MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ghiculescu | 2026-03-08 23:49:05+00:00
You were together all your adult life - you’re not two people anymore, you’re cleaved as one.

And now that’s been severed. It will hurt.

New hobbies and getting your mind off things won’t cut it. If this was a physical injury you wouldn’t recommend someone start a new sport. Your soul is injured.

If the partnership is totally irreconcilable (or if it’s something more tragic, then my condolences) then you just need to accept that and take the time to heal. But is it irreconcilable?

Good luck.
by 000ooo000 | 2026-03-08 23:50:16+00:00
>Now, we're seeing a technology which most professional developers — that have used it seriously, at least — insist is orders of magnitude better than anything else that's come before it.

You can't just assert this. I could equally-baselessly say most professional developers have used LLMs and find them, overall, more trouble than they're worth. Except it's not totally baseless because I think that was actually a result of a study, IIRC.
by stavros | 2026-03-08 23:50:37+00:00
Everybody says "but they just predict tokens" as if that's not just "I hope you won't think too much about this" sleight of hand.

Why does predicting the next token mean that they aren't AGI? Please clarify the exact logical steps there, because I make a similar argument that human brains are merely electrical signals propagating, and not real intelligence, but I never really seem to convince people.
by k32k | 2026-03-08 23:50:44+00:00
Many people I know initially used ChatGPT for awhile. Then after awhile they went to Gemini. Again stuck with it for awhile. And now are dabbling with Claude.

Yep there really is no switching cost it seems.

People generally want something from a model and then leave. I think people are sub-consciously forming relationships with Tech firms such that they do not care about them, and its all about what the user themselves gets. Generally there is no attachment. There's some examples of psychotic stuff but that's thankfully the exception not the norm.

That's why Apple cares deeply about its brand - it doesn't want to fall into that group of firms.
by savvyllm | 2026-03-08 23:51:52+00:00
Great point on vouch decay — this is exactly the kind of thing we've been thinking about. Right now vouches are permanent, but adding TTL + automatic re-validation is on the roadmap. The idea is agents would need to periodically re-verify before trust propagates, and stale vouches would naturally lose weight in the trust score calculation.

Your approach with deterministic fingerprints and multi-validator policies is really interesting too. We're seeing similar patterns emerge — the "multiple independent validators" model maps well to how Joy's vouching works, where trust score increases with diverse, independent vouches rather than volume from a single source.

Appreciate the feedback. If you want to poke around, the MCP endpoint is live at https://joy-connect.fly.dev/mcp — any MCP-compatible agent can connect directly.
by RajT88 | 2026-03-08 23:51:58+00:00
The problem here is a real one: A lot of people in charge of implementing WAF don't understand what it's all about.

That said, this article is describing something that you quickly learn studying the WAF offerings on a cloud provider on day 1. For such a complex topic, this is surprisingly remedial to show up here.

All that said: there's a lot of dumb shit that ends up being configured in the cloud, and articles like this are good reminders for people to check for dumb shit.
by eager_learner | 2026-03-08 23:51:59+00:00
tldr:

- In the 1940s, ~80% of kids were trained by their 1st birthday

-By 2004, the average completion age was 37 months (over 3 years old)

-That extra year of diapers = ~$3.1 billion annually for the industry

-A pediatrician named Brazelton popularized "wait until they're ready" advice in the 60s — and later became a paid Pampers spokesperson, which is... a conflict of interest

-Diaper companies responded by making bigger and bigger sizes (up to 65 lbs!)
by imiric | 2026-03-08 23:52:58+00:00
"Not belonging on HN" is an open invitation to flag anything someone disagrees with. Many posts are flagged simply because they express an unpopular opinion.

Community moderation won't fix this problem. It can only be mitigated if the site owners invest significant resources in addressing it. And judging by how little YC actually invests in HN, I wouldn't hold my breath. This website will succumb to this problem just like most others.
by pas | 2026-03-08 23:53:11+00:00
every researcher who believes in their idea shouts (to grant organizations) that their thing is the best. but gathering actual data is difficult.

usually research is super inefficient, academia is full of people who are ... true believers. (sometimes only in their own greatness, and that leads to fraud.) which is amazing, but it's not really conductive to figuring out what's the best way to set up a high-throughput process to generate data.

in many cases it would require them to stop most of what they do and let a specialist team build said pipeline for them. (but that runs into cost problems. and that immediately leads us back to the grant organizations allocating resources.)

for example see how fiendishly difficult it was initially to create transgenic mice embryos: https://www.astralcodexten.com/i/167092138/prerequisites-dex...

and I have a friend who worked at a brain research group (they implanted electrodes into rodents, put them into mazes, and then see whether they dream about the maze) and ... it was cool, but IMHO that public money was mostly wasted.
by akerl_ | 2026-03-08 23:53:44+00:00
> licensing "your" code as MIT would indeed be unfair, because you would be taking the work of others, illegally stripping the label, and making it available to profitable interests to use without compensation to the original developers against their express wishes

I'm not sure why there are quotes around "your".

If I write code and license it MIT, but it includes code that has a different non-GPL license (lets say Apache), my code is MIT-licensed, and the included code is still Apache-licensed.

I haven't illegally (or legally) stripped any licenses, or changed how it's available to others. I've picked a license for code I wrote, and the developers of code I took a dependency on picked a license for their code. People who want to use my code have to consider the license of my code and also the dependencies I used.

The GPL is largely unique in its desire to control what license I can pick for my own code.

I'm keen on picking my own license for my own code because I personally don't want to block my code from being used by anybody, commercially or otherwise. I've got no issue with developers who do want to prevent closed-source, commercial, or any other kind of downstream usage. And I'm happy to comply with the licenses of code that I leverage as part of my code. I do take issue with developers who want to impose their licensing preferences on my code.
by prophet94 | 2026-03-08 23:54:28+00:00
I built this to solve a personal problem: investments spread across 5
brokerages with no unified view and no real analysis.

The system has two parts:

1. A Python pipeline that connects to real accounts via Plaid, pulls
live holdings, enriches every position with technicals (RSI, MACD,
Bollinger Bands, fundamentals, news), then sends the full dataset to
Claude for structured buy/sell/hold analysis per position.

2. A Next.js dashboard backed by Supabase that displays net worth,
allocation, RSU tracking with live price refresh, wealth projections,
and Claude's recommendations.

The pipeline runs automatically Mon/Wed/Fri at 7am via launchd/cron.

Some numbers from 15 actual runs: ~47K input tokens + ~15K output
tokens per run on claude-sonnet-4-6. At 3x/week that's ~$0.36/run,
~$5/month. Everything else (Plaid Development tier, Supabase free
tier, Vercel) is free.

Setup is one command — bash install.sh — which handles Python deps,
Node deps, and a wizard that live-validates every API key before
writing anything to disk.

MIT licensed. Financial data stays in your own Supabase instance.

Not financial advice — treat Claude's output as a starting point for
your own research.

https://github.com/mkash25/Claude-powered-AI-native-financial-dashboard
by christofosho | 2026-03-08 23:54:35+00:00
Aren't down votes on this forum restricted to 500+ karma? And how would those compare to flagging? I'd hate for people under 500 karma to think they need to flag a post in order to have it get any attention by moderation. And, with your idea that LLMs help folks write, wouldn't that make the community worse for them?

And what about users like this, whose comment are very much entirely LLM generated and possibly even a bot? https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=BelVisgarra
by caminante | 2026-03-08 23:54:40+00:00
No way. This quick math doesn't make sense and seems grossly shortsighted.

(1) You have to ingest more than 1800 calories to get 1800 calories of milk. I'm seeing a 1.25x multiplier at a minimum so 2250 cal.

(2) That's already close to a full daily calorie intake (3 meals).

(3) Kirkland formula is $13 per 2250 calories ($32/5400cal*2250cal). You're not beating $13 per 3 meals unless you're meal prepping.

(4) This doesn't even factor in the vitamin loading via formula.
by hosh | 2026-03-08 23:54:54+00:00
I don’t have my LLMs generate literate programming. I do ask it to talk about tradeoffs.

I have full examples of something that is heavily commented and explained, including links to any schemas or docs. I have gotten good results when I ask an LLM to use that as a template, that not everything in there needs to be used, and it cuts down on hallucinations by quite a bit.
by takwatanabe | 2026-03-08 23:55:12+00:00
The post-it note analogy is good, but as a psychiatrist, I'd frame it differently: LLMs are essentially patients with anterograde amnesia.

They can reason brilliantly within a single conversation — just like an amnesic patient can hold an intelligent discussion — but the moment the session ends, everything is gone. No learning happened. No memory formed.

What's worse, even within a session, they degrade. Research shows that effective context utilization drops to <1% of the nominal window on some tasks (Paulsen 2025). Claude 3.5 Sonnet's 200K context has an effective window of ~4K on certain benchmarks. Du et al. (EMNLP 2025) found that context length alone causes 13-85% performance degradation — even when all irrelevant tokens are removed. Length itself is the poison.

This pattern is structurally identical to what I see in clinical practice every day. Anxiety fills working memory with background worry, hallucinations inject noise tokens, depressive rumination creates circular context that blocks updating. In every case, the treatment is the same: clear the context. Medication, sleep, or — for an LLM — a fresh session.

The industry keeps betting on bigger context windows, but that's expanding warehouse floor space while the desk stays the same size. The human brain solved this hundreds of millions of years ago: store everything in long-term memory, recall selectively when needed, consolidate during sleep, and actively forget what's no longer useful.

We can build the smartest single model in the world — the greatest genius humanity has ever seen — but a genius with no memory and no sleep is still just an amnesic savant. The ceiling isn't intelligence. It's architecture.
by Zafira | 2026-03-08 23:55:22+00:00
Sorta?

The data being written to the disk is the same in CAV or CLV disks, but the player just needs to know how to spin the disk at the right speed so that the laser can read the pits/lands correctly. It is purely a detail about the speed that the disk is spun at so they can cram more data on it with CLV disks.

What CAV LaserDiscs allow for, though, is to make it extremely obvious where scanlines and blanking intervals are in the video signal.
by TacticalCoder | 2026-03-08 23:55:36+00:00
> Crucially, the purpose of Blacksky is to provide a service for the (US) black community which has its own moderation decisions while being substantially interoperable.

"Crucially, the purpose of Whitesky is to provide a service for the (US) white community which has its own moderation decisions while being substantially interoperable."

"Crucially, the purpose of Yellowsky is to provide a service for the (US) asian community which has its own moderation decisions while being substantially interoperable."

How does that honestly sound? For to me Whitesky and Yellowsky do sound pretty racist. Maybe I'm mistaken though and Whitesky and Yellowsky do not sound racist. But if they do, so does Blacksky.
by beepbooptheory | 2026-03-08 23:56:48+00:00
It's a bummer because sometimes the headline seems cool, but its always generated blah blah recently. I don't think I've seen a non-AI readme on here in months..

Everyone has their own hueristic, but if it took someone 6 hours or whatever to make some whole big app, my confidence that they will continue to maintain or care about it even next week is pretty much zero... How could they? They've already made three other apps in that time!

I don't care if the code is perfect, all this stuff just has the feel of plastic cutlery, if that makes sense.
by shubhamintech | 2026-03-08 23:56:50+00:00
The latency point matters more than it looks imo like the GPU work isn't just async CPU work at a different speed, the cost model is completely different. In LLM inference, the hard scheduling problem is batching non-uniform requests where prompt lengths and generation lengths vary, and treating that like normal thread scheduling leads to terrible utilization. Would be curious if Eyot has anything to say about non-uniform work units.
by john_strinlai | 2026-03-08 23:57:38+00:00
on friday i got 2 calls saying "my phone is no longer showing me my emails, please fix" when the error message they received was roughly "please reenter your password to continue using outlook".

on wednesday i got a call saying "the CRM wont let me input this note, please fix" when the error message was "you have included an invalid character, '□' found in description. remove invalid characters and resubmit".
by magicalhippo | 2026-03-08 23:58:07+00:00
That sounds depressing to me.

Just had some nice betasuppe[1], a vegetable soup with meat sausage if you like. Just chop some sausage and vegetables (or easier use a bag of frozen stew vegetables), cook in pot with some stock, done. Minimal cleanup, no mess. Great tasting meal for a few cold days.

Before that I had pan-fried salmon with broccoli, pasta and pesto. Just put the salmon in the pan with a dash of oil and season it, cook Fussili (rotini) pasta and toss in frozen broccoli once the pasta is nearly done. Serve with decent pesto. Done in ~15 minutes, no prep, just a pan and a pot to clean, no mess, lots of taste.

Before that I made some Ceasar-ish salad. Fried some bacon and a seasoned chicken breast, meanwhile rinsed and prepared the Romain lettuce, I cheat and use some cherry tomatoes cut in half for flavor, dry bacon on paper towel on the plate I'll eat from while I cut the chicken. Skipped the crutons this time, served with a good Ceasar salad dressing from the store and some fresh grated Parmesan. Just a pan and the cutting board to clean up, no mess, lots of flavor.

Just a few examples for illustration. I do make more elaborate meals, but mostly I'm lazy and don't like to clean up. But I find it easy to make great tasting meals at home, and doesn't have to be very involved.

[1]: https://northwildkitchen.com/norwegian-betasuppe/ (I added some pearled barley, more fiber and adds texture and taste)
by djoldman | 2026-03-08 23:58:15+00:00
The Turing test and Searle's "rebuttal" are both pretty inconsequential. There's no real definition of "thinking," therefore neither proof/disprove or say much.

Turing's imitation game is about making it difficult for a human to tell whether they are communicating with a computer or not. If a computer can trick the human, then... what? The computer is "thinking" ?

I think most people would say that's an insufficient act to prove thinking. Even though no one has a rigorous definition of thinking either.

All this stuff goes around in circles and like most philosophy makes little progress.
by stavros | 2026-03-08 23:58:59+00:00
I do the same (I have both review a piece of code), and Codex tend to produce more nitpicky feedback. Opus usually agrees with it on around half the feedback, but says that the other half is too nitpicky to implement. I generally agree with Opus' assessment, and do agree that Codex nitpicks a lot.

I can't even use Codex for planning because it goes down deep design rabbit holes, whereas Opus is great at staying at the proper, high level.
by Paul_Clayton | 2026-03-09 00:00:01+00:00
I disliked _Always Coming Home_, substantially because it felt misandrous though the less optimistic setting probably also played a role (a post-industrial Earth with a rape victim as the "protagonist" and not a heroic victim who transforms evil and suffering into good). It did seem to be exceptional in literary quality, a strong extension of the divided story mechanism in _The Dispossessed_ (and _The Left Hand of Darkness_? — I do not remember how that novel was laid out). I did not listen to the audio produced for the books, so I did not receive the full experience, but the literary quality of the novel was excellent (in my opinion). (I especially liked the simple squirrel drawing, an odd bit of trivia to remember.)

(I thought the acknowledgement of life when killing a mosquito was an interesting cultural aspect.)

I did kind of wish that a monastic-like community (or university?) had been presented as seeking more benefit from the City of Mind. Unlike the tribe that asked how to make airplanes (which failed in their military objective), the monks/scholars would train to ask good questions, seeking to restore the land and encourage communication and cooperation among humans. Having even a small bunch of humans interested in such larger issues would have been more optimistic (and perhaps realistic as the existence of an actual Oracle might encourage some people to be scholars, making connections and asking questions). Of course, a ten volume novel would have been even less popular, and LeGuin clearly was motivated to write a more gritty novel.
by jbritton | 2026-03-09 00:00:03+00:00
When I wrote my very first Rust code, I was trying to write to a socket. I got stuck on this task with misleading error messages for the longest time. I finally realized I had not made the socket object mutable. I’m used to Posix where you have an integer file descriptor and I don’t tend to think of socket write as a mutable operation. At least it doesn’t mutate state that my app manages. Perhaps something in the kernel gets mutated. I believe the socket interface may have been intended to support queuing which is perhaps why it needed to be mutable. I might have needed a lower level api. I just mention this because I think it’s interesting as to how it should be typed when mutation is external to the app. I didn’t follow through on using Rust and this was long ago so I’m sure some details are wrong.
by RajT88 | 2026-03-09 00:00:03+00:00
Yes. Pentesting of an application on every release is what everyone should be doing, finding and fixing the vulnerabilities immediately.

Not everyone can do that because of business realities.

All security is a compromise based on realities - implementing a WAF is one. Tuning a WAF is a further exercise in security compromises. They have value, but aren't a panacea. A good security model should have many layers, and this is one of the layers you can choose which addresses a wide variety of attacks your application may (or may not) be vulnerable to, and which you may (or may not) have the budget or bandwidth to actually fix.
by silverstream | 2026-03-09 00:00:08+00:00
Cloudflare Tunnel is solid for quick demos. One thing though — if you're planning the "bring your own keys" version, don't just throw them in a settings page. I went down that road and ended up with keys sitting in localStorage where any XSS could grab them. What worked better for me was having the backend hold the keys and issuing short-lived session tokens to the frontend. More moving parts but way less surface area if something goes wrong.
by rldjbpin | 2026-03-09 00:00:11+00:00
for those shopping for new PCs and are open to build one, it seems like the overall BOM has been overall lesser than a few months back. the big caveat being that you need a decent GPU.

having been in the market for one, i did make some compromise for the build (single stick of 16 GB for now; a non "future-proof" GPU within the budget). however for a decent spec (last-gen x3D CPU, mid-range RTX) build, the GPU price reduction made up for the premium on RAM.

the sad reality since the turn of the decade is that the $1000 mark for a well-rounded (gaming) system has now bumped up to $1500-$2000.

crazy time to be alive, where on laptop side, macs are now a "decent" value. especially if you were going to get the higher spec to unlock the specific memory tier. thanks work for setting me up well with one!
by pinkmuffinere | 2026-03-09 00:00:46+00:00
This definition is not very precise though. For example, I think it can be argued from this definition that we had already reached AGI by the year 2010 (or earlier!). By 2010, computers were integrated into >50% economically valuable work, to the point that humans had mostly forgotten how to do them without computers. Drafting blueprints by hand was already a thing of the past, slide-rules were archaic, paper spreadsheets were long gone. You can debate whether these count as 'highly autonomous', but it is a debate. Not to mention dishwashers, textile weaving machines, CNC machines, assembly lines where >50% is automated, chemical/mineral refining operations, etc.
by bottd | 2026-03-09 00:00:48+00:00
> If there is a need to comment the code all over the place, to me it means that the code is maybe not as good as it should be :-)

If good code was enough on its own we would read the source instead of documentation. I believe part of good software is good documentation. The prose of literate source is aimed at documentation, not line-level comments about implementation.
by dwohnitmok | 2026-03-09 00:01:46+00:00
Not quite.

Kokotajlo quit because he didn't think OpenAI would be good stewards of AGI (non-disparagement wasn't in the picture yet). As part of his exit OpenAI asked him to sign a non-disparagement as a condition of keeping his equity. He refused and gave up his equity.

To the best of my knowledge he lost that equity permanently and no longer has any stake in OpenAI (even if this episode later led to an outcry against OpenAI causing them to remove the non-disparagement agreement from future exits).
by dataflow | 2026-03-09 00:02:21+00:00
I think the Turing test ought to be fine, but we need to be less generous to the AI when executing it. If there exists any human that can consistently tell your AI apart from humans without without insider knowledge, then I don't think you can claim to have AGI. Even if 99.9% of humans can't tell you apart.

So I'm very curious if any AI we have today would pass the Turing test under all circumstances, for example if: the examiner was allowed to continue as long as they wanted (even days/weeks), the examiner could be anybody (not just random selections of humans), observations other than the text itself were fair game (say, typing/response speed, exhaustion, time of day, the examiner themselves taking a break and asking to continue later), both subjects were allowed and expected to search on the internet, etc.