MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by DiabloD3 | 2026-03-05 13:55:38+00:00
There is no such thing as "consumer grade RAM". Servers still take DIMMs, ECC DIMMs just has more chips on it (previously 9 instead of 8, but now 10 instead of 8 as of DDR5; you'll see some DDR5 DIMMs with 5 instead of 4 because they're double die packages).

Micron, Samsung, and Hynix just basically sell you chips that comply with the JEDEC spec, and the DIMM manufacturers further bin them according to purpose. The highest end chips (that are stable at high clocks and acceptable voltages) end up in enthusiast performance products, the ones that don't work well at all but still meet JEDEC spec are sold to Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc for Grandma's Facebook machine, and the ones that are exceptionally stable at thermal design limits are plunked onto ECC DIMMs and sold to servers.

Also, as others have mentioned, its just a fab, and it can make any of the dies they're able to make. Whatever needs to be made to meet demand, they make, they just can't turn on a dime and react to quarterly concerns, and are locked into cycles that may range from 6 months to 18 months.

Side note that is also worth mentioning, sometimes you can order special bins of parts with features that wouldn't normally be available if you're willing to order enough. Recent example being Nvidia buying overclocked GDDR6 chips from Micron with additional features enabled; Micron was more than happy to become Nvidia's exclusive supplier for the custom GDDR chip if Nvidia was willing to buy out the entire run. Stuff like this happens every so often, but isn't the norm.
by data-ottawa | 2026-03-05 13:56:04+00:00
It surprises me that semantic search never gets mentioned here.

If you can use the NPU to process embeddings quickly, you get some incredible functionality — from photo search by subject to near match email search.

For consumer applications that’s what I’m most excited for. It takes something that used to require large teams, data, and bespoke models into commodity that any app can use.
by xingped | 2026-03-05 13:56:26+00:00
They're a small shop compared to the big laptop makers and their focus is on user-repairability. Between those two you are naturally going to have a slightly higher price point than simply buying a laptop from one of the usual companies. I wouldn't call it junk or gimmickery. It has a purpose and a niche. It might not be your niche, but it is for some people.
by kunai | 2026-03-05 13:57:16+00:00
> ... Only a few people make music with a Mac, but it's been an important part of its history, and Apple cares about it.

This seems to be a recent phenomenon. A lot of electronic music production uses the Macintosh and Logic/Ableton workflow, to say nothing about how many of the best DSPs were Apple-exclusive until about a decade ago. I don't really think music production, at least in the EDM and hip-hop world, got popular on the PC until the rise of Fruity Loops and FL Studio, but that's available on the Mac now too.
Show HN: Watch Claude break SHA-256 live
by logicallee | 2026-03-05 13:57:48+00:00
I'm not sure why the stream quality is so low, I spent a while selecting 4k. I'm able to make out the text and you should be able to as well.

This stream will run for about 24 hours or so.

You can see the collision of MD5 that it made here: https://stateofutopia.com/experiments/md5collider
by rglover | 2026-03-05 13:57:55+00:00
This is the most rational take. I'm a quality guy (Deming, Juran, etc), but nothing about incorporating an LLM into my own work has lowered its quality. That isn't to say that I haven't encountered slop. The difference is that, self-identifying as a craftsman, I have the ability to decide whether or not something stays or goes on the scrap heap. It seems a lot of people are missing that point: just because you can churn out shit doesn't mean you have to (and sorry, sunk-cost bias re: tokens isn't an excuse—that's the cost of doing business). It's a choice. AI-assisted coding is a tremendous boon on productivity, if (and I'd argue only if) you treat it like a power tool and not a genie lamp.

No, you won't be rewarded magic beans for churning out crappy dashboards any more. But if you're serious about shipping quality, nothing is stopping you here.
by myrmidon | 2026-03-05 13:58:46+00:00
> it sounds like some legal jester dance done to entertain [...] copyright laws

Clean room implementations are a jester dance around the judiciary. The whole point is to avoid legal ambiguity.

You are not required to do this by law, you are doing this voluntarily to make potential legal arguments easier.

The alternative is going over the whole codebase in question and arguing basically line by line whether things are derivative or not in front of a judge (which is a lot of work for everyone involved, subjective, and uncertain!).
by 6510 | 2026-03-05 13:58:48+00:00
Uh, they lie about everything?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/feed/51120/rss.xml

I haven't fully examined it but looking at the xml I see it was last build in 2026 and a headline about Women's Asian Cup 2026.

abc.net.au/news/2026-03-05/matildas-iran-asian-cup-quick-hits-hayley-raso-mary-fowler/106413886
by embedding-shape | 2026-03-05 13:58:53+00:00
> AI will make humans more AI-like

Already so, LLMs are trained on human-written text, and then spit out text they try to make human-like, so now a bunch of stylistic choices some humans made are "tellsigns of a human using LLMs for writing". It's not just bad, it's removing humanity from the humans.
by freejazz | 2026-03-05 14:00:01+00:00
> So in theory (IANAL), investors can't easily bully Anthropic into abandoning their mission statement unless they can convince a court that Anthropic deliberately aimed to prioritize the cause over profit.

So why were they ever working with the military in the first instance, if that's the case? If you didn't gleam from OpenAI that it doesn't matter. Everyone is greedy and will jump ship for money if Anthropic does not get it for them.
by bhekanik | 2026-03-05 14:00:36+00:00
I think the framing as “lying” is emotionally accurate for users but technically misleading for builders. Most failures I see in production aren’t intentional deception, they’re confidence calibration failures: the model sounds certain when it should sound tentative.

What helped us most was treating outputs like untrusted input: retrieval + citations for factual claims, strict tool permissions, and an explicit “I don’t know” path that’s rewarded instead of punished. That doesn’t make LLMs truthful, but it does make them a lot less brittle.

So to me the key question isn’t “are models liars?” but “what product and engineering constraints make wrong answers cheap and detectable?”
by hwillis | 2026-03-05 14:00:57+00:00
Totally missing my point.

Say you have bladder pain and chatgpt tells you that is a common indicator of appendicitis. If you go to the doctor and tell them you think you have appendicitis, they will think you are saying your appendix hurts and look for causes of pain in that region. They will not look for bladder-related pain, because you did not tell them what hurts.

Extrapolate that to all the possibilities for all conditions- something that the system is not equipped for. Doctors do not know that bladder pain is a possible indicator of appendicitis because of experience or logic; they know because it is part of their education because the system has learned that over time. The system does not account for people filtering their symptoms through chatgpt.

Further, it's still bad. It still increases the permutations the doctor is required to consider for no reason. Doctors make mistakes- they make mistakes often. Knowing a bit of medicine can be very helpful for patients. Weaponizing them with a predictive text machine is not the same thing.
by Xunjin | 2026-03-05 14:01:11+00:00
The point of your whole argument is that “financial experts” are always rational and are not affected by bubbles, it took months from energy experts talking with media/investors to the Big Tech would start talking about “energy crisis”.

In fact, Nadella publicly stated that he has a large amount of hardware in inventory that has already been purchased but cannot be utilized due to insufficient energy.
by wareya | 2026-03-05 14:01:20+00:00
> If you had a hermetically sealed code base that just happened to coincide line for line with the codebase for GCC, it would still be a copy.

If you somehow actually randomly produce the same code without a reference, it's not a copy and doesn't violate copyright. You're going to get sued and lose, but platonically, you're in the clear. If it's merely somewhat similar, then you're probably in the clear in practice too: it gets very easy very fast to argue that the similarities are structural consequences of the uncopyrightable parts of the functionality.

> The actual meaning of a "clean room implementation" is that it is derived from an API and not from an implementation (I am simplifying slightly).

This is almost the opposite of correct. A clean room implementation's dirty phase produces a specification that is allowed to include uncopyrightable implementation details. It is NOT defined as producing an API, and if you produce an API spec that matches the original too closely, you might have just dirtied your process by including copyrightable parts of the shape of the API in the spec. Google vs Oracle made this more annoying than it used to be.

> Whether the reimplementation is actually a "new implementation" is a subjective but empirical question that basically hinges on how similar the new codebase is to the old one. If it's too similar, it's a copy.

If you follow CRRE, it's not a copy, full stop, even if it's somehow 1:1 identical. It's going to be JUDGED as a copy, because substantial similarity for nontrivial amounts of code means that you almost certainly stepped outside of the clean room process and it no longer functions as a defense, but if you did follow CRRE, then it's platonically not a copy.

> What the chardet maintainers have done here is legally very irresponsible.

I agree with this, but it's probably not as dramatic as you think it is. There was an issue with a free Japanese font/typeface a decade or two ago that was accused of mechanically (rather than manually) copying the outlines of a commercial Japanese font. Typeface outlines aren't copyrightable in the US or Japan, but they are in some parts of Europe, and the exact structure of a given font is copyrightable everywhere (e.g. the vector data or bitmap field for a digital typeface, as opposed to the idea of its shape). What was the outcome of this problem? Distros stopped shipping the font and replaced it with something vaguely compatible. Was the font actually infringing? Probably not, but better safe than sorry.
by dm319 | 2026-03-05 14:02:39+00:00
> decent build materials (ive got a thinpad and the platic build is just terrible. The screen bends when pulling it to open the laptop).

Thinkpads don't show off their build materials like Apple does. I've had several over the years, variously made of magnesium alloy and carbon fibre.

Screen bending is not a great metric of 'decent build'. My Thinkpads have suffered people stepping on them, being dropped etc, and I think the lid flexibility is partly why it has survived all this time - they often use carbon fibre on the back of the screen.
by craftkiller | 2026-03-05 14:02:50+00:00
Since this is for desktop, the NPU is irrelevant. Consumer-grade NPUs are not made for high performance. They are optimized for low power consumption, which makes sense when you are trying to run basic AI tasks on a laptop without turning it into a frying pan. On consumer-grade gear, the GPU will outperform the NPU, and since a desktop is not constrained by battery and can dissipate far more heat, the NPU is mostly irrelevant (aside from using it to develop software for laptop NPUs).
by krapp | 2026-03-05 14:03:04+00:00
Yeah I don't know why this thought terminating cliche of "but also humans" is so persistent, especially when it's almost always used to dismiss consequences of using LLMs that would never be acceptable when actually applied to humans.

A human gaslighting another human into suicide? They're a sociopath, maybe a criminal. Certainly not normal.

An LLM does the same? Humans do that all the time, what's the issue? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Is it just misanthropy? I don't get it.
by _heimdall | 2026-03-05 14:03:46+00:00
That's absolutely not the definition people use for alignment. Safety discussions often circle around alignment because they are worried about AI doing things that are bad for humanity as a whole, not because it goes off track from any one user's goal. That would be terrible for safety if alignment meant I could ask to hack tha TSA and the LLM would do it.

Ignoring the definition, what would be required for individual alignment is exactly the same as collective alignment. The only difference is the goals and who writes them, for the LLM it is being somehow forced to follow those rules no matter what.
by jillesvangurp | 2026-03-05 14:03:49+00:00
> "How do we protect ourselves against a competitor doing this?"

You can try patenting; but not after the fact. Copyright won't help you here. You can't copyright an algorithm or idea, just a specific form or implementation of it. And there is a lot of legal history about what is and isn't a derivative work here. Some companies try to forbid reverse engineering in their licensing. But of course that might be a bit hard to enforce, or prove. And it doesn't work for OSS stuff in any case.

Stuff like this has been common practice in the industry for decades. Most good software ideas get picked apart, copied and re-implemented. IBM's bios for the first PC quickly got reverse engineered and then other companies started making IBM compatible PCs. IBM never open sourced their bios and they probably did not intend for that to happen. But that didn't matter. Likewise there were several PC compatible DOS variants that each could (mostly) run the same applications. MS never open sourced DOS either. There are countless examples of people figuring out how stuff works and then creating independent implementations. All that is perfectly legal.
by nickzelei | 2026-03-05 14:04:41+00:00
Cool project.

I haven’t looked at the code too much(yet). I’d be curious to know how you’re handling some of the more wiry edge cases when it comes to following foreign key constraints. Things like circular dependencies come to mind. As well as complex joins.

I feel ok posting this because it’s archived, but this problem is basically what we designed for with Neosync [1].
It was probably the hardest feature to fully solve for the customers that needed it the most, which were the ones with the most complex data sets and foreign key dependencies.

To the point where it was almost impossible to do this, at least with syncing it directly to another Postgres database with everything in tact. Meaning that if on the other side you want another pg database that has all of the same constraints, it is difficult to ensure you got the full sliced dataset. At least the way we were thinking about it.

[1]: https://github.com/nucleuscloud/neosync
by TheOtherHobbes | 2026-03-05 14:05:37+00:00
I will never, ever understand the HN obsession with presenting nukes as a practical and economically viable technology.

Wind and solar prices are still dropping hard, battery and storage tech is evolving fast, but - let's build monsters that consistently overrun time and budget, and run on fuel that can only be obtained from some of the least stable countries on the planet.
by sdsd | 2026-03-05 14:06:22+00:00
Oh yeah well I run 500 VMs of Windows Vista each with an instance of DeepSeek botting Neopets stocks for me. I make more neopoints in a day than you'll make in USD in a year.

/s but I suppose I've developed a work flow that adapts to the RAM I've always had. I've seen people with zillions of tabs and I do wonder if it's really that much more productive than the occasional HTTP request to reopen one. I find leaving things open as a form of bookmarking clouds my mental space too much.

I do intend to have beastly RAM on my new desktop so who knows, maybe I'll be like you in a year.
Humanity's Last Exam
by silexia | 2026-03-05 14:07:15+00:00
Humanity's Last Exam is a new measure of Artificial Intelligence that has been developed since various AIs have blown away all previous measures. The idea is to take cutting edge problems from many areas of study with definite answers to measure AI progress. In the last year, AI has gone from answering 10% of these to over 50%. This means that AI now has surpassed the best humans in more than half of knowledge domains.

https://lastexam.ai/
by ndriscoll | 2026-03-05 14:07:29+00:00
How exactly is it different? All the model itself is is a probability distribution for next token given input, fitted to a giant corpus. i.e. a description of statistical properties. On its own it doesn't even "do" anything, but even if you wrap that in a text generator and feed it literal gcc source code fragments as input context, it will quickly diverge. Because it's not a copy of gcc. It doesn't contain a copy of gcc. It's a description of what language is common in code in general.

In fact we could make this concrete: use the model as the prediction stage in a compressor, and compress gcc with it. The residual is the extent to which it doesn't contain gcc.
by sciences44 | 2026-03-05 14:07:38+00:00
I wanted to test the new Qwen 3.5 Small models (released March 2) for a structured output task. I fine-tuned the 0.8B, 2B and 4B on text-to-SQL using LoRA on a Mac (64 GB, MLX), and added Mistral-Nemo 12B as a baseline.

The 2B beat the 12B by 19 percentage points (50% vs 31% semantic accuracy). Larger models are "too smart"? They compute the answer mentally and output "42" instead of writing SQL. 81% of the 12B's errors were plain numbers.

Everything runs locally, zero cloud compute. The repo has scripts, data and full results to reproduce it.
by jacquesm | 2026-03-05 14:08:00+00:00
No, they're on the record as this being a derived work. There is no argument here at all. Not finding proof in a copyright case when the author is on the record about the infringement is a complete non-issue.

You'd have to make that claim absent any proof and then there better not be any gross similarities between the two bodies of code that can not be explained away by coincidence.

And then there is such a thing as discovery. I've been party to a case like this and won because of some silly little details (mostly: identical typos) and another that was just a couple of lines of identical JavaScript (with all of the variable names changed). Copyright cases against large entities are much harder to win because they have deeper pockets but against smaller parties that are clearly infringing it is much easier.

When you're talking about documented protocols or interface specifications then it is a different thing, those have various exceptions and those vary from one jurisdiction to another.

What can help bolster the case for the defense is for instance accurate record keeping, who contributed what parts, sworn depositions by those individuals that they have come up with these parts by their lonesome, a delivery pace matching that which you would expect from that particular employee without any suspicious outliers in terms of amount of code dropped per interval and so on. Code copied from online sources being properly annotated with a reference to the source also helps, because if you don't do that then it's going to look like you have no problem putting your own copyright on someone else's code.

If it is real, then it is fairly easy to document that it is real. If it is not, after discovery has run its course it is usually fairly easy to prove that it is not if it is not.
by donkeybeer | 2026-03-05 14:08:04+00:00
Christian psychos are already at the forefront of the government, its not the end, its barely even the beginning of their insanity. And this batch doesn't yet need to engage in militantism, because...the entire government apparatus is already there for doing their bidding, but that's hardly any reason to see they aren't escalating with their insanity. I mean, Israel itself has even more of religious extremism in their government and society than present day America.

All of that is also quite irrelevant to the fact that Iran wasn't attacking the USA or Israel, Israel and America attacked them unprovoked while making a pretense of negotiating peace deals with them. I hate religion and I hate theocracies, while these are shitty countries they haven't been shitty to me, only to their internal populace. Iran also isn't the country that "doesn't have" nukes and refuses to get their nuclear facilities inspected. There is only one country in the middle east that does. Iran is far more trustworthy in the nuclear department than Israel. Israel, if it hadn't already shown how much of a reprobate traitorous liar they already are, shows yet another iteration of their old colors to the new generation. The same Israel that did the USS Liberty and so on.
by Garlef | 2026-03-05 14:08:32+00:00
I think you could also argue that LLMs in coding are actually just a novel approach at code reuse: At the microscopic level, they excel at replicating known patterns in a new context.

(Many small dependencies can be avoided by letting the LLM just re-implememt the desired behavior; ~ with tradeoffs, of course)

The issue is orchestrating this local reuse into a coherent global codebase.
by runarberg | 2026-03-05 14:08:42+00:00
I’m not sure your logic is sound. It sounds like you are insisting on some nuance which simply isn’t there. LLM generates unmaintainable slop, which is extremely difficult to reason about, uses wrong abstractions, violates DRY, violates cohesion, etc.

The industry has known how to reuse codes for two decades now (npm was released 16 years ago; pip 18 years ago). Using LLMs for code reuse is a step in the wrong direction, at least if you care about maintaining your code.
Show HN: PoliticaHub – tracking prediction markets for geopolitics
by johanfr4 | 2026-03-05 14:08:50+00:00
I’ve been following prediction markets for a while, mostly around elections and international tensions. One thing that kept bugging me is the data is kind of scattered across platforms and it’s hard to compare things side by side.

So I built PoliticaHub to pull some of it together.

Right now it aggregates markets from Polymarket and Kalshi and shows the implied probabilities for things like election outcomes, conflict escalation, recession odds and similar stuff. The idea is basically just to see what traders are pricing in across different events.

Under the hood it just pulls data from their APIs, normalizes the probabilities and refreshes every few minutes. Nothing super fancy. I’m still experimenting with things like filtering by region or event type and maybe highlighting big probability swings.

Its still pretty early and im sure there are bugs or weird things I havent noticed yet.
Would appreciate any feedback from the HN crowd, especially if something looks broken or confusing.
by aleph_minus_one | 2026-03-05 14:08:59+00:00
>
In contrast, for copyright the right is intrinsically tied to the origin of a work. If you create a digital image that is entirely identical at the pixel level with a copyrighted work, and you can prove that you had never seen that original copyrighted work and you created your image completely independently, then you have not broken anyone's copyright and are free to sell copies of your own work.

This is not true. I will just give the example of the nighttime illumination of the Eiffel Tower:

> https://www.travelandleisure.com/photography/illegal-to-take...

> https://www.headout.com/blog/eiffel-tower-copyright/