MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by andreyk | 2026-03-10 16:36:28+00:00
"and we didn't see anything" is not justified at all.

Meta absolutely has (or at least had) a word class industry AI lab and has published a ton of great work and open source models (granted their LLM open source stuff failed to keep up with chinese models in 2024/2025 ; their other open source stuff for thins like segmentation don't get enough credit though). Yann's main role was Chief AI Scientist, not any sort of product role, and as far as I can tell he did a great job building up and leading a research group within Meta.

He deserved a lot of credit for pushing Meta to very open to publishing research and open sourcing models trained on large scale data.

Just as one example, Meta (together with NYU) just published "Beyond Language Modeling: An Exploration of Multimodal Pretraining" (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.03276) which has a ton of large-experiment backed insights.

Yann did seem to end up with a bit of an inflated ego, but I still consider him a great research lead. Context: I did a PhD focused on AI, and Meta's group had a similar pedigree as Google AI/Deepmind as far as places to go do an internship or go to after graduation.
by rosasalberto | 2026-03-10 16:36:35+00:00
This is a great point. In Didit you can already configure this kind of flexibility. For example, you can set rules like “if email/phone = X, skip ID verification” or route the user through a different flow.

We also built a case management system so support teams can manually review cases, approve/decline them, or override decisions when needed. Automation handles most cases, but humans can step in for the edge cases.
by Insanity | 2026-03-10 16:36:49+00:00
It's only going to get worse with the brain drain as a result of the layoffs. Which will increase the use of AI assisted coding and increase the number of outages related to this.

Imagine having to debug code that caused an outage when 80% is written by an LLM and you now have to start actually figuring out the codebase at 2am.. :)
by znpy | 2026-03-10 16:37:09+00:00
> On my old Ryzen 3600X running Arch

> vim still is a lot faster though.

you might want to make sure you're comparing apples to apples though. the "emacs" command most likely is going to load the GUI emacs so a lot of gui libraries (if you're running a recent emacs then even GTK libraries) whereas the nvim command isn't going to load gui libraries at all.

maybe try with a non-gui version of emacs (or maybe calling emacs -nw)
by devonkelley | 2026-03-10 16:37:42+00:00
This is the right framing. The bet only makes sense if you believe the current transformer paradigm has fundamental ceilings that a different architecture can exploit. If autoregressive LLMs just keep scaling and the gap never opens, this is a $1B detour. But if LeCun is even partially right about world models, whoever figures it out first captures a completely different market than today's chatbot companies. It's a high-variance bet but the payoff matrix isn't symmetrical.
by guywithahat | 2026-03-10 16:38:01+00:00
I have no idea what definition of fascism the author is using, but it doesn't make sense. Fascism, at least as the Nazi's defined and implemented it, is the belief that a socialist economy will work when the people have a similar genetic likeness. So if you had a racially diverse society, people wouldn't be motivated to work as hard or they may be motivated to freeload off other "races". How this corresponds to Ad tech is hard to tell, and this author doesn't make it clear through any reasonable definition of the word (unless your definition of fascism is just a thing you don't like).
by ceejayoz | 2026-03-10 16:38:07+00:00
My parents got a new smart TV; if you don't give it wifi access it will nag repeatedly about it. Very annoying, and it only takes one time for it to go "Yay! I'll store these forever now."

(It will also wheedle you to re-enable the AI features and telemetry if you turn those off. Which you do like eight levels of confusingly and scarily named submenus.)
by h3lp | 2026-03-10 16:38:12+00:00
A lot of computer users are domain experts in something like chemistry or physics or material science. Computing to them is just a tool in their field, e.g. simulating molecular dynamics, or radiation transfer. They dot every i and cross every t _in_their_competency_domain_, but the underlying code may be a horrible FORTRAN mess. LLMs potentially can help them write modern code using modern libraries and tooling.

My go-to analogy is assembly language programming: it used to be an essential skill, but now is essentially delegated to compilers outside of some limited specialized cases. I think LLMs will be seen as the compiler technology of the next wave of computing.
by zie | 2026-03-10 16:38:17+00:00
The risk you are hiding will eventually show up. Charging .25% ER means you probably can make some decent money in the meantime and since the customer holds MBSF directly, you aren't on the hook for the risk. Smart.

It's a great business for you, if you can get enough customers. That said, I would never ever recommend anyone invest with you, since you are either purposely withholding the risks or not smart enough about the product you are trying to sell to understand the risks involved and share them with your customers. Either way, people shouldn't use your service.
by lapcat | 2026-03-10 16:38:54+00:00
> Yes, because the designers of the system were well-read

Well-read in the 18th century. And they borrowed heavily from 17th century philosopher John Locke. Imagine relying on 17th or 18th century medicine now.

The founders weren't nearly as wise as they're alleged to be. For example, they thought their system would suppress political parties, and then political parties arose almost immediately.

> Rule by the many is great, but the historical evidence shows it's clearly unstable.

Which historical evidence are you referring to? Most of history is nondemocratic.

In any case, the US broke out into an extremely bloody civil war less than 75 years after the Constitution was ratified, so it hasn't been "stable", not that stability is even desirable under a plutocracy.

> I would say the game is rigged in favor of production, of which capital is a big part, because those who don't produce end up being governed by those who do.

Let's see a rich dude produce anything all by himself. We like the pretend that the one rich dude is producing everything and his thousands of employees are basically superfluous.
by kens | 2026-03-10 16:39:04+00:00
The article asks about the etymology of X for crystal. I looked into that a while ago. The abbreviation "xtal" has been used for "crystal" since the 1800s in medicine, geology, and chemistry, and then electronics copied the usage. This comes from the earlier use of X for the "christ" sound, as in "xmas", which goes back to the 16th century. As the article suggests, the Greek chi (Χ) is the root.
by shimman | 2026-03-10 16:39:07+00:00
These companies don't care about saving time or lowering operating costs, they have massive monopolies to subsidize their extremely poor engineering practices with. If the mandate is to force LLM usage or lose your job, you don't care about saving time; you care about saving your job.

One thing I hope we'll all collectively learn from this is how grossly incompetent the elite managerial class has become. They're destroying society because they don't know what to do outside of copying each other.

It has to end.
by hard24 | 2026-03-10 16:39:12+00:00
Indeed. My view as a CEO is, if you are still reviewing the code yourself then what use is it that you can produce a bunch of text at a faster rate?

I'd prefer people wrote good quality code and checked it as they went along... whilst allowing room for other stuff they didn't think of to come to the front.
The production process of using LLMs is entirely different, in its current state I don't see the net benefit.

E.g. if you have a very crystalised vision of what you want, why would I want an engineer to use an LLM to write it, when the LLM can't do both raw production and review? Could this change? Sure. But there's no benefit for me personally to shift toward working that way now - I'd rather it came into existence first before I expose myself to incremental risk that affects business operations. I want a comprehensive solution.
Show HN: AgentCash – access 280 paid APIs with no API keys
by OG_BME | 2026-03-10 16:39:14+00:00
Hey HN - I'm Mason, and I'm excited to share AgentCash - a CLI to help your agent discover and pay for premium APIs and paywalled data.

The problem we kept running into was simple: if you want an agent to use premium data or services, the setup flow is awful.

You have to find the right provider, sign up manually, subscribe, generate an API key, install tooling, and then teach your agent how to use it. Then do that again for the next provider.

We wanted a simpler model: give the agent a universal balance, let it discover available resources, and let it pay per call.

So AgentCash gives agents one balance with access to 280+ paid APIs. It’s built on x402 [0,1] (the Coinbase/Cloudflare payments protocol) and designed to work with tools like Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, Cursor, etc.

I also am really proud of our onboarding flow - we actually use AgentCash itself to research you and the decide how much free cash to give based on a score.

The vision for this is to essentially give agents JIT context and tool use capabilities, even when they require payment to use.

We support tons of APIs you are already familiar with, so it's already better at tasks like lead generation, contact enrichment, market research, and much more.

It's an open ecosystem of API providers, so anyone can be compatible by adding x402 support!

Would love any feedback you might have.

--Mason

[0] https://www.x402.org/
[1] https://www.x402scan.com/
by okanat | 2026-03-10 16:39:27+00:00
No. People shared code because they wanted to. Open standards are great tools against emerging monopolies. So the losing side used that. IBM lost OS/2 vs NT war. They propped up Linux. Intel wanted to have a second option to Microsoft in server space. AMD wants to gain some developers against Nvidia Cuda monopoly. That's the reason they contribute. Even Linux's own leadership decided against extra freedoms for users; they rejected GPLv3 to keep company contributions going. That's why LLVM gets the first implementations of certain optimizations and architectures, yet being permissive licensed.

Quite a bit of the Linux userspace is already permissively licensed. Nobody has built a full-fledged open source alternative yet. Because it is hard to build an ecosystem, it is hard to test thousands of different pieces of hardware. None of that would happen without well-paid engineers contributing.
by LarsDu88 | 2026-03-10 16:39:39+00:00
There's been a few very interesting JEPA publications from LeCun recently, particularly the leJEPA paper which claims to simplify a lot of training headaches for that class of models.

JEPAs also strike me as being a bit more akin to human intelligence, where for example, most children are very capable of locomotion and making basic drawings, but unable to make pixel level reconstructions of mental images (!!).

One thing I want to point out is that very LeCunn type techniques demonstrating label free training such as JEAs like DINO and JEPAs have been converging on performance of models that require large amounts of labeled data.

Alexandr Wang is a billionaire who made his wealth through a data labeling company and basically kicked LeCunn out.

Overall this will be good for AI and good for open source.
by bilekas | 2026-03-10 16:39:58+00:00
This is incredible work.. And makes the technology absolutely viable.

However... In a world where privacy is constantly being eroded intentionally by governments and private companies, I think this will NEVER, ever reach any consumer grade hardware. My cynic could envision the technology export ban worldwide in the vein of RSA [0] .

Why would any company offer the customers real out of the box e2e encryption possibilities built into their devices.

DRM was mentioned by another user. This will not be used to enable privacy for the masses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
by dekhn | 2026-03-10 16:40:02+00:00
I wish he'd stop saying they solved the protein folding problem. They didn't. They made a step increase in the quality of protein structure prediction. That's a different (and simpler) problem. It's still a significant result, but nothing in AlphaFold tells us "why" (in a physics sense) a specific amino acid sequence adopts its final folded conformation, nor does it say anything about what the protein is doing once it reaches the final folded conformation.
by bs7280 | 2026-03-10 16:40:03+00:00
This is also why I think we will enter a world without Jr's. The time it takes for a Senior to review the Jr's AI code is more expensive than if the Sr produced their own AI code from scratch. Factor in the lack of meetings from a Sr only team, and the productivity gains will appear to be massive.

Whether or not these productivity gains are realized is another question, but spreadsheet based decision makers are going to try.
by alecco | 2026-03-10 16:40:06+00:00
What I've seen many, many times.

1. business people sold themselves as the best to manage companies and took over companies (just like lawyers do in governments), changing the norm from decades ago when it was more likely for engineers to run companies than some kind of McKinsey guy

2. but they have no idea besides business/money metrics so they quickly become overwhelmed and decide based on who makes the most compelling argument ("don't bring me more problems, give me solutions")

3. sociopaths exploit this by telling the execs what they want to hear

4. only after a while, after significant investment of resources in the decisions/projects proposed by the sociopaths it comes up to light it's complete nonsense

5. the sociopaths are aware of this, so they usually pivot before SHTF or they even exploit the situation to ask for more to "fix" the problems

6. the execs who backed the sociopaths want to cover their own asses so they hide the problems from higher ups for as long as possible (CEO, board, investors, shareholders, clients, authorities, public)

7. competent people are pulled out of productive work and thrown to solve impossible or even contradicting situations; some burn out, some leave, and the ones who stay are often stained forever like they were the cause of the problem

Sometimes the sociopaths are external consulting companies or companies offering some magic huge system that they promise will solve all the problems.

Sociopaths exploit information asymmetry.

Classic: https://web.archive.org/web/20051013062258/http://www.kuro5h...
by sothatsit | 2026-03-10 16:40:17+00:00
Concerns about the wasting of maintainer’s time, onboarding, or copyright, are of great interest to me from a policy perspective. But I find some of the debate around the quality of AI contributions to be odd.

Quality should always be the responsibility of the person submitting changes. Whether a person used LLMs should not be a large concern if someone is acting in good-faith. If they submitted bad code, having used AI is not a valid excuse.

That said, maybe different concerns show up at scale? The problem is quite different if you are working in a team in a company vs. accepting contributions in open ecosystems. In the open-case, the added review burden seems particularly nasty.
Show HN: Read V2EX in English
by stebbins | 2026-03-10 16:40:29+00:00
v2ex is a Chinese language tech forum.

i’ve always been curious about the Chinese tech scene, but it is inaccessible to me due to chronic monolingualism.

i wanted to change that, so i made this. now i can start to explore. so far, it’s been really interesting to read discussion around TC. working days per week are a big part of the comp!

the tech stack is boring: go, templ, htmx, moonshot models for translation. the interesting thing to me is making the Chinese tech scene more approachable. let me know what you think
Show HN: Execute local prompts in SSH remote shells
by tgalal | 2026-03-10 16:40:30+00:00
Instead of giving LLM tools SSH access or installing them on a server, the following command:

$ promptctl ssh user@server

makes a set of locally defined prompts "magically" appear within the remote shell as executable command line programs.

For example, I have locally defined prompts for `llm-analyze-config` and `askai`. Then on (any) remote host I can:

$ promptctl ssh user@host
# Now on remote host
$ llm-analyze-config /etc/nginx.conf
$ cat docker-compose.yml | askai "add a load balancer"

the prompts behind `llm-analyze-config` and `askai` execute on my local computer (even though they're invoked remotely) via the llm of my choosing.

This way LLM tools are never granted SSH access to the server, and nothing needs to be installed to the server. In fact, the server does not even need outbound internet connections to be enabled.

Github: https://github.com/tgalal/promptcmd/
by narginal | 2026-03-10 16:40:34+00:00
Big mistake.
Having previously worked at small security startups that would actually like to participate in these activities, the individuals at these companies that are actually capable enough to pull this off are led by management, CEOs, and PE firms that have no idea what they're doing. Good luck holding any of these people accountable when something goes wrong. They only want that sweet government contract money. There is a reason I no longer work with these small security startups, and it stems from lack of leadership from the top down, and that these companies largely don't actually want to do good. The good people tend to leave.

tldr: even if this was a good idea, you will end up with entities that are allowed to conduct cyber operations, but otherwise don't have the ability to conduct them skillfully. When things go wrong, there will be no accountability.
by wvenable | 2026-03-10 16:40:40+00:00
Clean room is merely a defence in case you get sued by someone saying that you copied the work. It's not legally necessary.

If the presumption is that LLM training, despite reading all the source code of everything everywhere, ultimately doesn't actually contain that source code (in a compressed form) then that is the significant bit.

If the assumption is that it's truly doing something transformative, maybe even machine analogous to actual human learning, then anything produced directly by that LLM without another work in it's context is an entirely new work. That's all that is important.

> I think the practical answer is that clean room as a legal concept was designed for a world where reimplementation was expensive and intentional.

Whether or not it's expensive or intentional is immaterial. It always was and it's still true now. All that matters is that the actual expression, the real source code, is not copied. Clean room is just one way to have evidence that you didn't copy.
by ycombiredd | 2026-03-10 16:40:52+00:00
I apologize in advance, but this is my one pre-existing contribution to the world that mentions mapping of Drosophilia brains, and having just used it in its intended "copypasta" role this morning, I was excited to coincidentally see this Emulation link on HN this morning.

https://gist.github.com/scottvr/f968b65bedf7a4635a4cdd643628...

It is ludicrously-escalating grotesque sci-fi (intended for sending over SMS), so you can safely skip it if that's not your cup of tea.
by hananova | 2026-03-10 16:40:55+00:00
> Quixotic, unworkable, pointless. It’s fundamentally impossible (at least without a level of surveillance that would obviously be unavceptable) to prove the “artisanal hand-crafted human code” label.

Difficulty of enforcing is a detail. Since the rule exists, it can be used when detection is done. And importantly it means that ignoring the rule means you’re intentionally defrauding the project.
by orthogonal_cube | 2026-03-10 16:41:00+00:00
I couldn’t tell. I struggle with such subtleties.

I probably should’ve checked ‘454545’ in the ascii table. Seeing how it translates to ‘---‘ could’ve hinted towards that, but the clever use probably would’ve been applauded instead without thinking it was a joke.

Ah well. Egg on my face I suppose.
by happytoexplain | 2026-03-10 16:41:36+00:00
None of that, sorry if I wasn't clear.

To partially clarify: "Idiot proof" is a broad concept that here refers specifically to abstraction layers, more or less (e.g. a UI framework is a little "idiot proof"; a WYSIWYG builder is more "idiot proof"). With AI, it's complicated, but bad leadership is over-interpreting the "idiot proof" aspects of it. It's a phrase, not an insult to users of these tools.
by throwaw12 | 2026-03-10 16:41:54+00:00
If Seniors are going to review every GenAI generated code, how do they keep up with the volume of changes?

So you have 2 systems of engineers: Sr- and Sr+

1. Both should write code to justify their work and impact

2. Sr- code must be reviewed by Sr+

What happens:

a. Sr+ output drops because review takes their time more and more

b. Sr+ just blindly accepts because of the volume is too high, and they should also do their own work

c. Sr+ asks Sr- to slow-down, then Sr- can get bad reviews for the output, because on average Sr+ will produce more code

I think (b) will happen
by scarecrowbob | 2026-03-10 16:41:57+00:00
To take another sarcastic comment too literally-

I recall that most of my centrist Republican friends and more "conservative" liberal friends actually thought he was a run-of-the-mill sex pest. Most of those folks have such a cynical view of the folks in power that misogyny seems to be "normal".

I mean, the DNC keeps having Bill Clinton speak at stuff, so clearly they are okay with that kind of behavior.

My understanding is that that massive column at the center of "real (tm) adult US politics)" didn't think either of those guys were doing the truely horrific things pointed to in the Epstein documents.

As a person who has paid a lot of attention to these attitudes over the last 20 years, reun of the mill Democrats thinking DT is a pedophile is something that didn't start until after Nov 2024 and most of the GOP folks I know (because I have fewer friends among that caste every year) still think he's just a "normal" sex pest and not, like, raping 11-year-olds (which I think is closer to the truth).
by fulafel | 2026-03-10 16:42:35+00:00
The quote from Forbes in the article is a claim that a subscription could use up to 5k worth of tokens.

Which is different from actaully costing 5k in tokens per Claude Code user. As users won't max out their subscriptions. And there doesn't seem to be any stronger claim elsewhere in the article.

But the title is about a strawman that it would cost Anthropic 5k per user which it seems nobody claimed.
by db48x | 2026-03-10 16:42:36+00:00
No, there is a difference. Parking tickets are civil infractions that can only result in a fine (or in some cases a tow, but let’s not get lost in the weeds). Running a red light, on the other hand, is a moving violation committed by the _driver_ specifically, not the owner of the vehicle. Moving violations can result in criminal penalties. Sending a ticket to the owner of the vehicle and then making them defend themselves is unconstitutional.

Look, I get it. You guys are all European and think it’s perfectly normal to have to defend yourself when the government assumes that you are guilty. But here in the USA we have protections against that. The government _must_ assume that you are innocent until they can _prove_ that you are guilty. That includes not assuming that the owner of the vehicle was the one driving it, no matter how common that scenario is.