MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sciencejerk | 2026-03-05 17:49:04+00:00
Thanks for responding.

1. I don't think crime can really be prevented per se, but location-based crime can be discouraged and deterred. Having cameras in public, highly visible places, might make violent criminals (especially professional ones) think twice before committing crimes in these places. This potentially creates safe routes for vulnerable individuals (women, children) where they are less likely to be a victim of crime when following these routes. Privacy-minded individuals willing to take additional risk might opt out by driving a different route.

2. I agree on social cohesion, but this seems impossible in USA, which is a country that is/was a melting pot of immigrants from every place in the world. Embracing a national identity seems like the natural solution for creating social cohesion, but nationalism seems unpopular with half of the country (USA invasions don't help the cause). What is your proposed solution?

3.I will also note, crime is lower everywhere in America vs. a few decades ago. Violent crime peaked in the mid 1990s. This is a macro high level generalization; generally true but not everywhere. I am currently located in the midwest and anecdotally saw crime increase in a small city from 2018-2023 (people I know affected were victims of crime,visible increase in homelessness and drifters). Admittedly, crime levels in 2024-2025 in my region seem to be shrinking, but it's too early to determine probable cause.
Gemini AI had this to say about crime levels, agreeing with your opinion but with caveats:
When looking at the broad stretch from the 1990s peak to 2025, the national story is one of a massive, sustained decline. In 1991, the violent crime rate was roughly 758 per 100,000 people; by 2025, that figure is estimated to have dropped by nearly 60%, reaching its lowest levels in nearly 50 years.
However, the "map of violence" has shifted. While the 1990s were defined by high-intensity violence in massive coastal hubs (NYC, LA), the 2020–2025 era has seen crime "decentralize" into the South, the Midwest, and even rural New England.

Source: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-does-crime-compare-by-city...
by mrguyorama | 2026-03-05 17:49:21+00:00
Capitalists don't care about money. Capitalists collect money for it's power in a capitalist system.

If they get "AI" and industrial robots, they don't care that nobody can buy their products anymore because they never cared about selling products in the first place.

Right now capitalists loathe that they can "only* collect a 10-50% return on the things "they build", and the rest of the value has to go to the consumer. They want nothing more than getting rid of that "waste", and just having their personal factories create whatever they want and their personal farms making whatever they want and we all just fucking die.
by motoboi | 2026-03-05 17:49:32+00:00
In 2020 I became a full time Java developer, coming from a infrastructure role where I kind of dealt with Java code, but always as artifacts I managed in application servers and whatnot.

So when I first started dealing with the actual code, it scared me that the standard json library was basically in maintenance mode for some years back then. The standard unit test framework and lot of other key pieces too.

I interpreted that as “Java is dying”. But 6 years later I understand: they were are feature complete. And fast as hell, and god knows how many corner cases covered. They were in problem-solved, 1-in-a-billion-edge-cases-covered feature complete state.

Not abandoned or neglected, patches are incorpored in days or hours. Just… stable.

All is quiet now, they are used by millions, but remain stable. Not perfect, but their defects dependable by many. Their known bugs now features.

But it seems that no one truly want that. We want the shiny things. We wrote the same frameworks in Java, then python the go then node the JavaScript the typescript.

There must be something inherently human about changing and rewriting things.

There is indeed change in the Java ecosystem, but people just choose another name and move on. JUnit, the battle tested unit testing framework, had a lot to learn from new ways of doing, like pytest. Instead of perturbing the stableness, they just choose another name, JUnit5 and moved on.
by everdrive | 2026-03-05 17:49:35+00:00
It's never popular when I post this, but I'm just going to do it again:

"No matter the risk, I must carry my smartphone everywhere and install every app. It would be unimaginable to have the urge to look something up, but then wait to do it later until I'm using a real computer. No negative outcome will EVER shake my deep, permanent need to carry a smartphone all the time and use it for as much as possible."

We've done this to ourselves, and we're terrified at even the most minor inconvenience. It's something I can't wrap my head around, but people cannot bear to just wait until they get home to query something on the internet. They MUST have access ALL THE TIME, no matter the downside. It's baffling.
by jonchurch_ | 2026-03-05 17:49:45+00:00
This article only rehashes primary sources that have already been submitted to HN (including the original researcher’s). The story itself is almost a month old now, and this article reveals nothing new.

The researcher who first reported the vuln has their writeup at
https://adnanthekhan.com/posts/clinejection/

Previous HN discussions of the orginal source:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47064933

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47072982
by rao-v | 2026-03-05 17:49:47+00:00
I’m genuinely surprised to see this not discussed more by the FOSS community. There are so many ways to blow past the GPL now:

1. File by file rewrite by AI (“change functions and vars a bit”)

2. One LLM writes a diff language (or pseudo code) version of each function that a diff LLM translates back into code and tests for input/output parity

The real danger is that this becomes increasingly undetectable in closed source code and can continue to sync with progress in the GPLed repo.

I don’t think any current license has a plausible defense against this sort of attack.
by Forgeties79 | 2026-03-05 17:49:49+00:00
Yes well-executed public awareness programs can shift culture over several years (this campaign is over 40 years old wow!) but we also need to clean up what's there now and what will continue to accrue until that shift occurs.

I would be more than happy to see my city or state tax dollars put towards a cleanup initiative. We have a particularly fragile ecosystem
by ARandomerDude | 2026-03-05 17:49:53+00:00
I’m a pretty mid around the house DIYer, and I commend the ingenuity. But will never understand someone going to the expense and hassle of buying a Billy and converting it into built-ins. Someone who can do the conversion is also capable of adding their own shelves at a fraction of the cost, and the product would be far more sturdy.
by Analemma_ | 2026-03-05 17:50:21+00:00
> I discussing this with a friend who is an surgeon, he said he has never had to prove his technical skills in an interview. Why? Medical candidates have licensure, continuing education requirements, a case history, and (potentially) litigation history ... In contrast, Software Engineering has largely ignored certifications, has no uniform system for gauging continuous learning, and the vast majority of candidates' professional work is closed source.

Every time someone brings up the possibility of licensing or certification to software engineering, the response is collective shrieks of outrage and insistence that It Couldn't Possibly Work For Us, as if we're so fucking special. I've seen this since the Slashdot days twenty years ago. And so, we got this instead.

There are a lot of problems in the industry which can be blamed on corporate culture and clueless management, but I think this is one case where we pretty clearly did it to ourselves.
by gertlabs | 2026-03-05 17:50:23+00:00
Neither intelligence nor context are what really differentiate the most successful model for programming (Claude Opus 4.6) from slightly 'smarter' competitors (Codex 5.3, Gemini 3.1 Pro).

It's tool use and personality. If models stopped advancing today, we could still reach effective AGI with years of refining harnesses. There is still incredible untapped potential there.

I maintain a benchmark at https://gertlabs.com that competes models against each other in competitive, open-ended games. It's harder to game the benchmark because there's no correct answer (at least none that any of the models have gotten remotely close to) and it requires anticipation of other players' behavior.

One thing I've found is that Codex and Gemini models tend to perform the best at one-shotting problems, but when given a harness and tools to iterate towards a solution, Anthropic models continue improving where Codex and Gemini struggle to use tools they weren't trained on or take the initiative to follow the high level objectives.
by rybosworld | 2026-03-05 17:50:31+00:00
So how do you rectify your anecdotal experience against those made by public figures in the industry who we can all agree are at least pretty good engineers? I think that's important because if we want to stay ~anonymous, neither you nor I can verify the reputation of one another (and therefore, one another's relative master of the "Craft").

Here are some well known names who are now saying they regularly use LLM's for development. For many of these folks, that wasn't true 1-2 years ago:

- Donald Knuth: https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/%7Eknuth/papers/claude-c...

- Linus Torvalds: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/01/hobby-github-repo-shows-l...

- John Carmack: https://x.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1909311174845329874

My point being - some random guy on the internet says LLM's have never been useful for them and they only output garbage vs. some of the best engineers in the field using the same tools, and saying the exact opposite of what you are.
by Majromax | 2026-03-05 17:50:37+00:00
> “Changing the equation” by boldly breaking the law.

Is it? I think the law is truly undeveloped when it comes to language models and their output.

As a purely human example, suppose I once long ago read through the source code of GCC. Does this mean that every compiler I write henceforth must be GPL-licensed, even if the code looks nothing like GCC code?

There's obviously some sliding scale. If I happen to commit lines that exactly replicate GCC then the presumption will be that I copied the work, even if the copying was unconscious. On the other hand, if I've learned from GCC and code with that knowledge, then there's no copyright-attaching copy going on.

We could analogize this to LLMs: instructions to copy a work would certainly be a copy, but an ostensibly independent replication would be a copy only if the work product had significant similarities to the original beyond the minimum necessary for function.

However, this is intuitively uncomfortable. Mechanical translation of a training corpus to model weights doesn't really feel like "learning," and an LLM can't even pinky-promise to not copy. It might still be the most reasonable legal outcome nonetheless.
by Calavar | 2026-03-05 17:50:55+00:00
> In this case, the idea that Cantor can't do something because the former head is now in a government job is crazy. No one "in the business" thinks Cantor is suddenly hobbled.

That's not the idea, and it almost seems like a straw man to be honest. The actual idea is that the current head of Cantor can't do something because he's a direct relative of a high ranking government official whose powers and job duties present a conflict of interest for this specific set of transactions.
by KPGv2 | 2026-03-05 17:51:06+00:00
> Of course, now you have to wait for it to download any photo you want to use.

I don't think the use case for this laptop is content creation. Most people have no problem with Google Photos, which stores almost every photo in the cloud. Why would this be any different?

This is an iPad with a laptop-style human interface, isn't it?
by 46493168 | 2026-03-05 17:51:10+00:00
It's a reasonable mistake, I'd say. We spent those decades conflating "nicotine" with "smoking" and, through herculean efforts, managed to get the smoking rate down to 12-14% (in Germany it's still 22.7%!). Now, tobacco companies have come through with genuinely less harmful, genuinely less addictive products, but because of their previous wild duplicity, nobody really "believes" it. They think that nicotine must cause cancer. "Fool me once," for sure.
by goodmythical | 2026-03-05 17:51:19+00:00
There's way way way more human slop complaining about AI than there is AI in the first place.

It would be so much nicer if people didn't feel compelled to add the 32nd iteration of whining about the methodology used to produce the content.

I'd say I can't wait until the fad passes, but it's always something, isn't it?

I guess because anger/irritation/outrage are such popular sentiments people tend to resort to that kind of content because it makes them feel good to participate in trends. There's always going to be the group of people who seek popularity by aping whatever the latest fad is.
by neya | 2026-03-05 17:52:23+00:00
Elixir has always been fashionable to build high performance systems in. In fact, it is more suited for AI applications than any other language or framework because of the BEAM architecture and the flexibility of the language itself. I wish more people gave it a chance. You get insane performance at your fingertips with so much scalability out of the box and your code by default is less error prone compared to dynamic languages.
by wepple | 2026-03-05 17:52:29+00:00
Batshit crazy?

3 years ago LLMs couldn’t solve 7x8.

Now they’re building complex applications in one shot, solving previously unsolved math and science problems.

Heck, one company built a (prototype but functional) web browser

And you say it’s crazy that in the future it’ll be able to build a mail app or OS?
by RafAnn83 | 2026-03-05 17:52:55+00:00
Over the past year I’ve been experimenting with a simple question: where does creativity actually live when the tools themselves become generative?

Tomorrow my third rap album, Secondo, will be released under the project tylerdurdan*.

The lyrics and concept are written by me, while the voice performing the tracks is generated with AI.

What surprised me most wasn’t the technology itself, but the reactions people have to it. Over the past few days a discussion about the project has already generated hundreds of comments online about authorship, creativity and what it means to “make” music today.

I also wrote a short essay reflecting on these questions:
https://tylerdurdan.com/remaining-human-in-an-ai-driven-worl...

Curious to hear what this community thinks.
by moritzwarhier | 2026-03-05 17:52:56+00:00
Your potential to be "not crazy" also supercharges your ability to be indirectly violent.

So this seems very shallow to me.

When you read "indirectly violent", please don't just think about the latest "social justice" topic of the day.

Think of the wife-beater's daughter, or whatever other situation you can think of that could make people act "crazy".

If you (not the person I'm answering to, the reader of my comment) think that everything that could make a person act in a "maladapted" way is caused by either craziness or explainable and immediately resolvable, I disagree.

Besides, why would an imaginary godlike AI that enslaves humanity care about well-adjusted humans? Even if it were interested in the wellbeing of humans and keeping the human social feedback loop running for whatever purpose, why would it be important to make all humans act uniformly and "not crazy"?

Social ability as purely a power play among humans (charisma, agreeability, persuasion, reproduction) certainly is an important human value. In fact a value of every mammal species.

But why would it have such a great worth for said imaginary AI that somehow still depends on humans?

What would be the goal of that AI?

And, AI aside, what would be the worth in maximizing "social ability"? What goals would these maximally non-crazy and non-violent humans pursue?

Sometimes it feels like AI is an obfuscating looking glass that makes people forget about everything humanity has ever learned.

For example, the so-called "Just world fallacy".

And the fact that human life has no inherent purpose except for itself and, of course, propagating memes (such as religion, politics, knowledge).
by g947o | 2026-03-05 17:53:19+00:00
From their own GitHub:

> If you intend to do LLM inference on your local machine, we recommend a 3000-series NVIDIA graphics card with at least 6GB of VRAM, but actual requirements may vary depending on the model and backend you choose to use.

Also, please be respectful when discussing technical matters.

P.S. I didn't say "local chat sucks".
by KPGv2 | 2026-03-05 17:53:51+00:00
> I kind of wonder whether you could charge it with the built-in USB ports that are in newer wall sockets.

Yes. There are 30W versions available for sure. I bought one to install in my kitchen, but the hole in the quartz was slightly too small to slide in the box, and I am too lazy to try to carve out enough space in the quartz myself, so I just returned it.
by RusDyn | 2026-03-05 17:53:55+00:00
One concrete application we've been working on: exhaustive verification of deterministic policy tables - WAF rules, DNS filter lists, routing tables.

The AI angle cuts both ways here.
AI makes it cheaper to generate policy logic, which means more policies, faster, with less review.
Formal verification of the decision function (not the config syntax) becomes the backstop - prove every input produces the correct output, not just that the rules look right.

One result that surprised us:
a DNS filter list covering 2M domains compresses to 253 bytes as a verified decision function.

Not a Bloom filter - exact, exhaustively proven against every domain. The same approach works for WAF rulesets and IP routing tables.

The verifier is MIT-licensed: https://github.com/ProofCodec/proofcodec-verify

Curious whether the formal verification community has looked much at policy-as-decision-function vs. policy-as-configuration.

The latter gets most of the tooling attention but the former is where correctness actually matters at runtime.
by K0balt | 2026-03-05 17:53:57+00:00
Exactly this. General purpose intelligence and automation allow a clean break between capital and money as we understand it.

Money is used only to pay wages. It has intermediate uses, storage, leverage, etc but at the edge all you can do with money is pay wages. Nobody pays the dirt when you take out the metal, nobody pays the forest for the trees, nobody pays the chickens for the eggs or the cornfields for the crop. Ultimately it’s wages all the way down.

If you don’t have to pay wages, you don’t need money, you just need self replicating automation, energy, and access to land and resources mine or farm the raw materials you need.

If you zoom out to space, it’s essentially grey goo with maybe some humans at the top for a while at least.

Inside the gilded walls, if you want something, you don’t buy it, you build a factory to build it, even if it’s a one off.

If you need money for something because you don’t have enough reach and power yet, you just mine gold or bitcoin.

You don’t build products to sell, you don’t need customers. You just need energy, resources, and the kind of power that comes with 20 million self replicating robots to project your will. You don’t need government, and you certainly won’t be funding it. Government is a really complex system to administer a monopoly of coercive force for the common good. You have your own monopoly of force operating for your good.

The difficult part in the capital flywheel has always been humans in the sticky parts. Take them out and that baby will hummmmm.

Pesky humans outside the gilded walls will be accommodated in the same way we accommodate ants at a construction site.
by wareya | 2026-03-05 17:53:58+00:00
> I don't believe this, and I doubt that the sense of copying in copyright law is so literal.

It is actually that literal, really.

> For instance, if I generated the exact text of a novel by looking for hash collisions,

This is a copyright violation because you're using the original to construct the copy. It's not a pure RNG.

> or by producing random strings of letters,

This wouldn't be a copyright violation, but nobody would believe you.

> or by hammering the middle button on my phone's autosuggestion keyboard, I would still have produced a copy and I would not be safe to distribute it.

This would probably be a copyright violation.

You probably think that this is hypothetical, but problems like this do actually go to court all the time, especially in the music industry, where people try to enforce copyright on melodies that have the informational uniqueness of an eight-word sentence.

> APIs are usually not copyrightable,

This was commonly believed among developers for a long time, but it turned out to not be true.

> This does not really sound like "the opposite of correct".

The important part is that information about the implementation can absolutely be in the spec without necessarily being copyrightable (and in real world clean room RE, you end up with a LOT of implementation details). You were saying the opposite, that it was a spec of the API as opposed to a spec of the implementation.
by raspasov | 2026-03-05 17:54:37+00:00
I’ve rented many different brands and the BMW interface is by far the best and quite consistent across generations. It hasn’t changed all that much since early 2000s. What exactly do you think was “user-hostile”? If you want to see bad UI/UX, try a Range Rover. Unfortunately all brands collectively (even BMW) have taken a step back with the latest generation of cars and the touch-screen-all-the-things craze.
by wenbin | 2026-03-05 17:54:55+00:00
Yea, good old days :)

The catch was that old boxed software eventually breaks on new OS versions or devices.

However, SaaS has the potential to "freeze" features while remaining functional 20+ years down the road. Behind the scenes, developers can update server dependencies and push minor fixes to ensure compatibility with new browsers and screen sizes.

From the end-user's perspective, the product remains unchanged and reliable. To me, that’s very good!
by moffkalast | 2026-03-05 17:54:59+00:00
It has been automated as much as possible, boilerplate is the result of people being terrible at designing programming languages. The whole idea of increasingly higher level ones was just that all along. Is there any point in writing a billion ADDC commands in assembly by hand when it takes one line in python?

LLM type systems are the final level of abstraction that lifts it up to literal natural language. Any dev with decent self awareness would admit they were just copying shit from stackoverflow half the time before LLMs anyway, high level languages and libraries just streamline that process with canonical implementations.

The value we provide is turning "person with problem" -> "person with solution to said problem" with as few caveats as possible. A programmer is that arrow, we solve problems. The more code we have to write to solve that problem, the worse we are at our job.
by goodmythical | 2026-03-05 17:55:37+00:00
That's awfully able-ist isn't it?

How do you know that the author is capable of communicating fluently in english?

What if it were the case the the author was so excited about sharing a project but didn't know how to properly explained it and so took the extra effort to learn how to get a piece of software to explain it for them?

Would that then satisfy your requirement that the human behind the project has done enough work to earn your interest?