MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jolmg | 2026-03-12 21:48:08+00:00
>> are the tools built in such a way as to deceive the user into a false sense of trust or certainty? _Some_ of the blame lies on the UX here. It must.

> No, the blame lies with the person or the group who approve the usage of these tools, without understanding their shortcomings.

The person who approved the tools might've understood, but that doesn't mean the user understands. _Some_ of the reason why the user doesn't understand the shortcomings of the tool might be because of misleading UX.
by Ajakks | 2026-03-12 21:48:44+00:00
I doubt it was seriously considered at the time it was discussed. Space Stations are in orbit - the space battleship doesn't have to be, that is very significant.

Earth is spinning in a giant circle around the sun. Thats facts. "aiming an asteroid" is less of making a rock a missile - and a lot more of tug-boating it into the exact right spot, in the way of earth, so that earth hits the asteroid - not anything complicated like the asteroid hitting earth.

There are a lot of little things like that...
by idop | 2026-03-12 21:48:51+00:00
It's weird how you both describe visiting other cultures AND thinking everybody's just like you in the same paragraph.

1. You can fill your own car with gas, but some people can't, or prefer someone more knowledgeable to do it for them. Some people like the comfort of having someone bag their groceries for them, or have disabilities that necessitate it. Some people are old. Today you learned.

2. Your economic system is not different than theirs. Everybody NEEDS a job to support themselves, their families and to be functioning members of society. That means jobs that can easily be automated won't be automated. Also, you may make a lot more money than that kid bagging groceries to make a few bucks for himself, but at least what he does actually helps someone. What we here on Hacker News do is mostly build imaginary products that will be gone and forgotten quicker than you can say "Al Bundy".

3. Not only that, all of us here have basically written our own replacements and made ourselves obsolete. Something tells me your job isn't really needed too.
by TOMDM | 2026-03-12 21:49:29+00:00
The issue isn't that they can't be stopped, it's that they don't fear that they will be.

If you or I knowingly and flagrantly break the law, our understanding isn't that we'll be stopped and nothing else, it's that there will be punishment, that justice will be done.

How are we at a point now where we all know the administration is breaking the law. That they know they are breaking the law. That they can be stopped months or years later, but there is no justice. Not even the hint or thought of justice.

These people should fear the consequences of their actions, but at the moment there are none.
by Ethee | 2026-03-12 21:49:31+00:00
Your point is circular, let me bring it all around. If I make a 'clean-room' implementation using an LLM of a software that has a GPL license. How does the court enforce that my black box didn't use the original software in any way if there's no way to know? Does having that software as part of it's training corpus automatically enroll all output as GPL enforceable? This is essentially the question some courts are attempting to answer right now.
by shagie | 2026-03-12 21:49:39+00:00
> it becomes readily apparent that infrared light focuses differently from visible light.

On old school manual focus capable lenses you'll note a small (often red when colors were used to indicate f stops) dot to the left of the focus indication line.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AiS_Nikkor_85mm-2.0_...

On more modern lenses, is simply a dot. https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkor...

This was the offset for IR photography. You'd focus normally, and then make note of the focus distance and then line up the focus distance with the red dot for IR offset.

---

The UV photography often was done with other glass since the glass used by most lenses does an ok job of filtering UV light.

The 105mm UV lens for example - https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography//hardwares/speciallens...

It's an oddball enough lens that others don't often make that it keeps getting special runs.

https://www.nikon.com/business/industrial-lenses/lineup/uv/

Costal Optics did a run of of the lens too - https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/DAP/Coastal60f4/Coastal60f4.html...

---

One of the photographers I've stumbled across from days of old who did UV nature photography (what do bees see?) http://www.naturfotograf.com/uvstart.html
by johnnyanmac | 2026-03-12 21:49:41+00:00
I'm in games as well. I'm pretty mixed on it. For my experience

- first job, fully onsite. More traditional cubicle space

- second job, on-site until COVID came around. Literally a WeWork building as a sattellite office to HQ in San Fransico.

- third job, "0-100%" on site. There was an office and I could come into it never or all the time. More of an open office setup.

I will say it's nice to not need to spend 5 days commuting, and I really don't think we need to do that much collaboration to be productive. If you're local, I think a suggestion of 2-3 days in office would do wonders, reserved for "brainstorming" days or cross team syncs. for job 3, that was pretty much my schedule; typically come in TWTh, unless I was feeling sick (this was still the tail end of COVID).

But some camaraderie was nice. The games scene was really friendly for the most part (in my experience. I have heard second hand stories and don't want to discount those). There were community events, tribal wisdom you'd hear over water-cooler talk, impromptu group lunches, and seasonal parties. It was nice, being around other passionate people who had similar interests to you. I definitely miss that most.

Productivity-wise, I'm not sure I noticed much difference. I had enough space to setup a dedicated office room, so that's definitely one privilege I had. But I had on-off days in office and remote. Maybe my most productive days were in office, but that was usually over guidance from a lead.

I don't think everyone needs to be on-site per se. But I do see some situations where on-site is beneficial to have, at least in partial capacity.

1. Juniors definitely need some on-site guidance (and by that extension, leads need to be available those days). I really cannot imagine those early mentoring being as effective over a screen. There's so much "body language" style of knowledge gained that doesn't come up in zoom meetings (and while proposed, I really hate the idea of an "always on" chat-room)

2. brainstorming, architecturing , and conceptualizing felt much better in person. So some periods may need more in-office time than others where it's focused on development (which feels to have minimal impact, given the nature of "head down" work).

3. Office space might be a consideration depending on your living space. If you are in a small apartment with little desk space, I can see that having a huge impact to productivity.
by whilo | 2026-03-12 21:49:47+00:00
Hey. Hybrid in which sense?

I have integrated Stratum's columnar indices as a secondary index in the new query engine of https://github.com/replikativ/datahike itself, so for numerical data you will be able to use Datalog/SQL to have combined (OLTP, OLAP, ...) processing. Same for proximum (persistent HNSW vector index) and scriptum (persistent Lucene).

Stratum already can be copy-on-write updated online with better write throughput than purely columnar alternatives (Stratum uses a persistent B-tree over column chunks) as far as I tested. I have not compared it in benchmarks yet though, DuckDB recommends to not update it online for instance. But it depends on the workload, if you do random access writes the columnar layout overhead will still be a slow-down compared to OLTP/Datahike's row/entity-wise indices. Also storing fully variable strings in a column is inefficient, for this you want the entity-wise indices.
by h4ch1 | 2026-03-12 21:49:52+00:00
I mirror what you're saying but non-gentle parenting along with corporal punishment can take a strong psychological toll on a child (speaking from experience). It took me quite a while to find my voice because I a had not-so-great childhood all in the name of obedience and discipline.

But I also see, the new generation of parents taking gentle parenting to an extreme raising feral iPad kids who call their moms a bitch.

I really don't think there's an optimal framework for proper parenting but a firm hand delivered gently and logically seems to be a good starting point.
by fc417fc802 | 2026-03-12 21:50:11+00:00
He threw out a bunch of non sequiturs and failed to engage with what was actually said.

On what basis do you claim that US wrongdoing is forgotten? If you bring it up it's acknowledged and talked about. Debating it is within the realm of social acceptability. You can look it up on Wikipedia. Our AI models will happily discuss it with you.

Meanwhile the Chinese equivalent gets you the sorts of disingenuous interactions that can be seen here and domestically much of the information appears to be censored.
by abduhl | 2026-03-12 21:50:31+00:00
This is a bit hyperbolic and the exaggerations really undermine what I think is your broader point (that there is rarely recourse when you're held for short to moderate amounts of time). It is hard for me to believe that someone was held for 16 years on civil contempt without due process or that someone was held for half a year without due process after being deemed dangerous. The reason that is hard for me to believe is that the due process is implicit in the action you describe. Civil contempt is from a judge which implies that you're already in court - that's due process. Someone being labeled "dangerous" implies that a finding was made by a neutral party - that's due process.

Just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't mean that due process wasn't given.
by phendrenad2 | 2026-03-12 21:50:37+00:00
People are slowly realizing that the OSI, FSF, and Linux Foundation have become colonized by MBA flopouts, professional fleabags who jump from one 501(c)(3) to another, collecting a paycheck and laundering influence. If you took the board of the OSI, FSF, and Linux Foundation, and the boards of the World Wildlife Foundation, the ACLU, and the NRA, and scrambled them all, they would duly show up to work the next day and probably wouldn't notice anything beyond their desks being rearranged.

What do people think the chance is that someone from the OSI, FSF, or Linux Foundation WROTE this bill? Curious where people's mental models are at.
by verdverm | 2026-03-12 21:50:54+00:00
It's not interesting because this is what they do, all the time, and why you don't give them weapons or other important things.

They aren't smart, they aren't rationale, they cannot reliably follow instructions, which is why we add more turtles to the stack. Sharing and reading agent thinking text is boring.

I had one go off on e one time, worse than the clawd bot who wrote that nasty blog after being rejected on GitHub. Did I share that session? No, because it's boring. I have 100s of these failed sessions, they are only interesting in aggregate for evals, which is why is save them.
by recursivegirth | 2026-03-12 21:51:27+00:00
Fundamental flaw with LLMs. It's not that they aren't trained on the concept, it's just that in any given situation they can apply a greater bias to the antithesis of any subject. Of course, that's assuming the counter argument also exists in the training corpus.

I've always wondered what these flagship AI companies are doing behind the scenes to setup guardrails. Golden Gate Claude[1] was a really interesting... I haven't seen much additional research on the subject, at the least open-facing.

[1]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/golden-gate-claude
by Latty | 2026-03-12 21:52:09+00:00
This "logic" doesn't track at all. Enfranchising women may have benefited the party, does that mean we shouldn't have given women the vote and doing so hurt democracy? Of course not.

Just because something benefits a singular party doesn't make it antidemocratic. Expanding the franchise is more democratic, not less. A party being rewarded electorally for doing something good is the system working, not failing.

There are reasonable arguments to be made (in my opinion) that 16 is too young but you aren't making that argument, the one you are making is completely invalid.
by dangus | 2026-03-12 21:52:15+00:00
We decide via a hopefully elected government.

These examples aren’t generally voluntary once implemented. I can’t get a refund from my public library or parks department if I decide not to use it.

The social pressure placed on The Engineer is the manifestation of law. That’s all law is: a set of agreed-upon social contracts, enforced by various means.

Obviously, many dictators and governments get away with badly mistreating their subjects, and that’s unfortunate, shouldn’t happen, and shouldn’t be praised as a good system.

I think you may be splitting hairs a little bit here and trying really hard to manufacture…something.
by derefr | 2026-03-12 21:52:44+00:00
I think I would expect certain laws that are currently considered statutory / strict-liability laws, to be shifted to instead constitute only "evidence of negligence" and/or act as "aggravating conditions."

So, in the case of speeding:

- Speeding on its own would only "warrant" the police to stop you / interview you / tell you off, and perhaps to follow you around for a while after they pull you over, to ensure you don't start speeding again (and to immediately pull you over again if you do.) I say "warrant" here because it literally just means "This would normally be considered harassment on their part, but they are warranted to violate harassment law here." (Just like a search warrant warrants the police to violate property law.)

- But speeding while in the process of committing some other "actual" crime, or speeding that contributes to some other crime being committed, may be an aggravating factor that multiplies the penalty associated with the other act, or changes the nominal charge for the other act;

We might also then see a tweak for "threshold aggravations", such that e.g.

- Speeding while also doing some other dumb thing — having your brake-lights broken, say — may be considered to "cross a threshold" where they add up to an arrest+charge, even though none of the individual violations has a penalty when considered independently.

This would, AFAICT, translate well into a regime where there are little traffic-cop drones everywhere, maximizing speeding enforcement. If speeding is all they notice someone doing, they'd just be catch-and-release-ing people: pulling them over, squawking at them, and flying away. (But do note that people couldn't just "not pull over" because they know there are no penalties; "not complying with a police stop" would continue to be a real crime with real penalties.

---

Oddly, I think if you follow this legal paradigm to its natural conclusion, it could lead to a world where it could even be legal to e.g. drive your car home from the bar while intoxicated... as long as you're driving at 2mph, with your hazards on, and avoiding highways. But miss any of those factors, and it "co-aggravates" with a "driving recklessly for your reaction speed" charge, into an actual crime.
by rglover | 2026-03-12 21:52:46+00:00
> How is this the fault of AI? It flagged a possible match. A live human detective confirmed it.

Because we're seeing the first instances of what reality looks like with AI in the hands of the average bear. Just like the excuse was "but the computer said it was correct," now we're just shifting to "but the AI said it was correct."

Don't underestimate how much authority and thinking people will delegate to machines. Not to mention the lengths they'll go to weasel out of taking responsibility for a screw up like this (saw another comment in this thread about the Chief of Police stepping down but it being framed as "retirement").
by bradkinnard | 2026-03-12 21:53:07+00:00
I built this to solve a specific problem: when you run multiple Copilot CLI agents in parallel, you have no way to verify whether their output actually works before it hits your codebase.

Each agent runs on its own git branch. The orchestrator parses Copilot /share transcripts and cross-references every claim (commits, test results, build output) against actual evidence. Steps that can't prove their work don't merge. Failed steps get classified by failure type and retried with targeted repair strategies.

Six quality gates run after merge: scaffold leftovers, duplicate blocks, hardcoded config, README claim drift, test isolation, runtime correctness.

The cost estimator predicts premium request consumption before execution starts, factoring in model multipliers (o3 is 20x, o4-mini is 5x) and historical failure rates. You can preview the estimate or set a hard budget that aborts if exceeded.

v3.2 (just released) replaced the wave-barrier scheduler with greedy as-soon-as-ready scheduling, added prompt compression (~60% token reduction by extracting shared boilerplate into .copilot-instructions.md), and octopus merge for parallel branch completion.

TypeScript, strict mode, 649 tests, no external runtime dependencies beyond Node.js built-ins and the existing dep set. Solo project.
by bluefirebrand | 2026-03-12 21:53:21+00:00
This is really just how the tech industry works. We have abused the concept of consent into an absolute mess

My personal favorite way they do this lately is notification banners for like... Registering for news letters

"Would you like to sign up for our newsletter? Yes | Maybe Later"

Maybe later being the only negative answer shows a pretty strong lack of understanding about consent!
by serf | 2026-03-12 21:53:23+00:00
Absolutely.

Go create a big monolith in an LLM versus a high compartmentalized and decomposed/modular codebase that does the same thing.

The LLM is going to optimize the shit out of the decomposed version and maintain it well, and it's going to struggle to find even trivial bugs in the monolithic version.

Why? Context and token cost.
Show HN: Slop or not – can you tell AI writing from human in everyday contexts?
by eigen-vector | 2026-03-12 21:53:23+00:00
I’ve been building a crowd-sourced AI detection benchmark. Two responses to the same prompt — one from a real human (pre-2022, provably pre prevalence of AI slop on the internet), one generated by AI. You pick the slop. Three wrong and you’re out.

The dataset: 16K human posts from Reddit, Hacker News, and Yelp, each paired with AI generations from 6 models across two providers (Anthropic and OpenAI) at three capability tiers. Same prompt, length-matched, no adversarial coaching — just the model’s natural voice with platform context.
Every vote is logged with model, tier, source, response time, and position.

Early findings from testing: Reddit posts are easy to spot (humans are too casual for AI to mimic), HN is significantly harder.

I'll be releasing the full dataset on HuggingFace and I'll publish a paper if I can get enough data via this crowdsourced study.

If you play the HN-only mode, you’re helping calibrate how detectable AI is on here specifically.

Would love feedback on the pairs — are any trivially obvious? Are some genuinely hard?
by adrian_b | 2026-03-12 21:53:30+00:00
I consider this as a very bad solution, because it can lead to very subtle bugs.

The correct solution for any programming language is to define all the 14 relational operators that are required by any partially-ordered set, instead of defining only the 6 of them that are sufficient for a totally-ordered set.

If the programming language fails to define all 14 operators, then you must always test the operands for NaNs, before using any of the 6 ALGOL relational operators. If you consider this tedious, then you must unmask the invalid operation exception and take care to handle this exception.

If invalid operations generate exceptions, then the floating-point numbers become a totally-ordered set and NaN cannot exist (if a NaN comes from an external source, it will also generate an exception, while internally no NaN will ever be generated).
by janalsncm | 2026-03-12 21:53:38+00:00
I don’t know what tool they used, but it was very likely not an LLM. They probably have some database of drivers’ licenses and they ran a similarity search against the surveillance footage. This poor lady happened to be the top match.

Even if it also output a score, that score depends on how the model was trained. And the cops might ignore it anyways.
by sjducb | 2026-03-12 21:54:18+00:00
There’s a case for allowing digital privateering against countries that routinely allow fraud. For example fraud is 68% of Laos’s GDP.

If Laos wants to be taken off the list of permitted targets then it can crack down on fraud. They have effectively allowed digital privateering against us by failing to crack down on fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/dec/02/scam-stat...
by qup | 2026-03-12 21:54:29+00:00
I didn't say anything about corporal punishment. I believe it works, but everyone should use discipline specific to the child, IMO.

Kid isn't supposed to make a hotspot but does anyway? Lost that phone. Kid is playing games on the PC? Remove the games. Etc.

If the children aren't listening to their father, the problem isn't android parental controls.
by AndriyKunitsyn | 2026-03-12 21:54:48+00:00
>With not-numbers added to the set of FP numbers, the set becomes a partially-ordered set and all relational operators must be interpreted accordingly.

The same not-number, produced by the same computation, occupying the same memory, is still not equal to itself. It is true that I haven't been able to brush up my knowledge on partial ordering, but isn't being identical is the same as being equal in math?
by forgotaccount3 | 2026-03-12 21:54:49+00:00
> But Baumol's argument, which you introduced to the conversation, is that outcome and process cannot actually be distinguished

How is that Baumol's argument? How is 'outcome' vs 'process' relevant to his argument at all?

'Cost disease' is just the foundational truth that the cost of the output from industries with stagnant productivity will increase due to the fact that the workers in that industry can be more valuable in other industries, reducing the number of relative workers in the stagnant industry.

If you want to make the output from a stagnant industry available to a broader spectrum of the population then you have to improve the productivity of that industry.
by Jtsummers | 2026-03-12 21:55:14+00:00
I don't know what you're responding to, but I don't think it's my comment.

Qualified immunity protects individuals, not departments, from liability.

The particular thread (in this thread) that I was responding to:

>> I hope she wrings at least several million dollars out of the government.

> With all the lovely qualified immunity doctrine? That's wishful thinking.

I was responding to the claim that qualified immunity protected the government, it does not.
by jfengel | 2026-03-12 21:55:14+00:00
That's true, but it does seem like a time for Democrats to be screaming at the top of their lungs. It wouldn't accomplish anything, but they do have an election coming up, and I'd imagine that "We're going to stop this stupid war" is a good campaign slogan.

Perhaps they don't want to develop outrage fatigue, or it's too early, or something. But I'm not hearing nearly as much protest as I'd expect.
by alpaca128 | 2026-03-12 21:55:17+00:00
Originally it was required to collect a signature from every tenant living in the building in order to be permitted to install a plug-in solar panel. As a result people living in rented apartments just did it without asking, but that meant more energy generation that the supplier doesn't know about which supposedly made it more difficult to manage the grid. So they decided to instead flip it around so anyone opposing installation of a panel has to submit a written statement.