

A month of daily conversations with an AI generates millions of tokens. A year generates tens of millions. The context window holds a fraction of one percent of a long-term relationship's worth of conversation.

So what do AI systems do? They forget. They summarize. They compress conversations into shorter versions that lose nuance, drop context, and turn rich experiences into flat bullet points. "User discussed debugging Medulla for three hours, expressed frustration, eventually solved the issue by switching to async" becomes "User worked on Medulla."

That's not memory. That's a receipt.

We built something different. We call it context folding.
by hunterpayne | 2026-03-05 03:16:00+00:00
I don't think killing solar and wind projects is what the greens do. The problems with solar and wind are entirely due to the laws of physics. They get large advantages in the energy markets in most places. They have been very effective in preventing nuclear though which ironically does so much real world damage to their cause that all the rest of what they do is a drop in the bucket.
by oogabooga13 | 2026-03-05 03:16:06+00:00
Definitely a tragedy, I just think at some point the LLM needs to stop under any context (role play etc.) Personally, as a heavy Gemini user I went into the settings and have explicit instructions to not be sycophantic, to never 'fear' pushing back on me, tell the objective truth, etc) just to file down the default state of the model which can be a bit overeager to please or solve the next issue on every interaction. It could be too easy to walk away thinking I am the next Einstein and that seems to be something Google could stand to work on a bit.
by _alternator_ | 2026-03-05 03:16:24+00:00
Another bit I’m surprised seems to have gotten completely glossed over: there is a deep relationship between _entropy_ and mass which puts bounds on the amount of information you can place in a given volume.

TLDR: a given region of space can’t have more entropy than a black hole of the same volume. Rearranging terms, you find that N bits of information (for large N) has an equivalent black hole size, which in turn has a mass…
by twitchard | 2026-03-05 03:17:06+00:00
Re: model Supremacy -- I think there's so much cross-pollination between the AI labs that this is unlikely. Everybody at these labs basically know what everybody at the other labs are doing. *data* can be hard to get but I don't think acquiring good data is positive feedback loop-y where whoever wins just skyrockets away from everybody else.

Model stagnation, I thought stagnation was coming last year, then Opus 4.5 came out. I think maybe the models are slowing at getting *smarter* per se, but they are still getting better at coding. And even if they stopped getting better at coding, if they got as good as they have gotten at coding on other fields of inquiry (like, say, writing) so I think we've got a ways to go yet before the progress in terms of economic usefulness slows down.
by adriand | 2026-03-05 03:17:31+00:00
I think Amodei is widely underestimated. The consensus viewpoint on the deal that OpenAI struck with the Pentagon is that Anthropic got played. I disagree. I'm certain that Amodei and his team gamed this out. In doing so, I think there's at least two conclusions they would have drawn:

1. Some other AI company would cut a deal with the Pentagon. There's no world in which all the labs boycott the Pentagon. So who? Choosing Grok would be bad for the US, which is a bad outcome, but Amodei would have discounted that option, because he knows that despite their moral failures, the Pentagon is not stupid and Grok sucks.

That leaves Gemini or OpenAI, and I bet they predicted it would be OpenAI. Choosing OpenAI does not harm the republic - say what you will about Altman, ChatGPT is not toxic and it is capable - but it does have the potential to harm OpenAI, which is my second point:

2. OpenAI may benefit from this in the short term, and Anthropic may likewise be harmed in the short term, but what about the long game? Here, the strategic benefits to Anthropic in both distancing themselves from the Trump administration and letting OpenAI sully themselves with this association are readily apparent. This is true from a talent retention and attraction standpoint and especially true from a marketing standpoint. Claude has long had much less market share than ChatGPT. In that position, there are plenty of strategic reasons to take a moral/ethical stand like this.

What I did not expect, and I would guess Amodei did not either, is that Claude would now be #1 in the app store. The benefits from this stance look to be materializing much more quickly than anyone in favour of his courage might have hoped.
by lewisjoe | 2026-03-05 03:17:38+00:00
How to expose my product suite's API to AI has been a roller coster ride. First it was tool calling hooks, then MCP, then later folks found out AI is better at coding so MCPs suddenly became code-mode, then people realized skills are better at context and eventually now Google has launched cli approach.

Remember this repo is not an agent. It's just a cli tool to operate over gsuite documents that happens to have an MCP command and a bunch of skills prebundled.

That's a new one. I guess the hope is agents are good at navigating cli and it also democratizes the ecosystem to be used by any agent as opposed to Microsoft (which only allows Copilot to work in its ecosystem)
by Slaine | 2026-03-05 03:17:58+00:00
Yeah, totally agree. Integrity mostly answers the “what happened” part.

The idea is that once the sequence of events is provably intact, you can attach the decision context to it — things like policy snapshots, inputs/prompts (or hashes of them), and state transitions.

Then the evidence layer proves the history wasn’t altered, and analysis tools can reconstruct why the system made a particular decision from that preserved context.

The demo focuses on the integrity layer because without that everything else turns into “trust our dashboard.” Interpretability tools can sit on top of the same evidence
by 3eb7988a1663 | 2026-03-05 03:18:03+00:00
I have no idea what exactly Anthropic was offering the DoD, but if there were a LLM product, possible that the existing guardrails prevented the model from executing on the DoD vision.

"Find all of the terrorists in this photo", "Which targets should I bomb first?"

Even if the DoD wanted to ignore the legal terms, the model itself would not cooperate. DoD required a specially trained product without limitations.
by pottertheotter | 2026-03-05 03:18:33+00:00
Ok, wow… “The fishermen who first discovered the poor stranded whale started the procedure by poking its eyes out, so that it would "not be able to see us." Over the next two days, the creature was methodically axed, speared and shot until it finally died in a sea of its own blood.”

I guess it was 1865.
by jcranmer | 2026-03-05 03:18:34+00:00
I am extremely skeptical that that would be the case. Local stack accesses are pretty guaranteed to be L1 cache hits, and if any memory access can be made fast, it's accesses to the local stack. The general rule of thumb for performance engineering is that you're optimizing for L2 cache misses if you can't fit in L2 cache, so overall, I'd be shocked if this convoluted calling convention could eke out more than a few percent improvement, and even 1% I'm skeptical of. Meanwhile, making 14-argument functions is going to create a lot of extra work in several places for LLVM that I can think of (for starters, most of the SmallVector<Value *, N> handling is choosing 4 or 8 for N, so there's going to be a lot of heap-allocate a 14-element array going on), which will more than eat up the gains you'd be expecting.
by mrandish | 2026-03-05 03:19:24+00:00
> we haven’t donated to Trump

Another reason is that Sam Altman has been willing to "play ball" like providing high-profile (though meaningless) big announcements Trump likes to tout as successes. For example:

> "The Stargate AI data center project worth $500 billion, announced by US President Donald Trump in January 2025, is reportedly running into serious trouble.

More than a year after the announcement, the joint venture between OpenAI, Oracle, and Softbank hasn't hired any staff and isn't actively developing any data centers, The Information reports, citing three people involved in the "shelved idea."

https://the-decoder.com/stargates-500-billion-ai-infrastruct...
by pseudalopex | 2026-03-05 03:20:18+00:00
> Whether a work can be copyrighted will depend on unnamed circumstances including how the AI tool was used. The conclusion I draw from that is that "how the tool was used" is going to include "how much detail was specified"

The Copyright Office's guidance the court cited said it would not.

If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks
human authorship and the Office will not register it 26 For example, when an AI technology
receives solely a prompt 27 from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical
works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed
by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the
generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative
control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these
prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the
prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are
implemented in its output.[1]

And the Copyright Office rejected a claim 624 iterations of experiment and refining was authorship.[2]

Another court could change this.

> That's my opinion, as I pointed out in the next paragraph

You said the next paragraph was your opinion in the next paragraph.

[1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf

[2] https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...
by Brajeshwar | 2026-03-05 03:20:48+00:00
I started my career as a Programmer and did a lot of programmatic designs. Unfortunately, I’m not artistic. So, my tools of choice for Design were Code and Mathematics.

Early on, I saw my colleagues working in Flash but didn’t notice anything that interested me. I don’t quite remember the exact chain of events, but I think it all started when I saw a friend writing code called “ASfunction” inside Flash, “What? You can write code to make the drawings do stuff?”

So, that was the magic; I can code and see things happen in real-time (no compilation, no render). And that was the only thing I did for quite a while.

Unfortunately, the Flash IDE was a sloth. I spend most of my time writing ActionScript in TextPad and compiling it with a CLI called MTASC (from the same developer behind HAXE.org).[1] If memory serves me well, I used to maintain the ActionScript syntax for TextPad.[2]

1. https://brajeshwar.com/2005/haxe-programming-language/

2. https://brajeshwar.com/2002/textpad-syntax-file-for-asmx/
by biffles | 2026-03-05 03:21:01+00:00
It was fascinating to see OpenAI’s gaslighting in action last week. Signing their deal with the DoW and then announcing it so publicly clearly had the goal to (a) portray Anthropic as unreasonable actors that couldn’t come up with a “safe” solution like OpenAI and (b) take away all the leverage Anthropic had in the contract negotiations. Clever (in a Machiavellian sort of way) but still can’t understand why they did it so blatantly — literally hours after Anthropic was designated persona non grata by the government. Clearly this has backfired in a massive way.

In a way, I admire Dario’s stance and having the backbone to stand up to a government that is so happy to punish, legally or illegally, those that disagree with them. I certainly wouldn’t have the bravery (or stupidity) in his position — which frankly makes me happy that he’s running Anthropic and not someone like me…
by testing22321 | 2026-03-05 03:21:18+00:00
I toured a major US OEM assembly plant recently, and there were a TON of humans working insanely repetitive tasks.

The most kind numbing of all were the easiest (sit in chair and put bolts upright in holder so robot can pick them up) and the highest paid thanks to union seniority.

The UAW will kill all the US OEMs before that let robots replace all the humans.
by uncSoft | 2026-03-05 03:21:21+00:00
I build anubis-oss because my friends and I are always trying to see how local LLMs run on our different Macs with different configs. So I build a benchmarker for us with a bunch of tools like exportable benchmark reports and arena mode, then I said hey, I can add public leaderboards with the full dataset of submissions open sourced, and give that to my ML and model tuning friends to gauge performance across broad configs. Yes it cost me money, but it's a fun project and I'm trying to get it into homebrew. Just need a few more stars.

https://devpadapp.com/anubis-oss.html

https://github.com/uncSoft/anubis-oss

https://imgur.com/a/X64WsWY
by koverda | 2026-03-05 03:22:02+00:00
Ran by this dude "Russ George", they dumped 120 tons of iron dust off the coast of Canada into the Pacific, created a massive algal bloom, and subsequently had the 2nd biggest salmon harvest on record (219M): https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pressreleases.pr1... despite a forecast of 54M https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/commercial/s....

He got fired. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_George
by neilv | 2026-03-05 03:22:03+00:00
Are there other ways that you can increase trust, that you would feel good about?

Most people are cavalier about tech trust, because that's easy or they don't know any better, and often they really don't care.

But it seems the base for GrapheneOS is people who care, and a lot of them (not all) care about trustworthiness (not just annoyances).
by bko | 2026-03-05 03:22:16+00:00
Imagine if a gun manufacturer sold weapons to the military but said "don't use them is unjustified wars as we deem fit" seems wrong as we dont want gun manufacturers setting our foreign policy. Choose not to sell them sure, but this isn't "ownership of IP". If the feds were to ask for weights and torrent it out, sure IP. But this ain't that
by tmule | 2026-03-05 03:22:17+00:00
Oppenheimer? Really? Quoting a review of an Oppenheimer biography:

“Oppenheimer was clearly an enormously charming man, but also a manipulative man and one who made enemies he need not have made. The really horrible things Oppenheimer did as a young man – placing a poisoned apple on the desk of his advisor at Cambridge, attempting to strangle his best friend – and yes, he really did those things – Monk passes off as the result of temporary insanity, a profound but passing psychological disturbance. (There’s no real attempt by Monk to explain Oppenheimer’s attempt to get Linus Pauling’s wife Ava to run off to Mexico with him, which ended the possibility of collaboration with one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth, or any, century.) Certainly the youthful Oppenheimer did go through a period of serious mental illness; but the desire to get his own way, and feelings of enormous frustration with people who prevented him from getting his own way, seem to have been part of his character throughout his life.”

Seems more like Sam Altman, who is known to get his way, than Dario.
by salad-tycoon | 2026-03-05 03:22:29+00:00
I don’t code, so I’m well out of my league but this point of “premier coding AI company should showcase its capabilities by using their own model to build superior software” rings true to me, right? Especially as we start to discuss AI as more dangerous than nuclear weapons
yet it can’t even do that?

Who’s got the rebuttal to this?
by neya | 2026-03-05 03:23:13+00:00
>Dario on the other hand seems to have an integrity that's particularly rare in this era.

Anthropic actually partnered up with Palantir. They are not the saints you think they are, either.

We should stop worshipping people and companies and stop putting them on pedestals.
Just because one party is at fault, doesn't mean the other is automatically innocent. These are all for-profit companies at play here.

https://investors.palantir.com/news-details/2024/Anthropic-a...
by aardvarkr | 2026-03-05 03:23:17+00:00
It’s a $200M contract. That’s not nothing but it’s definitely not such a huge sum for these companies at their scale when they’re spending billions on infrastructure.

I’m sure anthropic has signed up more revenue this week in response to this debacle to cover it. Where they’re actually screwed is if the gov follows through and declare anthropic a supply chain risk.
by mieubrisse | 2026-03-05 03:25:24+00:00
The guy to watch here is https://github.com/Dicklesworthstone . He's rewritten SQLite in Rust with fixes, written his own Rust async engine with fixes that Tokio doesn't have, generated an insane number of tools for agentic orchestration (indexing of all sessions across all harnesses, on-demand skill storage, agent mail), and is currently building out agent orchestration terminal multiplexer stuff.

Source: been watching both these guys closely, as I've been building my own agent factory focused on security + learning: https://github.com/mieubrisse/agenc
by Brajeshwar | 2026-03-05 03:25:41+00:00
I personally believe that Flash has had its day and should die a Hero, rather than be resurrected to become a villain.

For being open-sourced, it was a pretty hot topic, especially at an interesting gathering inside Macromedia in the summer of 2005. Little did we know (or kinda) that it was going to take a different path with Adobe that Christmas.

Honestly, I think, Flash kinda died way before the iPhone was released.
by z3ncyberpunk | 2026-03-05 03:26:01+00:00
There have been more killed by trans mass shooters than ICE but I don't hear any complaining from the left on that one. Everything you listed we just went through with the last administration as well. None of it is new, you people are all just losing your minds now because its not your side doing it. Different colors, same cult, all crayon eaters.
by pembrook | 2026-03-05 03:26:18+00:00
Raycast didn't raise $10B so they clearly aren't building their own model.

So this is just another Codex/Cursor/Vscode but with different branding to target MacOS apps? Is there any novel features or is it literally just a pure play branding/packaging exercise over the openai/anthropic API to trick normies?

I'm starting to get even more negative on AI coding tools...somehow they provide even less value-add than the trivial AI copywriting apps. At least the writing apps have to contend with building a text editor and workflows around collaboration/approval/publishing, which is actually a real value-add over the raw model API.

But I've yet to find a coding tool with a moat given there's zero workflow differentiation even for large teams -- collaboration, approvals and pushing to prod is all handled by git either way!
by raw_anon_1111 | 2026-03-05 03:28:28+00:00
This is a myth that needs to die.

The first iPhone had 128Mb of RAM and a 400Mhz processor and could barely run Safari. If you scrolled to fast you would get a checkerbox while Safari was trying to catch up.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1732478

If it couldn’t run Safari with decent performance, how was it going to run Safari + Flash?

In fact when Flash finally did come to Android in 2010, it required a 1Ghz processor and 1GB of RAM and it barely ran then and killed the battery. An iPhone with those specs didn’t come out until 2011.

Another anecdote is that the Motorola Xoom was supposed to to be the “iPad killer” because it could show you the “real web” with Flash.

But it came out without Flash because Adobe was late. You couldn’t even see the Xoom home page on the Xoom when it was first introduced because it required Flash.
by MBCook | 2026-03-05 03:28:33+00:00
That’s generally what it seemed like to me too. Seemed to be human shaped so they could say it’s humanoid… and nothing else.

Nothing in the video looked like it couldn’t be done by a more industrial robot shaped robot. And I bet that would be cheaper or easier to make.

Then I started reading the text. When I got to the part very early on about deploying “Physical AI” that confirmed it to me.

This all seems to be “humanoid washing”. Nothing terribly interesting that someone put a special coat of paint on to get attention.

I’d love to be proven wrong. But the video certainly didn’t show it. And I didn’t notice it in the press release, though it was hard to parse past the ridiculously over the top language that did nothing but obscure what was actually going on.

Probably because there’s not much going on.
by dap | 2026-03-05 03:28:57+00:00
I don’t think that sums up the post well. I would say:

The phrase “it turns out” has a surprising way of disarming skepticism in readers. While surprising, it’s easy to understand: the phrase suggests a story of the author’s journey of believing one thing, investigating, and finding something different. That’s more credible than simply saying the thing they now believe. The touch of vulnerability (admitting being wrong) avoids the reader’s ego getting defensive when asked to admit they were wrong. The net result is that it’s surprisingly easy to be convinced without any real argument.

I’ve noticed this as well (often in podcasts and programs like Radiolab) and I think it’s quite valuable to just be aware of it as a reader/listener, if you care about thinking critically about your own beliefs.