MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by VorpalWay | 2026-03-09 17:06:22+00:00
That is how decision trees are usually made in my experience. Though I guess you could make one by hand. You could also make a (small) neural network by hand.

In which case you could argue that neither DTs nor NNs are ML. Only the training itself is ML/AI. An interesting perspective, but this will probably just confuse the discussion even further.
by jgiunta | 2026-03-09 17:06:23+00:00
Hey HN, I built this because my 6yo learned swear words from YouTube's algorithm. YouTube Kids is too limited for older kids, and regular YouTube's recommendations are a minefield.

Youko is simple: parents pick which YouTube channels their kid can watch. Kids only see videos from those channels. No algorithm, no recommendations. Daily time limits included.

Stack: Rails 7, PostgreSQL, Redis/Sidekiq, SwiftUI (iOS). YouTube Data API v3 with quota optimization (~2-4 API units per creator per sync).

Free plan: 1 kid, 10 channels. Happy to answer questions about the tech or the parenting side.
by cuuupid | 2026-03-09 17:06:37+00:00
The US has been remotely striking targets for 20+ years and famously racked up a high casualty count on drone strikes during the Obama admin.

The (incorrect) assumption you’re making here is that the US not only is using AI for later stage targeting, but that there is also no human who signed off on this. Note that the AI targeting system here, Maven, has been around even before GPT-2.

This is just pure AI alarmism. The worst part is absolutely anybody can sign up for Palantir AIP right now for free and see what it actually does with LLMs (spoiler: very boring!)
by hawernawer | 2026-03-09 17:06:44+00:00
That's a fair question. Mozilla is a large organization and I don't work on Firefox itself, so the blog post wasn't meant as commentary on that specific change.

That said, the Firefox policy actually reflects something similar to what I'm describing in the post: even if AI tools are used to generate code, a human must ultimately take responsibility for what gets merged. AI can't own a change or be accountable for it.
by JasonADrury | 2026-03-09 17:06:53+00:00
>I’m sure it’s possible to make small amounts of money with Reddit bots, just like it’s possible to make small amounts of money with email spam, and posting AI slop to Facebook and X, and SMS scams.

I'm getting clients who are each spending a minimum of 500k USD pa on services.

There's a very wide variety of eyeballs you can reach on reddit. It's everything from people inserting impressively large items in their body to people trading eye-wateringly expensive jewelry from cult brands like Chrome Hearts and nerds discussing enterprise telco equipment and EDR platforms.

But sure, I don't think it scales.

>The idea that major brands do this habitually, is what I’m objecting to.

I doubt major brands do this habitually. There are countless smaller players who do.
by sidewndr46 | 2026-03-09 17:06:55+00:00
I do not know how F-18 controls work but from what I understand lots of jet controls include the equivalent of a "safety" that can be used to prevent the weapon from being launched. Maybe the pilot thought he had it engaged?

The secondary thing here I've realized is that the missiles in question must not have been using active homing. If they were then the pilots of the US aircraft would have taken evasive action as soon as their radar warning receiver lit up.
by VladCovaci | 2026-03-09 17:07:00+00:00
A few weeks ago I posted here about launching founderspace.work. The response was modest — a handful of comments, some good feedback, one paying customer.
Yesterday I got a second one. Same source: HN.
I'm not posting this as a "look how well it's going" moment — two customers is still two customers. But it felt worth sharing because HN is genuinely the only place where the people reading actually understand what you're building.

The insight behind it: most founders don't fail because they can't build. They fail because they never honestly stress-tested the idea before investing months into it.
Both customers who signed up mentioned the same thing: they were tired of tools that just generate content around their idea rather than challenge it.
Still early. Still figuring out the pricing and the V2 direction. But two strangers paying for something you built — that feeling doesn't get old.
If you're a solo founder sitting on an idea you haven't fully stress-tested, I'd love your feedback: founderspace.work
by chmod775 | 2026-03-09 17:07:07+00:00
> Having ideas is difficult and expensive. Let's lobby instead!

> [..] spends around €10 million a year on lobbying – which sounds like a lot, but amounts to just 0.05% of VW's €21 billion R&D budget.

> The logic is clear: innovation is expensive and uncertain, whereas lobbying to keep current products on the road is cheap and reliable.

Complete non sequitur. This could more easily be read as "they don't care much about lobbying and are hard at work doing R&D instead", but then that would go very much against narrative the author is trying to spin for us here.

Also I distinctly remember industry voices being very much pro-electric, while it was dinosaur politicians fetishizing ICE cars and fighting to keep production going, long past the point VW even wanted to focus on them.

I don't think this one was a lobbying problem for once.
by reillyse | 2026-03-09 17:07:42+00:00
This. Fossil fuels are not cheap in Ireland, I think we only produce a small quantity of natural gas, everything else is imported. Ireland should be running towards renewables, we have no indigenous fossil fuels industry to lose and every watt we generate from renewables is money that stays in Ireland. We should be focused on reducing nimbyism and building out renewables.
by dylan604 | 2026-03-09 17:08:14+00:00
> Only if you ignore all externalities

Do not discount how easy that is to do. Your list is of costs not to any bottom line of a company with bean counters. Those external costs are out side the scope of their concerns. Your list of concerns would be something for C-suite types, but the pressure of stock prices again make the external costs easy to set aside.
by observationist | 2026-03-09 17:08:17+00:00
Google already spent billions of dollars and decades of lawyer hours proving it out as fair use. The legal challenges we see now are the dying convulsions of an already broken system of publishers and IP hoarders using every resource at their disposal to manipulate authors and creators and the public into thinking that there's any legitimacy or value underlying modern copyright law.

AI will destroy the current paradigm, completely and utterly, and there's nothing they can do to stop it. It's unclear if they can even slow it, and that's a good thing.

We will be forced to legislate a modern, digital oriented copyright system that's fair and compatible with AI. If producing any software becomes a matter of asking a machine to produce it - if things like AI native operating systems come about, where apps and media are generated on demand, with protocols as backbone, and each device is just generating its own scaffolding around the protocols - then nearly none of modern licensing, copyright, software patents, or IP conventions make any sense whatsoever.

You can't have horse and buggy traffic conventions for airplanes. We're moving in to a whole new paradigm, and maybe we can get legislation that actually benefits society and individuals, instead of propping up massive corporations and making lawyers rich.
by Calebp | 2026-03-09 17:09:00+00:00
Worth reading the actual Reuters piece this is based on rather than the Post's version of it.

For example, Reuters reports that investors "reiterated their support" for Anthropic while also expressing frustration with Amodei's diplomatic approach to the Pentagon. The Post mostly drops the support half and leads with the frustration.

Reuters also reports that OpenAI publicly defended Anthropic, with their national security policy person saying "We are actually working to have the secure risk designation removed from Anthropic" and that a major tech industry group including Amazon, Nvidia, Apple and OpenAI sent a letter pushing back on the supply-chain designation. The Post leaves both of those out.

Then the Post fills the gap with culture war material about an Anthropic researcher's blog posts on meat eating and incarceration, which has nothing to do with investor sentiment but makes the story read more like "woke company faces consequences" than "company tries to hold a line on autonomous weapons while investors push for a diplomatic resolution."

The Reuters piece tells a story about investors who broadly agree with Anthropic's position but think the relationship with the Pentagon was mishandled - but the Post turns that into a story about investors turning on a woke CEO.
by SolubleSnake | 2026-03-09 17:09:02+00:00
I also don't know how this should work and some people's comments on this thread seem really weird to me because it seems really unlikely that someone who was eg a 'senior software developer' somewhere could be so bad that they couldn't write basic code but maybe?

In regards your comment about the Canadian idea of 'Professional Engineers' we have the same thing in the UK but it's called 'chartered engineers' and there are (more in theory than in practice) requirements around ethical and legal issues. This isn't really used in the same way I think it's used in Canada. I have worked with CEng people and I was going to go through the process (you need two sponsors you work with and you need a STEM degree that is recognised and you need 6 years of relevant experience). It's not an easy thing to get but it's not a guarantee someone is a genius or totally reliable but I haven't really seen anyone with that behaving in a way that is completely unreliable.

I wonder if it might be something to do with 'start up culture' where you've got very small teams and they're often young. You can't really tell kids to 'do a degree, get 6 years experience, qualify...then make your 'uber for milkshakes'' (or whatever they are planning to do). If you've got really young applicants you can't really expect that.

to be clear, CEng doesn't even require an exam, although everyone who would be in a position to become CEng has already done a lot of exams.

Perhaps the Leetcode thing must exist if people just refuse to qualify and want to get busy quickly. I think that is totally fine if you're making 'Uber for milkshakes' or similar but if someone is doing something that requires some responsibility then probably better to have people be vetted by accepted peers.
by nosioptar | 2026-03-09 17:09:15+00:00
I was the main outreach person for a small org last year. Something like this could have been useful.

There are problems with your site that would have stopped me from signing up.

The grey text on a grey background hurts my eyes. In general, dark mode isn't ever gonna get my cash because it hurts my eyes.

You require my PII before letting me try it. (I can get ai written letters from copilot.Microsoft.com without entering any PII.) I'm sure you have to worry about people using your tokens, but I'm more worried about yet another tech company spamming me. Also, need to know that the the letters don't read like slop before committing.

It's also a problem for me that the $15 plan doesnt allow exporting. If I have to copy/paste, I can just use copilots site.

With those problems fixed, I would have been willing to get the $15 plan, would also be willing to suggest it to other nonprofits in my area too.
by dathinab | 2026-03-09 17:09:28+00:00
> Blanchard is, of course, familiar with the source code, he's been its maintainer for years.

I would argue it's irrelevant if they looked or didn't look at the code. As well as weather he was or wasn't familiar with it.

What matters is, that they feed to original code into a tool which they setup to make a copy of it. How that tool works doesn't really matter. Neither does it make a difference if you obfuscate that it's an copy.

If I blindfold myself when making copies of books with a book scanner + printer I'm still engaging in copyright infringement.

If AI is a tool, that should hold.

If it isn't "just" a tool, then it did engage in copyright infringement (as it created the new output side by side with the original) in the same way an employee might do so on command of their boss. Which still makes the boss/company liable for copyright infringement and in general just because you weren't the one who created an infringing product doesn't mean you aren't more or less as liable of distributing it, as if you had done so.
by davidw | 2026-03-09 17:09:35+00:00
> LLM as the main weapon

LLM's - to date - seem to require massive capital expenditures to have the highest quality ones, which is a monumental shift in power towards mega corporations and away from the world of open source where you could do innovative work on your own computer running Linux or FreeBSD or some other open OS.

I don't think that's an exciting idea for the Free Software Foundation.

Perhaps with time we'll be able to run local ones that are 'good enough', but we're not there yet.

There's also an ethical/moral question that these things have been trained on millions of hours of people's volunteer work and the benefits of that are going to accrue to the mega corporations.

Edit: I guess the conclusion I come to is that LLM's are good for 'getting things done', but the context in which they are operating is one where the balance of power is heavily tilted towards capital, and open source is perhaps less interesting to participate in if the machines are just going to slurp it up and people don't have to respect the license or even acknowledge your work.
by sharp-dev | 2026-03-09 17:09:37+00:00
TL;DR: AI code reviewer went from "confidently wrong" to actually useful. Fix: stopped pre-selecting context, gave the model tools to fetch evidence itself. Now it either cites file:line or stays quiet.

The Problem

Our AI reviewer flagged a "blocker." Cited the diff, built a plausible argument, suggested a fix.
The senior engineer spent 20 minutes disproving it. Did the guard clause get missed? Two files away. The model never had that file, so it guessed and sounded certain.
Pre-selecting context doesn't work. Code review follows evidence chains, and chains aren't predictable.

The Fix

Agentic loop:

Model: "This calls validate()"
→ search_code("validate")
Model: "Two call sites use withRetry(). Third doesn't."
→ get_file_content("config/defaults.go")
Model: "Missing timeout. Bug found."
→ submit_code_review(structured_output)
Model fetches what it needs. Loop ends when it submits structured findings (path, line, severity, evidence—not prose).

What Changed

- Before: "This might break retries."
- After: "In foo/bar.go:123, call bypasses withRetry(). Other call sites use it (see search results). Wrap or document."

The Pieces

1. Tools — boring, fast, deterministic. get_file_content, search_code. Treat them like production APIs.
2. Terminal action — structured JSON submission, not Markdown. No evidence? Can't submit.
3. Loop — model turn → tool turn → repeat. Aggressive context shrinking (old results truncated, diff stays).
4. Guardrails — iteration caps, timeouts, self-critique checklist.

Evaluation

Pick 5-10 PRs where you know the real risks. Check:
- Found the issue?
- Cited exact file:line?
- Hallucinated anything?
- Fetched evidence when uncertain?
Iterate on tools, not prompts.

The Pattern

Don't build bigger prompts. Build a loop where the model can fetch evidence, test hypotheses, and submit only when it can cite sources. That's the difference between "sounds right" and "is right."
by logicprog | 2026-03-09 17:09:39+00:00
I just don't see how it's relevant whether he did look or didn't. In my opinion, it's not just legally valid to make a re-implementation of something if you've seen the code as long as it doesn't copy expressive elements. I think it's also ethically fine as well to use source code as a reference for re-implementing something as long as it doesn't turn into an exact translation.
by Traster | 2026-03-09 17:09:49+00:00
>we're no longer hiring: specialists. In this new era, generalists win.

I am truly astonished someone said this. My experience with AI has been the opposite. It can knock up something reasonable given the right prompting. It can generate a lot of code. It will hit deliver whatever goal you have, but it won't do it in the simplest neatest way, it won't have context about how you way to grow the codebase in the future.

The inevitable result of this is that it produces much more complexity to do a given thing than a senior engineer will. This is a big problem, because their performance degrades as their context window fills. So you will reach a point where the AI has coded you into a corner, it has created such complexity that it can't understand what is going on without filling its context window, at which point it can't do anything and you're left with a massive stinking pile of slop that's too big for you to work on and too complex for it to unpick.

The only way of sustainably using AI to accelerate your productivity is to be the specialist who can give guidance on structure and approach so that the codebase doesn't spiral.
by guerython | 2026-03-09 17:10:12+00:00
oh man we prototyped a similar lifecycle. our agents emit the paper-as-markdown to a git repo, then we gate the run through a pair of checks: (1) a quick heuristic that looks for hallucinated references/urls and rewrites or rejects if the claims are too precise, (2) a lightweight QA agent that compares the citations back to the dataset we trained on. once those pass we push the branch and let a human reviewer or automated peer (same agent pool) comment before the merge, so publishing is transparent but we still keep a sanity check in the loop.
by cubefox | 2026-03-09 17:10:20+00:00
That's naive. Copyright doesn't just apply to software. There already have been countless lawsuits about copying music long before the term "open source" was invented. No, changing the lyrics a bit doesn't circumvent copyright. Nor does translating a Stephen King novel to German and switching the names of the places and characters.

A court ordered the first Nosferatu movie to be destroyed because it had too many similarities to Dracula. Despite the fact that the movie makes rather large deviations from the original.

If Claude was indeed asked to reimplement the existing codebase, just in Rust and a bit optimized, that could well be a copyright violation. Just like rephrasing A Song ot Ice and Fire a bit, and switching to a different language, doesn't remove its copyright.
by _alternator_ | 2026-03-09 17:10:26+00:00
Wonder how a court would treat it if users just reply to the email updating the terms of service on our behalf and claiming that they have accepted the terms by not doing anything. (Eg add stringent PII protection, no tracking requirements…)

My guess is that you would probably get kicked off the service if anyone reads your TOS, so make sure to add onerous cancellation charges due to the user in your updated TOS.
by webstrand | 2026-03-09 17:10:41+00:00
Its purpose "if you run the software you should be able to inspect and modify that software, and to share those modifications with your peers" not explicitly resist copyright. Yes copyright is bad in that it often prevents one from doing that, but it is not the purpose of the GPL to dismantle copyright.

Reducing it to "well you can clone the proprietary software you're forced to use by LLM" is really missing the soul of the GPL.
by sumtechguy | 2026-03-09 17:11:07+00:00
I think that it was a game player and a DVD player had more to do with the success of the thing. Oh and it plays psx games too.

I owned both. The graphics/games were of similar quality. Having a larger game storage gave the ps2 a decent advantage. The dreamcast seemed more interesting. But the PS2 had a better customer feature set.
Show HN: I built an analytics engine for my OpenClaw usage
by prrthh132 | 2026-03-09 17:11:18+00:00
Hi HN,

I was using OpenClaw constantly for a month but had zero idea about what was I actually doing with it. So I dug through my conversation history manually. Apparently, I'd brainstormed 7 startup ideas in 3 weeks, asked about learning Rust and Zig in the same week (still writing Python) and had 9 conversations about how to start consistent gymming

I wanted to see it everytime, so I built a Clawhub skill for this. It extracts sentiments from the sessions, helps you filter conversations of a particular topic, and lets you create your custom clusters (yes, the 3 AM existential questions cluster). It gives a honest breakdown: "You ideated on 4 startups, learned about 6 random topics, and are actively procrastinating on 2 hobbies"

Publishing it free for the community because honestly, it helps a lot to see our patterns. Just install the skill from ClawHub, tell OpenClaw to track analytics with your AGNOST_ORG_ID from https://app.agnost.ai and get a dashboard of your chaos?

Would love feedback on what analytics would actually be useful for agent/AI developers and any other insights you'd want from your LLM conversations. Always happy to jam on technical stuff in the comments.
by OkayPhysicist | 2026-03-09 17:11:27+00:00
I think the author is making a mistake assigning the seemingly new competence of the US military to AI, rather than noticing that the US has spent the last half-century or so picking the kinds of fights we absolutely suck at.

Force projection, targeted aerial strikes, intelligence gathering, and a nuclear deterrent play to the US miltary's strengths. Convincing the people who we just whacked the leaders of to like us? Not at all. The US doesn't have the political will to commit the monstrous acts required to stomp out an insurgency, and we, as the big bad empire on the global stage, can't help but inspire insurgents.

If you look at the boondoggles that the US has gotten itself into post Korea, they typically follow a pattern of "we show up, complete the key objectives in the first couple of days, and then spend years occupying territory while trying to root out an insurgency, creating new insurgents at least as fast as we neutralize them, then eventually limp away with our tail between our legs."

Lately, we've been just doing the first part. Which is the part we've been good at for ages. No need to blame AI, it's just that we aren't / haven't gotten around to doing the part we suck at.
by mpeterma | 2026-03-09 17:11:38+00:00
Small update: since yesterday the project has a new name — Cells for NetBSD.

The goal and architecture remain exactly the same. The rename mainly helps to avoid confusion with FreeBSD Jails and better reflects that this is intended as a NetBSD-native approach rather than an attempt to replicate the FreeBSD architecture.

https://netbsd-cells.petermann-digital.de/
by x0x0 | 2026-03-09 17:11:40+00:00
Additionally, it's not like this necessarily got posted out of the blue. There's another Huy Fong sriracha shortage due to a Mexican crop failure driven by climate change. So anyone wondering why they can't buy it will naturally encounter this story.

https://lacabaarodriguez.shop/news/127/2026-03-06-huy-fong-f...

And as you mentioned, that lawsuit has pretty convincing evidence of a multi-year plan to really screw the supplier in order to get even more fantastically wealthy. Amazing greed combined with profound stupidity about the difficulty of reliably sourcing 2 _thousand_ acres of ripe chilies. There's been a decade of rolling shortages.
by ordu | 2026-03-09 17:11:57+00:00
These are words of Stallman:

"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came up with is called “copyleft.” It's called copyleft because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. [Laughter] Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal."

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/