MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dataflow | 2026-03-12 02:55:45+00:00
For reference, the point here isn't to say "what AI thinks", but what you found with the help of AI. The majority of the cases where I would say "according to AI, <blah>" are where <blah> actually does cite sources that I feel appear plausible. Sometimes they're links, sometimes they would be other publications not necessarily a click away.

> If you merely found X, Y and Z compelling, feel free to talk about it without mentioning AI.

I think you're seeing this as too black-and-white, and missing the heart of the issue.

The purpose of mentioning AI is to convey the level of (un)certainty as accurately as possible. The most accurate way to do that would often be to mention the use of AI, rather than hiding it.

If AI tells me that it believes X is true because of links A and B that it cites, and I find those links compelling, then I absolutely want to mention that AI gave me those links because I have no clue whether the model had any reason to bias itself toward those sources, or whether alternate links suggesting otherwise may have also sounded convincing.

Whereas if a normal web search just gives links that mention terms from my query, then I get a chance to see the other links too, and I end up being the one who actually compare the contents of the different pages and figure out which one is most convincing.

Depending on various factors, such as the nature of the question and the level of background knowledge I have on the topic myself, one of these can provide a more suitable response than the other -- ut only if I convey the uncertainty around it accurately.
by verdverm | 2026-03-12 02:55:46+00:00
I have some peer comments that temper and add color to my opinions on this

All of this Ai stuff is new for society and we have a lot to work through. Here on HN, we want to err to the side of keeping as much humanity as possible. It's good to have a place like that, for fresh air and stretching our minds differently and regularly as Ai becomes more ubiquitous in our lives.

ex: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47344064

all: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=verdverm
by _wire_ | 2026-03-12 02:56:02+00:00
My observation neé suggestion is to examine your expectations and what you think it means to be a nice (or good) colleague.

First principle: social milieus run primarily on instinct, so the first rule is know thyself: what are your instincts? What you find attractive in others, what annoys you. What do you want?

Next: You can't always get what you want but we tend to get what we need. Observe silent gratitude when you feel it and make a note of it.

Third: ask not what others can do for you, but what can you do for others, in a manner that fits your feelings, values, and after this, what do you wish for them. Offer your surplus gingerly to the people you like.

Continuing: Respect your own feelings about those you don't like. Understand yourself, your moods, peeves, pleasures, agitations.

Keep work relationships focused on the work at hand. Build trust with your own performance and stay focused on the work. When you have the good fortune to find friendly birds of a feather, treat these relationships with the respect and boundaries appropriate to the workplace. Don't let others suck you into their trips out of obligations of appearing friendly.

Lastly, most of who we are is unconscious and instinctual. Being nice all the time might seem appealing from a pragmatic view, but it's vibe that can truly annoy others subconsciously. If there's "a game" we all play socially it's to conserve the privilege of our solitude and time with people we truly like. Work is full bores.

(A bore being someone who deprives you of solitude without offering company)

Regarding destiny or a personal curse:

It is possible you are a true social outlier having an unusual and unfortunate experience that few others have seen nor can they appreciate. It's possible that workplace life is now generally insane. Consider your own temperament and values and how you will walk through hell.

Observe that while you might be in hell, by your own conduct and attitude, anyplace you end up can potentially become better because you're there!

If you aren't finding what you need, try building it for those around you.
by jauntywundrkind | 2026-03-12 02:56:16+00:00
I have really really really been enjoying Elysia.js recently. Which has such a great beautiful TypeScript shape. It feels like such a better thought out Hono, with actually clear and good TypeScript types, rather than being an ill-defined nightmare, with additional reasonable choices also built in. https://elysiajs.com/

I find it a bit funny that Elysia and Hedystia are somewhat similarly sounded, a little bit.

I do think it's time that we get some new options out there. Hello Hedystia, I suppose!
by Kave0ne | 2026-03-12 02:57:17+00:00
Fair distinction. You're right that single-turn sycophancy is a training signal problem — memory doesn't fix a model that caves to "I think the answer is X" in the same prompt.

My claim was narrower: for multi-turn drift, architecture matters. AGM belief revision theory (the formal framework for rational belief updates) requires that when new evidence contradicts a prior belief, the revision should minimize change while preserving consistency. A stateless model can't do this — it has no prior to revise against, so agreeableness is literally the rational default. A model that can retrieve "user asserted X last week, then corrected to Y" has actual evidence to weigh the new claim against.

The two failure modes compound: RLHF pushes toward agreeableness, and stateless context removes any countervailing evidence that would justify resistance. Fixing the training signal without fixing the architecture just makes the model slightly less likely to cave — it doesn't give it anything to stand on.
by john_strinlai | 2026-03-12 02:57:29+00:00
a lot of these company names are kind of hilariously non-descript. no smart wordplay, no chance of coming up with a good jingle for a commercial. exactly what you would expect, really.

"Science Applications International Corp"

"Radiation Monitoring Devices Inc"

"Physical Optics Corp"

"Physical Sciences Inc"

"Applied Nanotech Inc"
by js8 | 2026-03-12 02:57:35+00:00
I agree there is a dichotomy. I personally think AIs are better debaters than humans, at the very least in their ability to make less logical mistakes and have wider knowledge. I would suggest everyone should run their thoughts through an AI to get a constructive critique, it would certainly reduce lot of time wasted.

And I find the decision to "ban" AI slightly ironic, when HN has a disdain (unlike its predecessor Slashdot) for funny or sarcastic comments, which require the reader to think more, rather than having a clear argument handed on a silver platter. I mean, it is what truly human communication is like - deliberately not always crystal clear.

I suspect that HN will eventually be replaced by an AI-moderated site, because it will have more quality content.
by gruez | 2026-03-12 02:57:40+00:00
From the source

>I'm disclosing a list containing the details of 6,681 organizations that applied for contracts with the US Department of Homeland Security. This data was taken from the Office of Industry Partnership at https://oip.dhs.gov.

Contrary to the title this doesn't seem like all contractors? 6681 contractors in total seems a bit low for an agency as big as DHS.
by tombert | 2026-03-12 02:58:08+00:00
DVD-RWs always seemed like complete magic to me. I had no idea how they worked, or why they worked. I made and wiped DVD-RWs as a teenager dozens of times, because my dad got annoyed that I kept using up all his DVD-R's, so I bought like three DVD-RWs and used them for all my experiments.

I don't think I got anywhere near the limits for any of them, as I don't remember getting any faults from them, but they were always cool to me.

I was also one of the happy few who had a DVD-RAM drive for my desktop as a teenager; I never really understood why DVD-RAM never caught on, because it seemed to work fine for me, and it was kind of nice not having to wipe the disk to erase stuff.
by toomuchtodo | 2026-03-12 02:58:40+00:00
If someone like OpenAI or Anthropic pulls it off, and imposes strong opinions similar to SAP (your business adheres to their vertical model vs them tailoring SAP to your unique business), I think it could replace Atlassian tools relatively quickly. Call it “Planner” or something similar. Tell the Robot what you want and have it build and manage the plan. Atlassian’s revenue is their opportunity.
by kllrnohj | 2026-03-12 02:59:06+00:00
The CPU is capable. The 8GB of RAM not so much. If this had even just the 12GB of the A19 Pro that'd be a huge upgrade. Unless the RAM shortage gets developers to actually start giving a shit about RAM efficiency, but that seems unlikely to happen honestly.

Especially not when a certified macbook air refurb straight from Apple isn't that much more if you're not able to get the $500 EDU pricing on the Neo. $850 gets you a 16GB RAM / 512GB M4 Air, which is significantly better than the $700 Neo in every way.
by caditinpiscinam | 2026-03-12 02:59:09+00:00
This reminds me of conversations around plagiarism that come up when working with students: that question of "this other person expressed this idea better than I can, why can't I just use their writing"?

Because I want to know what you think, because putting our thoughts into words and sharing them is an important part of thinking, because we'll lose these skills if we don't use them, because in thinking for yourself you might come up with something interesting that nobody has ever thought before.

Of course, writers are allowed to reference and use other peoples writing: with proper attribution. I don't have a problem with people sharing quality AI generated content when it's labelled as such. The issue is that most people writing AI comments don't do this, which is itself probably the strongest indictment of the practice.
Rebuilding the EraMix Financial Union stack for speed
by EraMixOfficial | 2026-03-12 02:59:19+00:00
We just completed a backend overhaul for EraMix Financial Union. We stripped out the legacy bloat and moved to an API-first, minimalist architecture.

The focus for EraMix Financial Union was simple: optimize for high-density information display while keeping TTI under 100ms. It’s significantly faster and cleaner than the original setup.

How do you guys handle complex, data-heavy dashboards without letting them get "heavy"?
by makingstuffs | 2026-03-12 02:59:21+00:00
> The creators of these AI tools say the benefit is that it allows companies to hear from virtually everyone who applies for a certain role instead of just a small subset

If the LLM conducted the interview on your behalf you did not ‘hear from’ them. The LLM did.

Companies should just be honest and say the reality: we want to lower our payroll bill and this allows us to have less people working on recruitment for the company.
by iamnothere | 2026-03-12 02:59:35+00:00
Does the polling need to be fast? I think back to mailing lists and the huge delays involved in those conversations. Yet they were/are often very productive. Somewhere between Twitter/X speed and mailing list speed might be acceptable.

Maybe this would be better with a LiveJournal style interface. Medium length posts with threaded comments/replies are an underrated format.
by tlogan | 2026-03-12 03:00:47+00:00
I am here to express my ideas and opinions. They might not always be popular, but they are my opinions (that is reason that I have 3x less karma than you but I was here 11 years longer). And some people will debate my opinions and try to convince me that I am wrong. And sometimes I learn soemthing.

But if we start ignoring ideas and opinions and instead focus on superficial things like how they are written or communicated, then the whole point of HN is lost.
by neonstatic | 2026-03-12 03:01:07+00:00
I agree it's a different process. Personally, I do not enjoy it. If I get code wrong or the solution I came up with is clunky, I am okay to start over. At least I learned something valuable. With Claude, I get irritated, frustrated, and frankly just really tired. I feel like I've been burning hour after hour of my precious time trying to explain something to a machine, which just doesn't understand, cannot understand, and what comes out as output from that process is just disappointing. I feel that I don't trust the code it produces and I don't have it in me to even read that code. I never felt that way about code written by me or another person.

I will admit, that Claude has been helpful as an assistant (especially helping me with syntax I am not familiar with), but as a programmer that does things for me, it's been awful. YMMV.

Btw. a week of doing that (treating Claude as a programmer who does things for me) did help me in a way. I now have an intuitive understanding of what it means these things are not intelligence. I am now certain, that an LLM doesn't understand anything. It seems to be able to map text to some representations and then see if these representations match or compose. I know this might sound like intelligence, but in practice it's just not enough. Pattern recognition, sure. Not intelligence. Not even close.
by socialinteldev | 2026-03-12 03:01:23+00:00
the injection detection piece is the part i want to understand better -- when an mcp tool returns unstructured text (llm-generated content, scraped data, user posts), and that output gets passed to the next agent step, the attack surface is not just in the tool call itself but in what the tool returns

curious how mcpdome handles that: does it scan response content for injection patterns, or only the request side? the tricky case is a tool that fetches data from external sources -- the injection payload lives in the third-party data, not in the mcp message structure

the auth/rate-limiting model here is interesting compared to x402 (where access is enforced via payment verification at the api level rather than a proxy layer). different threat models -- auth assumes trusted agents, payment verification is trust-minimal
by pear01 | 2026-03-12 03:01:33+00:00
I never said a 100% guarantee. You may put words in the president's mouth if you wish, please don't put words in mine.

You aren't answering my questions at all. You are evading them. The argument is clear. This war is not worth the potential cost. Iran was not closer to getting a weapon. Americans are at more risk today than they were yesterday.

Your walk back as now reached its peak.

"The Iranian Regime is not a rational actor". Wow I saw that coming from a mile away. Thanks for finally putting your cards on the table. So now you can inflate the boogeyman to be as big as you want. Iran ain't rational bro, they crazy. Time to bomb!

This the refuge of unserious people. It was a rational actor, as terrible a regime as it is/was. The evidence of that is clear. They were a regime/nation-state that negotiated, declared war, sold oil, prioritized their own existence and acted to preserve their own power. Why aren't they rational? Because the Supreme leader wears a fundamentalist outfit? Because his religious fundamentalism comes from a religion that isn't yours? Because they make threats (which they for the most part never carry out)? You know that many times in the past they warn their neighbors (including Israel) of their so-called reprisal attacks ahead of time so they don't cause a booboo miscalculation and accidentally get annihilated? Like how they are getting annihilated now? If they are so irrational why didn't they send off all these weapons at any time before this? Why did they wait to get attacked? Jeez what a crazy irrational country attacking the countries that attacked them or tacitly supporting it.

Totally nuts man.

Disappointing. I have tried to argue in good faith this whole time. Have a good day.
by serguzest | 2026-03-12 03:01:51+00:00
It seems to me that AI target-selection systems are being used not just for efficiency, but as a way to distance military staff from responsibility for what they are killing. Current AI models naturally speculate and hallucinate if you don’t tightly constrain them. we see this all the time as software engineers when working with agentic coding.

This creates a dangerous dynamic. AI can generate targets that a human operator might not be able to justify manually, and when something goes wrong the blame can always be shifted to the system, such as the recent incident where roughly 180 children were killed due to faulty targeting.

Israel’s way of fighting this war looks more like pure destruction than a conventional military campaign, and AI systems like this are very easy to abuse in that context. At this point it’s clear that even the U.S. is willing to eliminate targets even when the collateral damage includes the person’s family or neighbors. I don’t think that would have been acceptable in previous administrations. Israel has lowered the bar.

That may be why Anthropic moved early to denounce this kind of usage, even though they had previously partnered with the Department of War.

Now let’s look at the statements made by Anthropic and Hegseth:

https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-war

https://x.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070

From Anthropic’s own statement, we hear that they have actually been quite closely partnered. In Hegseth’s tweet we see:

“Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service.”

This shows that Anthropic is still currently being actively used by the Department of War.

My view is that Anthropic and its investors eventually realized that the American war machine will use their technology in reckless ways, and that this will certainly create a massive PR disaster or, in an ideal world, even legal consequences. That realization likely pushed them to adopt what they now frame as a more “humanitarian” position.
by nineteen999 | 2026-03-12 03:02:58+00:00
Technology with "web" in the name, invented by Web fanboys, not really much good for working with key web API's like the DOM.

Cool parts of the webassembly technology aside - this should be no surprise to anybody. News at 11.

The non-sequitur in the title of this post should be enough to give everybody pause.

Waiting for someone to chime in and tell me that the "web" in "webassembly" wasn't meant to refer to the "world wide web". Go on. I dare you!
by socialinteldev | 2026-03-12 03:02:59+00:00
skill discovery across remote services is the missing piece here -- you can manage local skill files but there is no standard way to discover which remote apis or mcp servers expose skills at runtime. one pattern worth trying: serve a /skill.md from the api endpoint itself so agents can fetch capabilities directly (alongside llms.txt). skm could theoretically pull from remote urls not just github repos -- have you thought about supporting url-based skill sources?
by mystraline | 2026-03-12 03:03:06+00:00
Just add a few zero width spaces. It'll be FINEEEEE :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-width_space

Btw, at an old job, some joker developer added or copied 1, and broke the whole testbed. It was quite funny. I came over to the sourcecode hosted in Gitlab, ran my regexes that look for naughty characters. Found it after it ate the devs for half a day.
by SigmundA | 2026-03-12 03:03:12+00:00
No the DEF systems tend to break down and its mandated the engine go into limp mode when they do, this is hated by those that do not care for emissions and one of the biggest reason to delete by truckers. Also costly to fix the systems out of warranty.

You can find instructions on how to make DEF simulators using raspi's to fool the ECU into think the DEF system is working, people who do care about emissions will still carry these for emergency so they continue on their trip and get to a shop later. The derate was over zealous for sure and was a bad policy.

Also DPF is a performance issue since it blocks the exhaust to some degree, same with catalytic converter with def nozzle so no its not just EGR at all. DPF also consumes more fuel for regens.

2027 diesel regulations was to mandate even more NOx control but also specified manufacturers were required to have 100,000 mile 10 year warranty on emissions systems, its 5 year, 50k now. I believe thats dead in the water now.

A diesel engine with a deleted SCR system puts out 40 times the NOx of a working one. Thats 40 trucks going down the road to 1 equivalent. NOx causes asthma and acid rain, its not for the environment as much as for you directly.
by Kave0ne | 2026-03-12 03:05:06+00:00
Right, the raw material is there — but there's a gap between "data exists" and "agent has a working model of it." Reading git history on demand is retrieval; internalizing which patterns the team consistently rejects, which abstractions they've refactored away from twice, which reviewer will push back on X — that's a different thing.

The analogy is a new hire with full access to the wiki and Slack history vs. someone who's been on the team six months. The new hire can look things up; the veteran has already synthesized it into judgment that fires before they write a line. Agents currently operate like very fast new hires — great at retrieval, weak on the accumulated synthesis.
by RevEng | 2026-03-12 03:06:09+00:00
Several people at my work do use LLMs for this in code, commit messages, and even on Slack. It may not be everyone or even a majority but it is something that some people legitimately do.

While many here are saying "who cares about your spelling and grammar," they have not been the people whose poor English gets them flagged as being somehow less intelligent or credible. Half the problem with LLMs is that they speak eloquently and we use that as a signal of someone's intelligence and trustworthiness. For someone who is otherwise intelligent but doesn't know English well this can be a major setback.
by bananamogul | 2026-03-12 03:06:22+00:00
I clicked on a random one. My fellow taxpayers spent $825,000 for this shit.

"The human body is a near perfect energy generator. Demand for energy harvesting innovation, along with technology advances in thin film thermoelectric generators and highly efficient DC/DC boost circuitry now place wearable thermoelectric power harvesting within reach. The objective of Perpetua`s Phase II proposal is to deliver an energy harvesting system for first responder applications powered by the human body. Building on Perpetua`s successful demonstration of wearable thermoelectric generators in Phase I, this proposal combines advances in wearable thermoelectric generators, power electronics, ultra low power transceivers, and physiological sensors integrated into a first responder jacket. In collaboration with emergency response personnel, Perpetua will field test the developed jackets. Building on several decades of experience with thermoelectric generators, system design and product integration, Perpetua will architect modular systems for wearable body energy harvesting. Perpetua`s creative approach with best-in-class technology overcomes the traditional obstacles that have prevented energy harvesting from the human body to produce adequate voltage and usable power. Wearable human body thermoelectric generators promise power solutions for autonomous self-powered sensors reducing the weight, size, and limited life of primary battery power. Long life and small dimensions are particularly important and advantageous for sensor systems for the first responder."