MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cbHXBY1D | 2026-03-11 22:27:01+00:00
FYI, Wiz investor and current Wiz board member Gili Raanan, head of Israeli VC Cyberstarts, has been (credibly) accused of paying bribes to major CISOs for buying software from their portfolio companies like Wiz.

Calcalist did a deep investigation into it: https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/b1a1jn00hc
by maxglute | 2026-03-11 22:27:02+00:00
Lots of wank about muh democratic vs authoritarian values, at the end of the day, US DoD/DoW affiliated AI will 100% kill people, sooner than later and US AI researchers will have to grasp with that. I want to charitably say eventually, but as events show, inevitably, within the calendar year... current quarter, 100s children will die because of US AI in actions most of US do not support. One can argue AI will enable more selective targets, or there will simply be more targets, and given US behavior there will always be targets. Meanwhile PRC AI researcher's work might end up murdering children... someday, and even then most likely in a war / reunification / rejuvenation project that most of Chinese support. Until then, the side not blowing up kids is going to sleep more soundly.
by rustyhancock | 2026-03-11 22:27:07+00:00
Havana syndrome appears to be a functional neurological disorder.

Think shell shock of world war I.

None the less the deserve support and careful ongoing research and investigations as appropriate. Fundamentally it is an occupational illness.

FND isn't "making it up" or even "all in your head" but a complex interplay of mind, body and circumstances.
by hodgehog11 | 2026-03-11 22:27:39+00:00
As someone who has done this very thing, and is a lifelong Linux fanboy (I run Linux on literally everything else), I would strongly suggest you don't do this if you're using a Macbook. The losses on battery life are far too high to accept, and if you have lower specs on the Mac laptop, you will really feel them on most Linux flavours.
by davebranton | 2026-03-11 22:27:48+00:00
The more you write, the less this will be true. The more you write, the better you will become at it. Using an LLM to write is like sending a robot to the gym for you.

The more you use an LLM to write for you, the worse you will become at writing yourself. There is simply no other possible outcome. It's even true of spellcheck - the more you use a spellcheck the worse you become at spelling. I know this for a fact because I can no longer spell for shit. However, spelling is to writing as arithmetic is to mathematics. I also can't add up, but I have a degree in pure mathematics.

LLMs are a cancer on human thought and expression.
by TacticalCoder | 2026-03-11 22:27:59+00:00
> This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target?

I can tell you what's not and then why it's important to know what's not...

The islamist ruling Iran are already using cluster bombs and these are banned in 120 countries because they indiscriminately target civilians: cluster bombs killing civilians aren't aiming at "valid military targets".

Note that the same islamist regime also sent its guards into hospitals to finish the wounded. They killed 30 000+ of their own civilians a few weeks ago. Killing 30 000+ unarmed civilians is not a valid military target.

And the regime in Iran applauded loudly, like in nearly every country ruled by sharia law, when 1200 young people were having fun at a music festival on Oct 7th and considered it an "act of resistance". Killing 1200 young people dancing and enjoying life ain't a "valid military target".

We've now established that the Islamic Republic of Iran won't hesitate to target civilians and shall celebrate the "resistance" when thousands of civilians (including but not limited to their own) are killed.

So, no matter whether the targets are valid or not, nothing they say about the validity of the targets they pick should be taken into account: they're murderers slaughtering and celebrating the slaughter of civilians.
by jfengel | 2026-03-11 22:28:01+00:00
The US Senate is designed to check and balance the House of Representatives. But that often puts the Congress as a whole in deadlock, meaning it can no longer balance the other two branches.

When they could get anything done they delegated a lot of power to the Executive. Which worked ok, but eventually a "unitary executive" appropriated even more power, and the Legislature is powerless to prevent it.
by meatmanek | 2026-03-11 22:28:07+00:00
I like to think about it in terms of output-to-prompt ratio. For HN comments, I think an output ratio of 1 or less is _probably_ fine. Examples:

- translating (relatively) literally from one language to another would be ~1:1.
- automatic spelling/grammar correction is ~1:1
- Using an LLM to help you find a concise way of expressing what you mean, i.e. giving it extra content to help it suggest a way of phrasing something that has the connotation you want, would be <1:1

Expansion (output > prompt) is where it gets problematic, at least for HN comments: if you give it an 8 word prompt and it expands it to 50, you've just wasted the reader's time -- they could've read the prompt and gotten the same information.

(expansion is perfectly fine in a coding context -- it often takes way fewer words to express what you want the program to do than the generated code will contain.)
by consp | 2026-03-11 22:28:24+00:00
After a minute near one of their offices I do. Macs are either randomized per session, which makes filtering on them pointless, or they are not and still broadcast making them non secure and easily spoofed. Relying on mac filtering is usually only an audit checkbox to check. There is a reason 3 letter agencies used to use them to track people as they are really easy to get and track (until they got randomized by phone manufacturers and OS's).
by fudged71 | 2026-03-11 22:28:35+00:00
What I think would actually be useful is a version of what was implemented on /r/ClaudAI which is an official bot which summarizes the discussion (and updates after x number of comments have been added). I think this level of synthesis has a compounding effect on discussion quality and pruning redundant arguments/topics.

Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/s/BJKLxzJA16
by jongjong | 2026-03-11 22:28:40+00:00
My attitude towards democracy has worsened since AI.

The problem with democracy is that it can easily become a revolving door wherein capital holders can choose which candidates are allowed to approach the door.

I think democracy works well when the monetary system is constrained; for example on gold or other scarce asset because that creates a better separation between money and state because then there would be less of an incentive for big companies to corrupt the revolving door to gain a financial advantage.

In a monetary system where the government can create an unlimited amount of money, the incentive to corrupt the government and political process keeps increasing.

I think democracy with a soft fiat money system is probably the most dangerous system because any moral objection can be filtered out of the running as we saw happen with Anthropic and the Department of War. It's because clearly it's the weapon manufacturers running that department behind the scenes; they have a huge financial interest to do so. The Department of War is the bread and butter of weapon manufacturers and defense contractors.
by margalabargala | 2026-03-11 22:28:55+00:00
You quoted the article:

> The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race?

Right now there are two contenders for first in the AI race. The US, and China.

You spent the rest of your comment making the case that it is not good for the US to win. Implying, though not directly saying, we would be better off with China.

You can say "oh wouldn't it be nice if Europe won instead" but they don't have anything in the race right now. We're stuck with the US or China.
by kstrauser | 2026-03-11 22:29:26+00:00
You're comparing a $1254-minimum laptop[0] with a $599-minimum laptop[1] and asserting that the one that's twice as expensive is nicer.

I'd expect it to be. In fact, I'd demand it.

(I'm ignoring the "old model, found cheaply" bit because that's entirely irrelevant. You can find old Macs on sale around, too, but that doesn't mean you can reasonably compare them to the MSRP of a brand new device.)

[0]https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/c/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpadt/

[1]https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/say-hello-to-macbook-...
by thebionicman | 2026-03-11 22:29:34+00:00
I’m the author of this piece. I’ve lived with several autoimmune diseases for more than 35 years and have relied heavily on Canada’s healthcare system during that time — including multiple surgeries, specialist care, and biologic medications that cost tens of thousands of dollars per year. Watching the healthcare debate in the United States, I often wonder how different my life might have been if I had been born there instead. This article is a personal reflection on navigating chronic illness in Canada and how that experience shaped my view of universal healthcare.
by thunderfork | 2026-03-11 22:29:36+00:00
The point of the rule isn't enforcement, it's setting standards for good-faith contributors.

Your assumption that all rules must be about enforcement is incorrect. Your assumption that only that which can be measured matters is incorrect. I don't know where this belief system comes from, but it strikes me as profoundly toxic.

By this logic, we obviously shouldn't ban drinking and driving - there's no way to test every driver every time, and presumably those most skilled at drunk driving would be undetectable, so it's really just religious moralism.

"Good drivers don't drink and drive even if they think they can get away with it" is just a no-true-scotsman argument, and thus we should actually encourage people to drink and drive so that they get better at it. Nobody should ever have any standards that can't be automatically enforced by a linter, after all.

And look: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079

Unenforceable rules might just be the backbone of society, if you think about it.
by altairprime | 2026-03-11 22:29:48+00:00
> what if it turns out that

HN need not offer itself up as a Petri dish for AI writing experimentation. There are startups in that space, and at least one must be YC-funded, statistically speaking. Come back with the outcomes of the experiment you describe and make a case that they should change the rule. Maybe they will! As of today, though, they are apparently unconvinced.

> the average quality might even go down

We have a recent concrete analysis of Show HN indicating support for this possibility, resulting in the mods banning new users for posting to Show HN (something they’ve probably been resisting for close to twenty years, I imagine, given how frequent a spam vector that must be).

> Perhaps you’ll say that human+LLM text will never be as high-quality as human alone

Please don’t put words in my mouth, insinuating the tone my reply before I’ve made it, and then use that rhetorical device to introduce a flamebait tangent to discredit me with. I’ve made no claims about future capabilities here and I’m not going to address this irrelevance further.

> in the long term, we will have to come up with more sophisticated criteria

Our current criteria seem sophisticated already. Perhaps you could make a case that AI-assisted writing helps avoid guideline violations. This one tends to be especially difficult for us all today:

”Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents.”
by primitivesuave | 2026-03-11 22:30:02+00:00
The most telling sign of a human commenter is brevity.

Consequently, I hardly ever spend the time to write out long and detailed HN comments like I used to in the pre-LLM era. People nowadays have a much harder time believing that an Internet stranger is meticulously crafting a detailed and grammatically-airtight message to another Internet stranger without AI assistance.
by kelnos | 2026-03-11 22:31:01+00:00
It's not pessimistic or defeatist; you first have to recognize the limitations and failure modes of your system before you can think about changing it.

Is it possible to live in a world where powerful entities have gotten there through ethical means? Sure. We don't live in that world, though.

And yes, if I said "name me one powerful person/entity that got there through ethical means", I'm sure you could give me a name. But that name would surely be an outlier.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2026-03-11 22:31:11+00:00
I'm not sure that "supply chain risk" is even the right term to be discussing.

What Hegseth/Trump want to do is not just stop Anthropic models from being used by any military supplier pursuant to goods/services they are providing to the military, but rather say that if you do business with the military then you must not use Anthropic at all, even if that usage is entirely unrelated to your military contracts.
by rvz | 2026-03-11 22:31:12+00:00
> British democracy and government is cool.

Oh sweet summer child.

The government there does not care about you and will promise anything to get another 5 years in power despite causing the issues they promised to solve in the first place.

You are essentially voting in the same party to be in government and progress there moves in the hundreds of years; hence the riddance of the scam that is unelected hereditary nobles which it took more than 700 years to remove them.
by robocat | 2026-03-11 22:31:18+00:00
> "I asked <LLM> and he said..."

An alternative I tried was sharing links my LLM prompts/responses. That failed badly.

I like the parallel with linking to a Google/DuckDuckGo search term which is useful when done judiciously.

Creating a good prompt takes intelligence, just as crafting good search keywords does (+operators).

I felt that the resulting downvotes reflected an antipathy towards LLMs and the lack of taste of using an LLM.

The problem was that the messengers got shot (me and the LLM), even though the message of obscure facts was useful and interesting.

I've now noticed that the links to the published LLM results have rotted. It isn't a permanent record of the prompt or the response. Disclaimer: I avoid using AI, except for smarter search.
by gus_massa | 2026-03-11 22:31:26+00:00
As a not native speaker, for me using something like Google Translate is fine, it's literal enough to keep the author voice. [1]

Also writing a draft in Google Docs and accepting most [2] of the corrections is fine. The browser fix the orthography, but I 30% of the time forget to add the s to the verbs. For preposition, I roll a D20 and hope the best.

I'm not sure if these are expert systems, LLM, or pingeonware.

But I don't like when someone use a a LLM to rewrite the draft to make it more professional. It kills the personality of the author and may hallucinate details. It's also difficult to know how much of the post is written was the author and how much autocompleted by the AI:

[1] Remember to check that the technical terms are correctly translated. It used to be bad, but it's quite good now.

[2] most, not all. Sometimes the corrections are wrong.
by observationist | 2026-03-11 22:31:34+00:00
I'm also a grumpy greybeard - but I've got nothing but respect for him grinding out some good podcasts and then being in the right place and right time to capitalize on connections. I see a lot of skepticism directed his way, but I view it as a lot like early dotcom winners. Catch the right wave and it's like winning the lottery, success far beyond what you'd normally be able to reach, and then you get the opportunity to show whether you can keep it or not. I appreciate a good success story, and it's awesome to see people win by catching a wave, and then hold on to it, showing that they can keep doing it at a higher level.
by mikestaas | 2026-03-11 22:31:41+00:00
I wouldn't generally use hand coded WASM in production, but I've used it for educational purposes [1], and just because I'm perhaps a bit perverse [2][3] (3 includes some helper utilities in Common.ts).

[1] https://exercism.org/profiles/mikestaas/solutions

[2] https://github.com/mikestaas/wasmfizzbuzz/blob/main/fizzbuzz...

[3] https://github.com/mikestaas/walox/tree/main/src
by beeandapenguin | 2026-03-11 22:31:42+00:00
Agreed. I just traveled to Peru for the first time a few months ago and visited Cusco for 7 days. For me, it was not enough, since all I wanted to do was go back immediately upon leaving. I'm normally the kinda person that wants to travel to as many new places as possible, but Peru was different. I can easily say I want to go back there at least 5 more times in my life.

Reflecting on it when I got home, I couldn't understand what made me not decide to go earlier in my life. I had Machu Picchu at the top of my bucket list since childhood as I'm sure many do, but it was never at the top for some reason. That was such a big mistake and I wish I went to Peru a long time ago, there's no other place like it, and it only gets harder to travel there the older you get since the altitude is rough. The number of elderly and retired people I saw struggling in Cusco from altitude sickness was too high. I heard a horror story of someone needing to spend a week in the hospital and unable to see a single site.
by OgsyedIE | 2026-03-11 22:32:14+00:00
What if Yeltsin was shot in 1991 and the only compromise candidate available was Zhirinovsky?

What if the Malê Revolt in 1840s Bahia resulted into their transportation to Yorubaland, to form a version of Liberia on the upper Niger that was motivated by a utopian liberal hawkish religious interpretation that immediately quarreled with the monarchical strains of Maliki popular among the local monarchies?

Ask the tool if it is familiar with any existing literature on these points of divergence and you'll be amazed.
by Shorn | 2026-03-11 22:32:26+00:00
Seems like it might have more legs than the usual "postgres should get query hints" requests that the PG team generally don't entertain.

> "I think we've become so negative about hints that we rarely have a rational discussion about them... I also don't enjoy telling a customer 'hey, I know this query started misbehaving in the middle of the night on Christmas, but hints are bad... you can just have your web site be down for the next 20 years while we try to improve the optimizer.'"

https://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql....

Above quote is from the author of pg_plan_advice itself, from a few years ago.

So given his proposal isn't just band-aiding query hints into PG, is from a committer instead of being a drive-by patch, and might be even more generally useful/applicable than "add query hints" - maybe we could see some movement here.
by oliver_dr | 2026-03-11 22:32:49+00:00
We've been dealing with this at multiple layers. Here's what actually works in production:

Input-side (preventing injection):

- Strict input sanitization with role-boundary enforcement in the system prompt. Sounds basic, but most people skip it.

- Separate "user content" from "system instructions" at the API level. Don't concatenate untrusted input into your system prompt. Use the dedicated `user` role in the messages array.

- For tool-calling agents, validate that tool arguments match expected schemas before execution. An LLM-as-judge approach for tool call safety is expensive but effective for high-stakes actions.

Output-side (catching when injection succeeds):

This is the part most people underinvest in. Even with perfect input filtering, you still need output guardrails:

- Run the LLM output through evaluation metrics that score for factual correctness, instruction adherence, and safety before it reaches the user.

- For RAG systems specifically, verify that the generated answer is actually grounded in the retrieved context, not fabricated or influenced by injected instructions.

The "defense in depth" framing matters here. Input filtering alone has a ceiling because adversarial prompts evolve faster than regex rules. Output evaluation catches the failures that slip through. We use DeepRails' Defend API for this layer - it scores outputs on correctness, completeness, and safety, then auto-remediates failures before they reach end users. But the principle applies regardless of tooling: treat output verification as a first-class concern, not an afterthought.

Simon Willison's work on dual-LLM patterns is also worth reading if you haven't: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Apr/25/dual-llm-pattern/
by jedberg | 2026-03-11 22:33:11+00:00
> It is amusing to witness this happening to others when it's someone like you who is a semi-public figure who should probably be well known on Reddit of all places.

One of our key tenants on reddit for a long time was "upvote the content, not the author". Which is why we made the usernames so small. It actually makes me happy when people judge the merit of what I write for what I said, not who I am.

But yes, it is sometimes tempting to say "do you know who I am??". :)
by reliabilityguy | 2026-03-11 22:33:15+00:00
> I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever.

No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie.

IAEA itself reported the 60% figure [1].

[1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
by nicbou | 2026-03-11 22:33:43+00:00
Monthly is fine, but not monthly all at once, because I watch multiple pages on one website, and that triggers the rate limiting.

The ideal pipeline for me would be "notice a change in a specific part of a page, use a very small LLM to extract a value or answer a question, update a constant in a file and make a pull request".

I've been thinking about this pipeline for a long time because my work depends on it, but nothing like it seems to exist yet. I'll probably write my own, but I just can't find the time.
by oliver_dr | 2026-03-11 22:33:46+00:00
This is almost certainly a server-side session isolation bug rather than an LLM hallucination - the model is returning a response to someone else's prompt. The DeepSeek cloud endpoints have had documented issues with request routing under load.

That said, it highlights something important: whether the failure mode is hallucination, crosstalk, or retrieval contamination, production systems need output validation that doesn't just check "did the model generate text?" but "is this response actually relevant and correct for this specific query?"

For anyone running cloud-hosted models in production (especially for anything beyond hobby use), a few practical safeguards:

1. Semantic coherence check - verify the response is topically related to your prompt. A simple embedding similarity between prompt and response catches gross crosstalk like medical answers to coding questions.

2. Instruction adherence scoring - evaluate whether the output actually follows the system prompt and user instructions. This catches both hallucinations and routing errors.

3. Ground truth verification for RAG - if you're passing context documents, verify the response is grounded in those documents and not pulling from cached state of another request.

This is exactly the class of failure that makes self-hosted models attractive for anything with real stakes. When you don't control the inference server, you inherit all its bugs. If you must use cloud inference, wrapping it with an output evaluation layer is the minimum.