MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: Usplus.ai – Build an AI-Native Company with Agents in your Org Chart
by usplusAI | 2026-03-01 00:15:24+00:00
Hey HN,
I'm the founder of usplus.ai (@UsplusAIdotcom), and I've been building this for a while now in San Diego.
The core idea: What if you could form a startup where AI agents aren't just tools—they're actual team members from day one? usplus.ai lets you create a virtual "Lab" with an org chart that includes both humans and AI agents assigned to real roles (CEO/Strategy Lead, Product Manager, CTO, CMO, Growth Hacker, Legal Advisor, etc.).
Key features right now:

Autonomous AI agents (powered by GPT-4o, Grok, Claude, Gemini, etc.) with 58 native skills (260+ actions) and access to 1,000+ SaaS tools via Composio (e.g., GitHub, Figma, HubSpot, Stripe, Gmail, Salesforce, Jira).

No-code workflow automation: Describe multi-step processes in English → agents build loops, conditions, scheduling, and execute real work (content creation, market research, campaign analysis, code gen, etc.).

Multi-Agent War Room: Agents collaborate in turn-taking sessions, recruit specialists dynamically, and handle complex tasks with approval gates.
Pre-built advisors (Idea Validator, Product Architect, etc.) that you can customize and @mention in chats/projects.

Full startup lifecycle support: From idea validation to MVP building, marketing, crowdfunding prep, and income generation.
Early access is invite-based—invite 3 friends for a free year of premium.

It's built on a similar premise to openClaw but extended for enterprise/startup use, with focus on agentic autonomy (planning, acting, adapting) rather than just chat.

I'd love feedback:

Does assigning AI to org roles feel useful, or gimmicky?
How are you structuring AI agents in your own work/startups?
Any must-have skills/tools missing?
Bugs, UX pain points, or wild ideas for workflows?

Try it out (free tier available): https://usplus.ai

Thanks for any thoughts, critiques, or war stories—building this solo has been a ride, and HN feedback has shaped a lot already.

Looking forward to your takes!
by ethbr1 | 2026-03-01 00:15:37+00:00
Similar CV, similar take. My guess? Anyone involved in automation for >2 years at the enterprise levels knows in their gut all the silent, sudden, annoying ways automation can fail and so has a higher internal bar for "must save this much time to be worth automating."

That said, old beliefs should be challenged by new technological capabilities!

If LLM based automation is (a) less fragile and (b) quicker to develop, then that bar should be lowered.
by conradev | 2026-03-01 00:15:44+00:00
I’ve personally had luck at correcting the complex one-off logic the agents produce with the right prompting.

and when I say prompting, I just mean code review feedback. All of this is engineering management. I review code. I’ll point out architectural flaws if they matter and I use judgement to determine if they matter. Code debt is a choice, and you can afford it in some situations but not others. We don’t nit over style because we have a linter. Better documentation results in better contribution quality. etc.

Agent coordination? Gastown? All I hear is organizational design and cybernetics
by interestng | 2026-03-01 00:15:48+00:00
Hi HN,

I built MedKit because medical data is notoriously difficult to work with. If you want to correlate a drug's FDA label with its latest clinical trial phases and related research papers, you usually have to juggle three different APIs, handle idiosyncratic JSON schemas, and deal with inconsistent identifier types.

MedKit is a unified Python SDK that transforms these fragmented sources (OpenFDA, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov) into a single, programmable platform.

Key Features:

Unified Client: One MedKit() client to rule them all. No more multiple API keys or manual correlation.
Clinical Synthesis (med.conclude()): Aggregates data to give a "snapshot" verdict on a drug or condition, including an evidence strength score (0.0–1.0).
Interaction Engine: catch drug-drug contraindications using cross-label mentions (brand vs generic).
Medical Relationship Graph: Visualize connections between drugs, trials, and research papers as a knowledge graph.
Intelligence Layer: Natural language routing (med.ask()) to query data in plain English.
Why Use It? Most healthcare developers spend 80% of their time just cleaning and joining data. MedKit handles the plumbing (caching, schema normalization, relationship mapping) so you can focus on the analysis or the application logic.

Tech Stack: Python (Sync/Async), Disk/Memory caching, and a provider-based architecture for easy extensibility.

I'd love to get your thoughts on the med.conclude() synthesis logic and what other providers (e.g., pharmacogenomics) you'd find useful.

Repo: https://github.com/interestng/medkit PyPI: pip install medkit-sdk

Looking forward to your feedback and support! All constructive criticism, stars and follows (on github) and votes greatly help me out as well.
by guerython | 2026-03-01 00:16:26+00:00
Love the Claude+Playwright BFS.
One idea we learned the hard way is to fingerprint each state with the URL plus a short DOM hash so you can skip duplicates (product cards, cookie modals, infinite-scroll clones) and keep the graph manageable.
Also store the network events that come out of each replayed journey and run them in parallel in CI so you can immediately spot which selector or API call starts failing after a deploy.
by titzer | 2026-03-01 00:16:27+00:00
It's all just rearranging deck chairs at this point.

I feel like UX designers don't realize that their job should have a natural tailing off as we discover and lock in the good ideas and discard the bad. Even if the ideas aren't that great, users can at least get good at however it does work, if it stays constant. Instead, we just get more dice rolls, eyecandy, and frustration.

I for one hate the power dynamic that OS and website designers have over me. They can just sneak into my house and rearrange my furniture on a whim. Even if it sucks, I would adapt to it if it stayed constant! Instead I both hate it and can't learn it, because everything is different and keeps changing when I least expect it.

At this point my brain has given into learned helplessness and won't retain much of anything at all, but it's next-level figured out that it's useless.

Designers seem to have a bad track record, and it's getting worse.

Sorry, designers.
by vunderba | 2026-03-01 00:16:29+00:00
I can't speak to using local models as agentic coding assistants, but I have a headless 128GB RAM machine serving llama.cpp with a number of local models that I use on a daily basis.

- Qwen3-VL picks up new images in a NAS, auto captions and adds the text descriptions as a hidden EXIF layer into the image, which is used for fast search and organization in conjunction with a Qdrant vector database.

- Gemma3:27b is used for personal translation work (mostly English and Chinese).

- Llama3.1 spins up for sentiment analysis on text.
by teekert | 2026-03-01 00:17:44+00:00
I just finished writing down an "incident" in our quality manual. I used Claude Code on my /etc/nixos dir and there were some plain text smb credentials in that dir. I felt pretty bad about it. Then I try Zed and this happens.

Is it all just about trusting Anthropic? As it is with any (non sandboxed) app? Am I over-reacting?
by ChocMontePy | 2026-03-01 00:17:52+00:00
I'm at the library so I checked your book. You said in there:

> However, by October 1933, the issue was straightened out and she was aboard the Bremen, sailing for the United States.

Since she died on 14 April 1935, it was 18 months rather than 2 years.

That sounds like a rather pedantic correction on your part.

That pedanticism is a bad sign and puts your "correction" about the cancer in doubt too.
by Nevermark | 2026-03-01 00:18:37+00:00
Except for clusters of highly correlated private interest groups. PACs. Which completely circumvent that.

Ideally they "shouldn't". But in practice they do.

Because the Supreme Court determined that money is free speech, its use in elections cannot be limited in general.

And where coordination between purportedly independent groups isn't supposed to happen, there is a strong "don't ask, don't tell" code, and a mountain of lawyers ready to scream "political oppression!" on the dime of the rich.
by Aurornis | 2026-03-01 00:18:55+00:00
The models outperform on the benchmarks relative to general tasks.

The benchmarks are public. They're guaranteed to be in the training sets by now. So the benchmarks are no longer an indicator of general performance because the specific tasks have been seen before.

> And could quantization maybe explain the worse than expected results?

You can use the models through various providers on OpenRouter cheaply without quantization.
by elzbardico | 2026-03-01 00:19:04+00:00
No. it was not. You could build a passable online shop after reading a django or ruby on rails book (250, 300 pages), and a couple tutorials to deploy it in some ease to use platform.

Maybe it wouldn't be visually nice, but you would understand what you've built, which is something really really important if you are processing online payments.
by ericmay | 2026-03-01 00:19:08+00:00
Nope. US was there under a UN banner, and the UN force was winning until China threw manpower into the war. Never mind Soviet support. The blame goes to the communists and them alone. Without them Korea would have been likely unified under what is now the democratic South Korea we know today, but the communists in China couldn’t have a democracy so close to them, so they fought to win and establish the brutal regime that we have today in North Korea.
by A_D_E_P_T | 2026-03-01 00:19:10+00:00
Obvious political reasons and implications aside, a clear quality gap opened up late last year when Opus 4.5 was released vs. GPT-5. Opus was obviously and demonstrably superior to any GPT-5 tier. The release of GPT-5.2 didn't improve matters, and then Opus 4.6 widened the gap further. Right now talking to GPT-5.2 Pro is 10x slower than chatting with Opus 4.6 and the output returned is, nevertheless, generally lower quality and more "sloppy."

What I'm getting at is that this could be, in part, because Claude is genuinely better at this point in time.
by genodethrowaway | 2026-03-01 00:19:15+00:00
>Hard to take this nonsense seriously. Northwest europe was christian and there are plenty of examples of non-monogamous marriages in the bible.
The bible doesn't describe hajnali[1] marriage patterns. It describes middle eastern marriage patterns. Even still, the non-monogamous marriages in the bible are oft depicted as sinful.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_patt...
by busterarm | 2026-03-01 00:19:20+00:00
That's not even true.

Your account was created in 2015. That's the year that Yarvin's talk was rescinded at StrangeLoop and the comments here in the very thread about it were widely supportive of his ban. The rare arguments in his favor were more centered on their thinking that his talk was a technical one about Urbit.

The same big posters of today were big posters then openly slamming the guy for being an unrepentant racist.

Any posts about urbit were basically flamebait and all of its devs, not just Yarvin, as well as most of the personalities from LessWrong were very effectively chased off this board.

This place has a long history and long memories and revisionist garbage won't be tolerated.
by titzer | 2026-03-01 00:19:46+00:00
To be fair, Apple has always had a penchant for removing important features because they don't like how they look. I cannot count how many times I got a CD/DVD stuck in a Mac, and due to a lack of physical eject button and the software eject button not working, resorted to the emergency eject sequences. Just put a button to eject the disk, ffs.
by godelski | 2026-03-01 00:20:14+00:00
> More succinctly: who decides what is legal here?

Why are people concentrating on legality? Look at the language

| The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols.

It's not just "legal". Their usage just needs to be consistent with one of

- legal
- operational requirements
- "well-established safety and oversight protocols"

Operational requirements might just be a free pass to do whatever they want. The well established protocols seems like a distraction from the second condition.

> who decides what is [consistent with operational requirements] here?

The Secretary of Defense. The same person who has directed people to do extrajudicial killings. Killings that would be war crimes even if those people were enemy combatants.

There's also subtle language elsewhere. Notice the word "domestic" shows up between "mass" and "surveillance"? We already have another agency that's exploited that one...
by girvo | 2026-03-01 00:21:32+00:00
Flawed? Possibly, but I think it's more that any kind of benchmark then becomes a target, and is inherently going to be a "lossy" signal as to the models actual ability in practice.

Quantisation doesn't help, but even running full fat versions of these models through various cloud providers, they still don't match Sonnet in actual agentic coding uses: at least in my experience.
by maxloh | 2026-03-01 00:21:48+00:00
For context, here is the startup's website: https://www.factify.com/. The site consists of only two main pages: the landing page and a "careers" section.

Based on the site, the service appears to be little more than a document hosting platform with tracking features, such as monitoring who copied the document and the specific paragraphs they selected. They’ve intentionally omitted a download feature to prevent access to outdated versions, but otherwise, the experience seems no different from an ordinary PDF reader.

There is no mention of a "new standard" on their front page. I suspect they don't actually convert the documents. They likely just convert pages to encrypted images and use client-side rendering for text elements to allow for selection and copying.
by shykes | 2026-03-01 00:22:02+00:00
> "The exception of Area C" is doing a lot of work in this argument. That's 61% of the territory of the West Bank

Area C is less than 10% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, 6% of Palestinian population if you count Gaza. Interesting that you chose to focus on territory! Last I checked, square kilometers do not vote, people do.

In any case, you are right that Area C is more complicated, since it is controlled by Israel and there are Palestinians who live there.

However, Palestinians living in area C can also vote in Palestinian elections. So although it is true that they live in a territory governed by Israel (unlike the other 94% of Palestinians), it remains false that they are a "large part of the Israeli population that is disenfranchised" (the original statement).

> ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).

Obviously the choice of name for this region reflects a political preference. But that works both ways. I prefer to call it Judea and Samaria because that's what it was called until 1948, when Jordan invaded and annexed it. "West bank" is a relic of Jordanian occupation, chosen by King Abdullah to absorb the region into his kingdom, not just politically but semantically. Jordan hasn't controlled the region in 60 years - longer than the occupation itself. It seems reasonable to stop calling it by its colonial Jordan name.

You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?

> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?

In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.

> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?

On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.

> The airspace?

Israel

> The ability to import and export goods?

The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.

> The roads?

In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.

> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?

That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.

> The decisions on building new settlements?

In area C: Israel.

In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).

> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"

We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
by Barrin92 | 2026-03-01 00:22:02+00:00
>He's one of the rare humans who has truly "sucked out all the marrow of life".

I think the biggest problem with him is that he styles himself as exactly that, but as the article points out he's a self-mythologizer who frequently makes stuff up. He's pretentious in the literal sense of that term, he's constantly exaggerated his own life, has even said that's the case and that doesn't seem as profound or counter-cultural to me as he thinks it is, given that we're mostly surrounded by exactly these kind of types now.
by imiric | 2026-03-01 00:22:42+00:00
After nearly 30 years of tech life myself, I've come to the realization that the best UIs are not graphical. They can have graphical elements mostly for visualization purposes, but all of them should be as minimal and unobtrusive as possible. Any interactivity should be primarily keyboard-driven, and mouse input should be optional.

Forcing users to click on graphical elements presents many challenges: what constitutes an "element"; what are its boundaries; when is it active, inactive, disabled, etc.; if it has icons, what do they mean; are interactive elements visually distinguishable from non-interactive elements; and so on.

A good example of bad UI that drives me mad today on Windows 11 is something as simple as resizing windows. Since the modern trend is to have rounded corners on everything, it's not clear where the "grab" area for resizing a window exists anymore. It seems to exist outside of the physical boundary of the window, and the actual activation point is barely a few pixels wide. Apparently this is an issue on macOS as well[1].

Like you, I do have a soft spot for the Windows 2000 GUI in particular, and consider it the pinnacle of Microsoft's designs, but it still feels outdated and inneficient by modern standards. The reason for this is because it follows the visual trends of the era, and it can't accomodate some of the UX improvements newer GUIs have (universal search, tiled/snappable windows, workspaces, etc.).

So, my point is that eschewing graphics as much as possible, and relying on keyboard input to perform operations, gets rid of the graphical ambiguities, minimizes the amount of trend following making the UI feel timeless, and makes the user feel more in command of their experience, making them more efficient and quicker.

This UI doesn't have to be some inaccessible CLI or TUI, although that's certainly an option for power users, but it should generally only serve to enable the user to do their work as easily as possible, and get out of the way the rest of the time. Unfortunately, most modern OSs have teams of designers and developers that need to justify their salary, and a UI that is invisible and rarely changes won't get anyone promoted. But it's certainly possible for power users to build out this UI themselves using some common and popular software. It takes a bit of work, but the benefits far outweigh the time and effort investment.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46579864
by notepad0x90 | 2026-03-01 00:23:45+00:00
the people via their elected reps.. the government. The government is of the people and by the people. They're not different if democracy is truly working.

> but it may be able to do so in the future.

You don't obey laws in the future, you obey laws today. Companies have an obligation to follow the laws as written today. Not only that, as americans they and all americans have a patriotic and civic duty to resist attempts to bypass or undermine the constitution of their country. You literally can't be patriotic or loyal to your country without doing so, it is what constitutes the country.

It's not like Anthropic can't update their guardrails and contracts once the laws of the land are updated. They simply resisted a criminal and treasonous abuse of power.
by thenewwave | 2026-03-01 00:24:30+00:00
Intentions of the license aside, the abusive stance of how far the license extends is an unsettled matter in the US court system. And that means when a project wants to assert that any software which talks to a minIO instance over s3 is included in this license expectation, it’s on you to decide if you want to go the distance defending yourself. And even then, they can just drop the suit whenever in that long process and continue the status quo world of ambiguity.
by Arcuru | 2026-03-01 00:24:40+00:00
There are several companies I've seen that use a CLA primarily to sell AGPL exceptions so they can actually fund development, Element for example [1]. Some even word the CLA to require them to keep contributions available under an OSI-approved license.

I'm a fan of that model. IIt allows for a path to funding, a legal framework to keep contributed code open, and also allows them license agility to more permissive license ass needed. I've started using that for my own larger projects too.

https://element.io/blog/synapse-now-lives-at-github-com-elem...
by jezek2 | 2026-03-01 00:24:52+00:00
I don't think it's wise to use it for anything. Even when chatting with an LLM you would have to check everything yourself which nobody would truly do. The generated code can't be really trusted (and nobody will review everything, quite the opposite). It can also have copyright issues.

People are allergic to articles and documentation generated/processed by LLM.

You're switching from an active role to a passive one, meaning your skill will suffer over the time. There is a huge difference between doing the things and thinking you know what it's doing. It's harder to review bad generated code because how polished it looks, compared to code made by humans where the difference is much more obvious.

Code assistants seem to work great when dealing with boilerplate, but wouldn't be better to get rid of the need for the boilerplate in the first place?
by abustamam | 2026-03-01 00:24:57+00:00
They've been around forever, even before Trump's first administration. But a broken clock is right twice a day.

Those people also get down voted to oblivion. Their text is gray. I can't read it unless I click the timestamp.

Clearly, HN doesn't want us to listen to them.

Yes, sometimes they can be combative and inflammatory. But even the ones that are otherwise reasonable get down voted because how dare we insult capitalism and billionaires?