MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bonoboTP | 2026-03-11 20:20:17+00:00
Plenty will, but those are not as highly regarded by the community. It's not a problem of journals. It's not hard to start your own journal by teaming up with other academics. In machine learning, ICLR is such a venue for example. The problem is much deeper and more fundamental. You want to publish alongside groundbreaking novel research. Researcher's own ears perk up when they hear about something new. They invite colleagues to talk about their novel discoveries not to describe all their null results and successful replications of known results. Funding agencies want research with novelty and impact. They want to write reports to the higher ups and the politicians and the donors that document the innovations that their funding brought. The media will republish press releases that have cool new results.

To have research happening, you need someone saying "I want to give money to this researcher". There is an endless queue of people lining up who are ready to take this money and do something with it. The person with money (govt or private) has to use some heuristics to pick. One way is to say "I trust this one, I don't care too much what the project is, I'm sure this person will do something that makes sense". But that is dependent on a track record.
by timeinput | 2026-03-11 20:20:17+00:00
You could run the comments everyone else posts through an AI tool and ask it to rephrase it so that it is clean, and easy-to-read.

You could even write a plugin for your favorite web browser to do that to every site you visit.

It seems hard to achieve the inverse that is (would you rather I use i.e.?) rewrite this paragraph as the original author did before they had an AI re--write it to make it clean, (--do you like oxford commas, and em/en dashes! Just prompt your AI) and easier to read
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-03-11 20:20:18+00:00
Oof although I feel this pain a lot. What I like to do is respond to them politely if someone talks about such thing. Although it takes time and this does sometimes make you want to dis-incentivize/dis-engange.

But at some point, the rationale behind it is that your comments are your words and I find it liberating. Some people won't appreciate it and some people would but this goes the same for AI-edited posts too.

(I would recommend to add that if you are still worried, then within your hackernews profile, please talk about you having dyslexia as people might be so much more forgiving when they get more context. We are all humans after all and I would like to think that we understand each other's struggles)
by johndough | 2026-03-11 20:20:20+00:00
Likewise, I sometimes use https://www.deepl.com/en/write to fix my unidiomatic sentences.

But I can see why the HN guideline is formulated that way. My students often use the excuse "I did not use AI for writing! I wrote it myself! I only used AI to translate it!"
Simply disallowing all kinds of AI usage is much easier than discussing for the thousandth time whether the student actually understands what they have written.
by ksec | 2026-03-11 20:20:27+00:00
>(then the M1 wins handily).

How do you came to this conclusion when both are passingly cooled and A19 Pro is faster. Not to mention AV1 and other newer codec hardware accelerator and NPU / GPU improvements.

Also remember M1 MBA is may be Walmart and US only. Around the world most dont even get a chance to buy M1 at $599. The display dont have P3 but is actually brighter than M1 400 nits. Not sure how Keyboard is worse. Neo also have 1080P webcam rather than 720P.

And if Walmart is selling M1 at $599, I am sure they will also sell Neo at lower than RSP may be even same as educational discount $499. And this point surely Neo would win?

What a lot of people dont talk about, and may be wait until iFixit to confirm. Neo is basically the iPhone 17 of MacBook. It is perhaps the easiest to repair and cheapest MacBook for Apple to services.
by shadowgovt | 2026-03-11 20:20:43+00:00
This comment makes two interesting assumptions:

1) That the entering of LLMs onto the scene of communication implies that real human beings need to change their style as a result.

2) That nobody can make an LLM talk like Cleetus McFarland.

To me, "I know that text is AI-generated" accusation smacks of the "We can always tell" discourse in the transphobia space. It's distasteful and rude.
by WorldMaker | 2026-03-11 20:20:46+00:00
> There wouldn't be Chrome-only sites and tools if Safari wasn't holding the web back (no "quotes" needed, as that's precisely what they're doing).

It's a matter of perspective. The safer perspective is: Safari isn't holding the web back, Chrome is moving too fast. Developers making Chrome-only sites and tools are moving too fast for the safety of web standards/web platform. Where one of the safety factors is "widely available in multiple implementations, not just a single browser".

> > Safari's problems are temporary.

> What are you talking about?

The point is that Safari may be moving slow, but it is still moving. It doesn't have enough users to hold the web back. It isn't "always a decade behind", it 's "a couple years to a couple months behind", depending on which caniuse or MDN Baseline approach you want to take.

There are some things Safari doesn't want to implement, but has registered safety or privacy or coupling reasons behind such things. Firefox is doing the same.

Safari isn't trapping website developers in "old standards forever", it is encouraging developers to use safe, private, stable choices. Chrome is "move fast and sometimes break things". Safari doesn't want to be that. That's useful for the web as a platform to have one or two browsers considering their implementations. It's a good reason to point out "Chrome-only" developers as being "too bleeding edge" (sometimes emphasis on the bleeding) and out of touch with standards and standards processes.
by stevenwoo | 2026-03-11 20:20:49+00:00
We can only speculate on evidence we have. The prehistoric chubby dolls (Venus figurines) from archaeological digs that many hypothesized to be fertility totems can be hypothesized to be just idealized symbols of female form as the shape changed depending upon the average temperature - ice age meant fatter dolls, temperate times meant thinner dolls.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-mystery-of-the-enigmatic-ve...
by zozbot234 | 2026-03-11 20:20:54+00:00
> Since extracted raw materials are the bedrock of the entire supply chain

Extracted raw material is incredibly cheap. Human industry and ingenuity are the real scarce resource, and UBI leverages these to an unprecedented extent. Debt and exploitation are an anti-pattern, even for a capitalist economy; they're deeply antithetical to true industry and creativity.
by ashraymalhotra | 2026-03-11 20:20:56+00:00
I would love help from the community on what the best solution for hiring is.

Sharing a real example I am going through ->
* A single LinkedIn post about a job I was hiring for got me 300+ candidates in a single day. I am sure if I went through the channels, I would have 1000+ candidates for a single role (assuming 1000 in this example).
* There are candidates that I think might be great for the role, who I will do outbound to try to attract them.
* A single interview process would involve at least 4+ people in the process, potentially taking half a day of cumulative eng time away from the company (4 hours).

The current hiring process is massively broken for all parties involved. It's not a good experience for candidates, or for hiring managers, or for the people who volunteer their time to interviews.

Out of the 1000 candidates, either AI, or humans today will pick, say, the top 50 to proceed to the next step (with humans). There's no "perfect" process to do this today, hence it's likely to happen based on past employers/colleges/github contributions etc.

Is there an opportunity for AI interviews for the other 950 people and find the hidden gems of talent who get overlooked today because of the biases above? This can especially help people who would be overlooked by typical ATS filtering mechanisms.
by nonameiguess | 2026-03-11 20:21:18+00:00
I don't see how you can know why you were downvoted. Even if one person says something, they won't all. Your comment right here has some rough patches, but I can tell what you're saying. Humans are terrific at extracting signal from noise. I would say be who you are, tough as it may be, and it'll encourage the rest of the world in the future to do the same. We're all unique in some way or another and have flaws and we'd be better off if we were knew others had them too because they weren't constantly trying to hide it and we wouldn't feel so bad thinking we're the only ones. I hope it doesn't sound unsympathetic. I understand where you're coming from intellectually, but don't have any real experience being ridiculed or bullied. I know kids can be brutal and probably scarred you, and unfortunately, adults aren't much better, but we should be, and I think at least Hacker News is better than most places full of human adults. We know there's a huge world out there. I think I'm reasonable well-spoken in English but can't speak a lick of any other language at all. The fact that you can produce intelligible English already puts you above me in my book. You're a person. I can respect you, esteem you, potentially love you, not in spite of your flaws, but because they don't matter. Every single person on the planet has them, and if they're not moral flaws, nobody should give a shit. I can't respect or love a machine any more than I can a rock. And I don't want to talk to one, either.
by obviouslynotme | 2026-03-11 20:21:24+00:00
I have worked in this particular sausage factory. Multiple funded random replications are the only thing that will save science from this crisis. The scientific method works. We need to actually do it.

Replications don't have to be in the journals either. As long as money flows, someone will do them, and that is what matters. The randomization will help prevent coordination between authors and replicators.

In a better world, negative studies and replications would count towards tenure, but that is unlikely to occur. At least half of the problem is the pressure to continuously publish positive results.
by eyasu6464 | 2026-03-11 20:21:24+00:00
Thanks for trying it out. The detections not all appearing before zooming is because I added a LOD (level of detail) rendering method, so if hundreds of thousands of objects are detected, it won’t crash the system. Only the areas you’re looking at render, and the more you zoom in, the more objects are displayed. It was a pain to set up, but it’s worth it. The notification idea is great, and I’ll add a sound to play when a scan finishes.
by entrox | 2026-03-11 20:21:24+00:00
No, you misunderstood. It is not about their output, it almost never is.

Most of the times, the business decision has already been made long before McK is hired. It’s all about legitimizing that decision and making it happen.

You can also wield them as a weapon against internal competitors or opponents. Look up how they were used to kill off Cariad for example.
by HPSimulator | 2026-03-11 20:21:33+00:00
One thing that feels different with AI-generated code is that the "design discussion" often happened inside the prompt instead of the PR.

In traditional workflows, a lot of the reasoning is visible through commit history, comments, or intermediate refactors. With LLMs, the reasoning step can be hidden because the model collapses that exploration into a single output.

What we've started doing internally is asking for two artifacts instead of just the code:

1. the prompt or task description that produced the code
2. the generated code itself

Reviewing both together gives you much better context about the intent, constraints, and tradeoffs that led to the implementation.
by dheera | 2026-03-11 20:22:02+00:00
> Can you say more about the nav stack?

It's fine for robots like these

https://docs.nav2.org/about/robots.html

It's not useful for robots like these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoQI-kLRrXA

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hKVwM5pa3NQ

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XA_jjE2OES4

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JOqc7dmmD5o

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/v9Pilgh1vcA
by zby | 2026-03-11 20:22:13+00:00
I also feel the frustration of the llm reverse-compression - when a whole article is generated from a single sentence. But when I post something edited by AI it is usually a result of a long back and forth of editing and revising. I guess I could post the whole conversation thread - but it would be very long.

Personally I would just like to read the best comments.
by whynotmaybe | 2026-03-11 20:22:21+00:00
I guess he was told because otherwise you don't know whether you said something inherently wrong or misleading or you hurt someone 's feeling.

That's the richness behind the upvote/downvote that also tend to create echo chambers because you soon learn what causes downvotes.

I've personally noticed downvote whenever I mentioned apple negatively.
by nicbou | 2026-03-11 20:22:39+00:00
Buddy I love you!

I have wanted this for so long! My job relies on following many German laws, bureaucracy pages and the like.

In the long run I want specific changes on external pages to trigger pull requests in my code (e.g. to update a tax threshold). This requires building blocks that don't exist, and that I can't find time to code and maintain myself.

I currently use Wachete, but since over a year, it triggers rate limits on a specific website and I just can't monitor German laws anymore. No tools seem to have a debounce feature, even though I only need to check for updates once per month.
by Niko901ch | 2026-03-11 20:22:48+00:00
This is exactly right. I maintain an AGENTS.md for my own AI assistant with similar principles - "禁止只记录不行动" (no recording without action) and strict rules about when to escalate vs. when to solve autonomously.

The key insight is that the AGENTS.md becomes a kind of "engineering culture in a file". When you onboard a human engineer, you hope they absorb the team's values over time. With AI, you can encode those values upfront.

The challenge is that principles need to be specific enough to be actionable. "Write simple code" is too vague. "Avoid single-use wrapper functions" (from the sibling comment) is better - it's enforceable.
by tasuki | 2026-03-11 20:22:50+00:00
> You cannot buy an x86 PC laptop in the $600–700 price range that competes with the MacBook Neo on any metric — performance, display quality, audio quality, or build quality. And certainly not software quality.

My old x86 "PC" laptop with the $0 Debian certainly compares positively to Apple in terms of software quality.
by jjmarr | 2026-03-11 20:23:00+00:00
The first pilot project to issue SSNs with the birth certificate automatically was in 1987. You can read the history here:

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v56n1/v56n1p83.pdf

Prior to that, getting the SSN required giving your birth certificate to the government. If the family wasn't getting government benefits, many didn't bother.
by john_strinlai | 2026-03-11 20:23:14+00:00
sorry.

what is the relevance to the discussion about journals and peer review is my main question.

if i randomly mentioned that your name appears to be an alternate spelling of a 3-band active EQ guitar pedal, coincidentally sharing all of the letters except one, in my reply to you, most people would be confused. that is how i felt when randomly reading "Ghislaine Maxwell" in this context of journals and peer review.
by k33n | 2026-03-11 20:23:24+00:00
That is exactly what will happen. The sad thing is, it needs to happen. I've found myself advocating for this lately, when 10 years ago, I wouldn't have even considered taking that position.

If Web3-like session-signing had taken off enough to become OS or even browser-native, we would have had a fighting chance of remaining mostly anonymous. But that just didn't happen, and isn't going to happen. Mostly because fraud ruined Web3.
by fsloth | 2026-03-11 20:24:07+00:00
No, that’s not how LLM:s work. Single prompt does not make it any better. Please focus on interesting humans comments.

If you feel like it sure chat with claude to build your insight. Then write what you think _yourself_.

If you want to introduce references use urls to non-ai generated contexts.

I means as a HN protocol.

HN is supposed to be interesting.

LLM output specifically is not interesting because everyone else can generate roughly the same output.
by juleiie | 2026-03-11 20:24:08+00:00
Look, you can make all the rules you want but in the end vibe check is the only way to have any sort of quality.

Look at Reddit… abundance of rules do not save that place at all. It’s all about curating what kind of people your site attracts.
Reddit of course is a business so they don’t care about anything other than max number of ad views.

Small non profit forums should consciously design a site to deter group(s) of people that they do not want.
by throwaways122 | 2026-03-11 20:24:09+00:00
> Chinese expansionism

I don't think people have the patience for this orwellian bullshit anymore in 2026. While we watched the United States kidnap a country's leader in order to "take their oil", while we are watching them literally starving another country with a blockade in a "friendly takeover" (or unfriendly) while simultaneously bombing a third country in order to (according to Lindsey Graham) control a third of the world's oil supply. And before i forget, threaten the territorial integrity of a fourth country and NATO and European ally to boot. But sure, tell us how the Chinese are the real bad guys that we needing to be watching out for.
by shit_game | 2026-03-11 20:24:13+00:00
This issue (human attestation) is the product of these AI companies. They are poisoning the well, only to sell the cure. This may not have initially been the plan of many of these companies, but it is the eventual end goal of all of them. Very similar to war profiteers, selling both the problem and the solution simultaneously has yet to be illegalized, but has long been masterfully capitalized, and will be vigourously because nobody will stop it.

Years ago (around 2020, when GPT-2 and 3 became publicly available) I noticed and was incredibly critical of how prevalent LLM-generated content was on reddit. I was permanently banned for "abusing reports" for reporting AI-generated comments as spam. Before that, I had posted about how I believed that the the fight against bots was over because the uncanny valley of text generation had been crossed; prior to the public availability of LLMs, most spam/bot comments were either shotgunned scripts that are easily blockable by the most rudimentary of spam filters, generated gibberish created by markov chains, or simply old scraped comments being reposted. The landscape of bot operation at the time largely relied on gaming human interaction, which required carefuly gaming temporal-relevance of text content, coherence of text content (in relation to comment chains), and the most basic attempt at appearing to be organic.

After LLMs became publicly available, text content that was temporally, contextually, and coherently relevant could be generated instantly for free. This removed practically every non-platform-imposed friction for a bot to be successful on reddit (and to generalize, anywhere that people interact). Now the onus of determining what is and isn't organic interaction is squarely on the platform, which is a difficult problem because now bot operators have had much of their work freed up, and can solely focus on gaming platform heuristics instead of also having to game human perception.

This is where AI companies come in to monetize the disaster they have created; by offering fingerprinting services for content they generate, detection services for content made by themselves and others, and estimations of human authenticity for content of any form. All while they continue to sell their services that contradict these objectives, and after having stolen literally everything that has ever been on the internet to accomplish this.

These people are evil. Not these companies - they are legal constructions that don't think or feel or act. These people are evil.
by gensym | 2026-03-11 20:24:20+00:00
That's a fair question, so I'll try as best I can. And maybe this will serve as a meta-example for me because it is hard to explain.

In a real discussion, the messiness is an important signal. The mistakes that you made and _didn't_ catch, the clunky word choices, etc, give insight actually show what you are thinking and how clearly you are thinking about it. If you have edited something for clarity, that's an important signal. LLM editing destroys that signal.

And it gets worse because LLMs destroy that signal in one direction - towards homogeneity. They create the illusion of "what you were actually thinking, but better than you could express it" but what they are delivering is "generic, professional-sounding ideas phrased in a way to convince you they are your own".
by s_dev | 2026-03-11 20:24:24+00:00
I decided to break the rules:

Forum mechanics have always shaped discourse more than policies. Voting changed everything. The response to LLMs should be mechanical not moral — soft, invisible weighting against signals correlated with generated text. Imperfect but worth the tradeoff, just like voting.

https://claude.ai/share/9fcdcba8-726b-4190-b728-bb4246ff82cf
by bitwize | 2026-03-11 20:24:33+00:00
Emacs isn't popular. It might've been in the 90s, but its star has faded now. It has niche appeal at best. Virtually everyone I interact with professionally views it as a dim memory best left in the past, or as something just inscrutably weird. Part of the reason why is "it's the UI, stupid". It needs a far better UX out of the box and by "better" I mean "more aligned with what literally every other program you are likely to use does for UX". (Just enabling cua-mode by default, and making the user toggle on "vanilla Emacs", would go far.) Most developers these days were brought up with Windows or Mac; they don't want to pretend to be using a PDP-11 or Lisp machine. One of the truths preached in the Gospel of Mac is that ALL programs need to be consistent with one another, and use the same visual look, menu hierarchy, and keybindings for corresponding commands.
by yalogin | 2026-03-11 20:24:35+00:00
This was always going to be the case. Apple has perfected the art of finding slots for different use cases and consumer buckets just as well as they have perfected the hardware and software. This is a no brained for most home use and particularly education. Only issue for home use is photos and able to process an entire photo database at once and doing ML operations on them. Of course apple’s photos is the one black mark in their software stack, or may be something I don’t like.
by shadowgovt | 2026-03-11 20:24:38+00:00
If it becomes one, then that will be the end of sites like Hacker News.

This site, at its core, is fundamentally too low-bandwidth, too text-only, and too hands-off-moderated to be able to shoulder the burden of distinguishing real human-sourced dialog from text generated by machines that are optimized to generate dialog that looks human-sourced. Expect the consequence to be that the experience you are having right now will drastically shift.

My personal guess: sites like this will slop up and human beings will ship out, going to sites where they have some mechanism for trust establishment, even if that mechanism is as simple and lo-fi as "The only people who can connect to this site are ones the admin, who is Steve and we all know Steve, personally set up an account for." This has, of course, sacrificed anonymity. But I fundamentally don't see an attestation-of-humanity model that doesn't sacrifice anonymity at some layer; the whole point of anonymity on the Internet was that nobody knew you were a dog (or, in this case, a lobster).