MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hananova | 2026-03-10 19:57:16+00:00
I’m not convinced that Grok’s dataset must contain CSAM for it to generate CSAM. Surely a combination of nude adults and clothed children would allow for it to synthesize CSAM?

(Disclaimer: I’m not in favor of AI in general and definitely not in favor of what Grok is doing specifically. I’m just entirely sold on the claim that its dataset must contain CSAM, though I think it is probably likely that it has at least some, because cleaning up such a massive dataset carefully and thoroughly costs money that Elon wouldn’t want to spend.)
by aray07 | 2026-03-10 19:57:18+00:00
yeah honestly thats what i am struggling with too and I dont have a a good solution. However, I do think we are going to see more of this - so it will be interesting to see how we are going to handle this.

i think we will need some kind of automated verification so humans are only reviewing the “intent” of the change. started building a claude skill for this (https://github.com/opslane/verify)
by threecheese | 2026-03-10 19:57:30+00:00
First you have to agree that Claude Code might be useful for some non-repo task, like helping with your taxes or organizing your bookmarks.

Next, consider how you might deploy isolated Claude Code instances for these specific task areas, and manage/scale that - hooks, permissions, skills, commands, context, and the like - and wire them up to some non-terminal i/o so you can communicate with them more easily. This is the agent shape.

Now, give these agents access to long term memory, some notion of a personality/guiding principles, and some agency to find new skills and even self-improve. You could leave this last part out and still have something valuable.

That’s Openclaw in a nutshell. Yes you could just plug Discord into Claude Code, add a cron job for analyzing memory, a soul.md, update some system prompts, add some shell scripts to manage a bunch of these, and you’d be on the same journey that led Peter to Openclaw.
by munificent | 2026-03-10 19:57:35+00:00
> I think it is always possible to come up with reasonably small theories that capture most of the given phenomena.

I can write a program (call it a simulation of some artificial phenomenon) whose internal logic is arbitrarily complex. The result is irreducible: the entire byzantine program with all of its convoluted logic is the smallest possible theory to describe the phenomenon, and yet the theory is not reasonably small for any reasonable definition.
by oscarmoxon | 2026-03-10 19:57:55+00:00
Some of this exists already in pockets (Common Crawl, The Pile, RedPajama are all volunteer/open efforts). I suppose there's no equivalent of the "edit this page and see the impact" like with have with Wikipedia. Contributing to an open dataset has no feedback loop if the training infrastructure that would consume it is closed... seems like a feedback problem.
by maplant | 2026-03-10 19:58:00+00:00
> He edited his reply to me multiple times...

I got the sense from your reply that some extra clarity would be beneficial.

> This is unnecessary. OP came out with "AUTHOR IS INSANE" even on the most generous of interpretations.

I did not actually call the author insane, I called their decision to explicitly disallow testing insane. It's an insane decision. I am not _literally_ calling the author insane.
by ssl-3 | 2026-03-10 19:58:20+00:00
Punctuation in written English can be used in many ways. It's a very flexible language.

It is perfectly OK (it really is) to use parentheses -- and emdashes alike -- where they're useful; other punctuation like the semicolon, the comma, and even the Oxford comma are also OK.

There's not much that is disallowed in English. Most people have no reason to adhere to any particularly-rote style guide.
by jrm4 | 2026-03-10 19:58:30+00:00
Y'all. Every year for attendance in one of my classes I just pass around a sheet of paper, first and last name on the left, school id code (which does incorporate initials of names) on the right, with space in between.

I'm thinking there's no way an AI can get it right. 50 IT students (like people who don't write on a regular basis) different handwriting, and it's not lined paper and the names and ID are NOT aligned.

Tried Copilot, not even close or usable.

Gemini gave me a perfect spreadsheet/csv. I'm not sure if this is impressive to others or whatnot, but that one blew me away.
Show HN: KaraMagic – automatic karaoke video maker
by godot | 2026-03-10 19:58:44+00:00
Hi all, this is an early version of a side project of mine. Would love some feedback and comments.

I like karaoke and I grew up with the Asian style karaoke with the music video behind and the karaoke lyrics at the bottom.

Sometimes I want to do a song and there is no karaoke version video like that.

A few years ago I came across ML models that cleanly separate the vocals and the instrumental music of a song. I thought of the idea to chain together ML models that can take an input music video file, extract the audio (ffmpeg), separate the tracks (ML), transcribe the lyrics (ML), burn the lyrics back with timing into the video (ffmpeg), and output a karaoke version of the video.

This is an early version of the app, Mac only so far (since I use Mac, despite it being an electron app.. I do eventually want to make a Windows build), I've only let a few friends try it. Let me know what you think!
by xutopia | 2026-03-10 19:59:17+00:00
For those wondering why this is a big deal it means that every developers attempting to run a development version of an iPhone, iPad or MacOS app cannot run their apps right now.

This is worse than Github being down and Apple Developers who pay 99$ a year for the privilege of writing software on this ecosystem aren't event getting a status page update: https://developer.apple.com/system-status/
by integralid | 2026-03-10 19:59:34+00:00
>no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function

This is really, honestly not hard. Spend a few minutes reading about this, or even better, ask a LLM to explain it to you and clear your misconceptions if regular blog posts don't do it for you. This is one of the concepts that sounds scarier than it is.
by RovaAI | 2026-03-10 19:59:39+00:00
The build vs buy calculus for B2B lead gen shifted in the last 18 months.

Before: LLMs weren't reliable enough for enrichment, scraping was fragile, APIs were expensive.
Now: Hunter.io gives 1000 verified email searches for $49/mo, LLMs can accurately summarize company pages, and a couple hundred lines of Python replaces what Apollo does for prospect research.

The practical threshold: if you're spending >$150/month on a lead gen platform and you have someone technical on the team, it's worth a weekend to prototype a custom stack. If you're not technical and don't want to become it, the platforms still make sense.

The hidden cost of the platforms isn't the subscription - it's that they give you contact data but not the enrichment that makes outreach relevant. That last step you end up doing manually anyway.
by oraphalous | 2026-03-10 20:00:48+00:00
Did anyone here actually look at the product they were actually building? It's an AI agent bug discovery product. Their whole culture is probably driven at a fundamental philosophical level about the problems of bug discovery. As he says: he wanted to rely on dogfooding - using their product as the way of spotting bugs.

That may have been spectactular naivete but it's not insanity.

The point I keep coming back to here that everyone is fighting me so hard on is that these blanket statements of: NO TESTS IS NUTS... absent of an understanding of the business context... is harmful.
by tavavex | 2026-03-10 20:00:54+00:00
Are there really no ways to control read/write permissions in a smart way? I've not had to do this yet, but is it really only capable of either being advisory with you implementing all the code, or it having full control over the repo where you just hope nothing important is changed?

You could probably make a system-level restriction so the software physically can't modify certain files, but I'm not sure how well that's going to fly if the program fails to edit it and there's no feedback of the failure.
by RovaAI | 2026-03-10 20:01:33+00:00
This is the right framing for the current moment.

The pattern I've found that works: AI handles everything that is deterministic + repeatable (data enrichment, email drafting, research, report generation), humans handle anything requiring judgment under uncertainty (pricing conversations, hiring, partnerships).

One thing worth noting on the free tier angle: the token costs are real but often smaller than expected. Summarizing a company's homepage and generating a personalized first line for an outreach email costs about $0.003 with Claude Haiku. At 1000 leads a month that is $3 in LLM costs. The expensive part is always the data layer, not the AI layer - a verified email still costs $0.05-0.15 from any major enrichment provider.

What does your outbound workflow look like? Curious how agents handle prospect qualification.
by kg | 2026-03-10 20:01:50+00:00
It sounds like you know this but what happened is that you didn't do 4 weeks of work over 2 days, you got started on 4 weeks of work over 2 days, and now you have to finish all 4 weeks worth of work and that might take an indeterminate amount of time.

If you find a big problem in commit #20 of #40, you'll have to potentially redo the last 20 commits, which is a pain.

You seem to be gated on your review bandwidth and what you probably want to do is apply backpressure - stop generating new AI code if the code you previously generated hasn't gone through review yet, or limit yourself to say 3 PRs in review at any given time. Otherwise you're just wasting tokens on code that might get thrown out. After all, babysitting the agents is probably not 'free' for you either, even if it's easier than writing code by hand.

Of course if all this agent work is helping you identify problems and test out various designs, it's still valuable even if you end up not merging the code. But it sounds like that might not be the case?

Ideally you're still better off, you've reduced the amount of time being spent on the 'writing the PR' phase even if the 'reviewing the PR' phase is still slow.
by txrx0000 | 2026-03-10 20:02:05+00:00
> If you want a better proposal bring technical expertise to the discussion instead of ideology fundamentalism.

Fine. All we need is a password-protected toggle in each app that enables child mode, and another toggle in the phone settings that locks app installation/uninstallation. Remote verification schemes are completely unnecessary. For details see:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47273612

The way people are reacting is not extremist at all. Remember, the government protects child predators if they're rich or powerful enough. What more evidence do you need that they aren't doing this for the children? We should call it out for what it is.
by fragmede | 2026-03-10 20:02:19+00:00
> I'm not looking for STT->AI->TTS, I'm looking for truly good voice-to-text experience

Umm, ah, wait no, uhh yes you are. Unless, hang on, you are possessed with greater umm speech capabilities than most, wait nevermind start over. Unless you never make a mistake while talking, you want AI to take out the "three, wait no four" and just leave the output with "four" from what you actually spoke. Depending on your use case.
by gorgoiler | 2026-03-10 20:02:21+00:00
Does Debian have a rule that forbids (or a taboo that proscribes) contributors passing off other people’s work as their own? I could believe that such a rule is implied rather than written down. The GR could be about writing it down, and it would surely cover the case of code that came directly from a model. Even if we don’t consider a
model to be another person it is certainly not the contributor’s own work.

(If anything, the copyright to model-generated code cannot possibly be said to belong to the human contributor. They… didn’t write it! I’m glad to see that aspect was discussed though I’m surprised it wasn’t the main thrust.)
by shimman | 2026-03-10 20:02:24+00:00
Never heard of "The Design of Design" but I bought it off this comment chain.

I think our industry would do a lot to take a moment and breath to understand what we have collectively done since inception. Wonder often if we will look at the highly corporatized influence our industry has had during our time as the dark ages 1000s of years into the future. The idea that private enterprise should shape the direction of our industry is deeply problematic, there needs to be public option and I doubt many devs would disagree.
by zkmon | 2026-03-10 20:02:34+00:00
> It's remarkable how much of reality turned out to be modelable by theories that fit in a few symbols.

The admiration for "remarkable" things puts humanity on a dangerous path that is disconnected from the real goals of human progress as a species. You don't need any of this compression of knowledge or truths. Folklore tales about celestial bodies are fine and hood enough. The vulgar pursuit for knowledge is paving the way for extinction of humans as biological creatures.
by akshaysg | 2026-03-10 20:03:03+00:00
I've been thinking a lot about this!

Redoing the work as smaller PRs might help with readability, but then you get the opposite problem: it becomes hard to hold all the PRs in your head at once and keep track of the overall purpose of the change (at least for me).

IMO the real solution is figuring out which subset of changes actually needs human review and focusing attention there. And even then, not necessarily through diffs. For larger agent-generated changes, more useful review artifacts may be things like design decisions or risky areas that were changed.
by saltpath | 2026-03-10 20:03:09+00:00
The blast radius framing is right but the tooling gap is actually worse than debugging. It's about third-party verifiability. A regulator or auditor can't trust a log produced by the same operator who runs the agent.

Spent the last few months on this specific problem. chain hash per outbound call + external timestamp so anyone can verify independently what the agent called, when, and what it got back. works across providers which matters when you're chaining claude -> mistral -> internal endpoint.

Early days but if useful for the nist response: https://arkforge.tech/trust/v1/proof/prf_20260310_182226_cbc...
by OsrsNeedsf2P | 2026-03-10 20:03:49+00:00
Our app is a desktop integration and last year we added a local API that could be hit to read and interact with the UI. This unlocked the same thing the author is talking about - the LLM can do real QA - but it's an example of how it can be done even in non-web environments.

Edit: I even have a skill called release-test that does manual QA for every bug we've ever had reported. It takes about 10 hours to run but I execute it inside a VM overnight so I don't care.
by jcranmer | 2026-03-10 20:04:28+00:00
Some of the issues are undoubtedly that I have a decidedly non-standard architecture for my system that the AI refuses to acknowledge--it hallucinated things like integers, which isn't a part of my system, simply because what I have looks almost like a standard example expression grammar so clearly I must have all of the standard example expression grammar things. (This is a pretty common failure mode I've noticed in AI-based systems--when the thing you're looking for is very similar to a very notable, popular thing, AI systems tend to assume you mean the latter as opposed to the former.)
by seanmcdirmid | 2026-03-10 20:04:56+00:00
I've been doing differential testing in Gemini CLI using sub-agents. The idea is:

1. one agent writes code from the spec

2. one agent writes tests from identified edge cases in the spec.

3. a QA agent runs the tests against the code. When a test fails, it examines the code and the test (the only agent that can see both) to determine blame, then gives feedback to the code and/or test writing agent on what it perceives the problem as.

(repeat 1 and/or 2 then 3 until all tests pass)

Since the code can never fix itself to directly pass the test and the test can never fix itself to accept the behavior of the code, you have some independence. The failure case is that the tests simply never pass, not that the test writer and code writer agents both have the same incorrect understanding of the spec (which is very improbable, like something that will happen before the heat death of the universe improbable, it is much more likely the spec isn't well grounded/ambiguous/contradictory or that the problem is too big for the LLM to handle and so the tests simply never wind up passing).
by dolebirchwood | 2026-03-10 20:05:03+00:00
> Voice-to-voice (thought-to-thought, maybe?) interaction with your coding agent — conversational Claude Code, not just voice-to-text input — is a natural next step.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the appeal in verbal dictation, especially where complexity is involved. I want to think through issues deliberately, carefully, and slowly to ensure I'm not glossing over subtle nuances. I don't find speaking to be conducive to that.

For me, the process of writing (and rewriting) gives me the time, space, and structure to more precisely articulate what I want with a more heightened degree of specificity. Being able to type at 80+ wpm probably helps as well.
by Arainach | 2026-03-10 20:05:16+00:00
> It never stopped a thing.

Imperfect does not mean ineffective. Every time you make something more difficult it reduces the number of people who will do it.

Pardon my 1990s metaphor, but:

* If you have no DRM and people can just share the install disk, they will do that and piracy will be universal

* If you implement a CD check, yes, people with CD burners can bypass it but those are far fewer. Yes, industrial shops can mass-produce pirated CDs but not everyone is willing to buy those.

* If you implement even more stringent restrictions such that duplicating the CDs is significantly harder (to continue the metaphor, do something weird with the sectors that requires CloneCD instead of more generic ISO-ripping software) and now you're down to people with specialized hardware/software

* If you go further and implement software DRM checks, they can be bypassed, but now we're down to the portion of the market willing to download sketchy crack programs that totally aren't viruses, the host of the website swears. This is a *much smaller* group than those that would just grab an official install disc from their friends.

etc., etc. These measures do not have to be perfect to be effective. There can still be pirated copies available, but if the effort to get to them is sufficiently higher than buying the official copy (and that threshold is different for different people) they have served their purpose.

Most techie people I know ripped their DVD collections. Many ripped their Blurays but plenty didn't because it requires specialized software to get around the DRM. Only a handful of them have ripped their UHD discs which require specialized software AND specific hardware AND flashing a specific firmware on that hardware.
by Aunche | 2026-03-10 20:05:21+00:00
> Now your countries are little different from Russia or China or Dubai etc where the old money cabals run everything,

This is clearly propaganda manufactured by the evil tech cabal to suppress grassroots efforts to protect children from their brainwashing. /s

In all seriousness, populist outrage doesn't help anyone except for the power brokers who can hide their true intentions under all the noise. As much of an overreach I think the Patriot Act was for example, the degree of harm that resulted from it is minuscule compared to the brainrot caused by social media. If you want me to oppose the age verification laws, then you need to convince me that those laws won't actually reduce brainrot or that surveillance harms me more than I think and let me come to my own conclusion.
by pixl97 | 2026-03-10 20:05:38+00:00
>Human society exists because we value humans, full stop.

Eh, human society exists because it is an emergent behavior of the evolutionary advantage afforded at the time of adoption by the human species. There is on iron rule stating that it must continue into the future, or even that it can exist into the future.

More so, the value of a human has wildly fluctuated over history and culture. The village chief, nobles, the king were all high value humans. The villagers would be middle to low value, and others may be considered no value.

The industrial age began to change this some as value started to move from the merchant class to the villager class as many high production jobs needed less and less training to complete. With industrialization businesses running machines and production lines needed as many people as they could get. Still human rights were hard fought in places like America where labor wars broke out.

In the modern US we've setup a dangerous set of idealism that will most likely end in disaster because they are in conflict with general human values. That is the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", "Any collective action is communism and communism will turn you into a pillar of salt if you dare look at it", and "greed is good". Couple that with TV media and social media owned by rich billionaires you're not going to see much serious opposition to these ideals.

But if/as labor loses it's values, so will the humans that performed that labor. After decades of optimizing human society for maximal capital extraction, values are dead, and the ever present thought police owned by the rich will make sure you don't cause too much trouble by resurrecting them.
by throw-the-towel | 2026-03-10 20:05:41+00:00
> The fact that many independent national newspapers (including this article from CNBC) are openly calling-out the surveillance state and entering the debate into the public conscience...

LMAO! Bro/sis/secret third thing, you won't even start to believe how brave our press was when Putin had not consolidated his power yet. Ever heard of NTV? Or maybe Sobesednik, which lasted until 2023 I think? TV 6 or TV2 perhaps?

Seriously, this better-than-thou attitude will be your downfall one day. I know it was ours.
by crazygringo | 2026-03-10 20:05:42+00:00
I asked you first.

But I'll also respond to your questions: my purpose is to show that your claim that the original comment was "free from judgement" is wrong. I'm not neutral, I'm attempting to show that your claim is obviously false, that it's not plausible at all. Of course I'm trying to judge a comment that seems wrong.

So now that I've replied honestly to your questions, will you reply honestly to mine? Repeating:

> So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?

Because if the purpose wasn't to shame the person for their carbon footprint, I can't imagine what else it possibly could have been.
by awesome_dude | 2026-03-10 20:05:44+00:00
> Do you write a comment before every for loop to explain how a for loop works?

Thank you for missing the point.

It's not about the WHAT, it's about the WHY.

For loops are obvious. O(n) being intentional instead of 'lazy' isn't obvious without context. That's what comments preserve - the decision rationale, not the syntax explanation.

A professional developer can read code. But they can't read the mind of the author who made a non obvious tradeoff. That's what comments preserve.

> I guess where we differ is that to me, a professional software developer should be able to understand good code. If they aren't, they are a junior who needs practice. But I am for designing tools for the professionals, not for the apprentices. The goal of an apprentice is to become a professional, not to remain an apprentice forever.

If you are going to make personal attacks, you should know that I work with actual professionals, and they understand that future maintainers, myself included, cannot read their mind on why they chose the path they did.