MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by meatmanek | 2026-03-12 22:51:08+00:00
I find that if I ask an LLM to explain what its reasoning was, it comes up with some post-hoc justification that has nothing to do with what it was actually thinking. Most likely token predictor, etc etc.

As far as I understand, any reasoning tokens for previous answers are generally not kept in the context for follow-up questions, so the model can't even really introspect on its previous chain of thought.
by mcdeltat | 2026-03-12 22:51:34+00:00
For contrast specifically, you can get much of that effect with a red filter. Just removing the majority blue/green components already changes the lighting massively. Can add a polarising filter too for an even more extreme effect on the sky.

E.g. this photo (looks quite HDR'd but it's not, it's barely edited):
https://rjones.photos/gallery/photo/20251207-img9638
by stego-tech | 2026-03-12 22:52:20+00:00
I really, really need folks to understand that deflecting blame away from the tool and trying to hold the human accountable feeds right into the marketing playbook of these companies in the first place.

The cops cannot be held accountable because the laws basically give them immunity. The politicians cannot be held accountable beyond being tossed out at the next election, because the laws otherwise give them immunity. The people operating the system cannot be held accountable, because the systems are marketed as authoritative despite being black boxes and lacking in transparency; they trusted the system just as they were told to, and thus cannot be held accountable.

And so when every human in the chain cannot be held accountable for these things, and the law prevents victims from receiving apologies, let alone recourse, then the tool and its maker is the only thing we can hold accountable. By deflecting blame away from the tools ("it wasn't AI, it was facial recognition"; "the human had to sign off on it"; "humans made the arrest, not machines"), you're protecting quite literally the only possible entity that could still potentially be held accountable: the dipshits making these stupid things and marketing them as superior and authoritative when compared to humans.

You want accountability? Start holding capital to account, and this shit falls away real fucking fast. Don't get lost in technical nuance over very real human issues.
by inerte | 2026-03-12 22:52:23+00:00
Claude Code goes through some internal systems that other tools (Cline / Codex / and I think Cursor) do not. Also we have different models for each. I don't know in practice what happens, but I found that Codex compacts conversations way less often. It might as well be somehow less tokens are used/added, then raw context window size. Sorry if I implied we have more context than whatever others have :)
by saafree | 2026-03-12 22:52:45+00:00
This is how Saafree tackles these bottlenecks:

1. Don't use stateless API calls. The Execution Fabric maintains persistent state through the Execution State Store - it's essentially a frozen filesystem/container that agents can return to after interruptions. When a BEU (Business Execution Unit) hits a 401 or rate limit, it resumes from the last persisted state, not from scratch.

2. No LLM policing here. We use the Saafree Execution System (SES) with governance rules that intercept at the execution layer. It's not WASM-based (we're Node.js/TypeScript), but it's deterministic enforcement through the Execution Fabric's control plane - much faster than LLM-based policing.

3. BEUs don't just "try" - they own the full lifecycle. The handler is outcome-focused: agents commit to PR ownership from start to merge. If something fails, the handler ensures the outcome is delivered, not just attempted.

Human-in-the-Loop & Context Drift
For long-running tasks like 48-hour approvals, the Execution Orchestrator suspends/resumes work orchestration. Context doesn't drift because state is persisted in the Execution State Store - agents pick up exactly where they left off, with full memory of the task context. No window drift because we maintain the complete execution directive throughout.

The key insight:
SaaFree treats enterprise work as persistent execution threads, not stateless calls.
The Execution Fabric acts as the OS kernel for this workforce.
by mikepurvis | 2026-03-12 22:52:57+00:00
I've been using chat and copilot for many months but finally gave claude code a go, and I've been interested how it does seem to have a bit more of an attitude to it. Like copilot is just endlessly patient for every little nitpick and whim you have, but I feel like Claude is constantly like "okay I'm committing and pushing now.... oh, oh wait, you're blocking me. What is it you want this time bro?"
by olejorgenb | 2026-03-12 22:53:05+00:00
"Most important 3D-knitting offers the promise of customization, or as we call it, the chipotle effect. Size and fit are the number one reasons people return clothes purchased online and in person.

In the next few years, maybe even months, we'll be able to solve that problem for good. Since 3D-knitting allows us to knit on demand, we'll soon be able to offer every size imaginable in every style, material, and color."

I had hoped they provided this already.
by jacquesm | 2026-03-12 22:53:21+00:00
Well, there's always wars as the way to get rid of people. I really don't rule out that the people that benefit from this sort of thing will purposefully steer the world in that direction because the poor won't have any choice other than to enlist as a way out of their situation, and never mind the consequences. You can already see some of this happening.
by BeParent | 2026-03-12 22:53:25+00:00
In 2005, a student made $1M selling pixels.
I built a modern version with a twist:

- 1,000,000 pixels, each permanent forever
- Prices rise automatically as grid fills ($1→$2→$5→$10)
- Pixel Wars: Team Red vs Team Blue battle
for canvas domination
- Live feed, leaderboard, real-time visitor count
- Built in 1 day with Lovable + Stripe + Supabase

Currently 0.08% filled. Launch week pricing still active.

Happy to answer any technical questions.
by BosunoB | 2026-03-12 22:53:48+00:00
I didn't mean to imply that it was. But when you reply to it, if you just say "no" then it's aware that you could've just not responded, and that normally you would never respond to it unless you were asking for something more.

It just doesn't make any sense to respond no in this situation, and so it confuses the LLM and so it looks for more context.
by Daneel_ | 2026-03-12 22:54:05+00:00
I agree, but it’s ambiguous, hence the problem.

There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.

The words used should be clear in their meaning. “Inflammable” is ambiguous, and it makes a great deal of difference which meaning is intended.

Flammable is unambiguous, as is non-inflammable. I’m forced to use these. Personally, I’m more in favour of flammable (able to catch fire) and inflammable (not able to catch fire).
by suttontom | 2026-03-12 22:54:20+00:00
This is unfair and dismissive of many roles. Coordination in a massive, technically complex company that has to adhere to laws and regulations is a critical role. I don't get why people shit on certain roles (I'm a SWE). Our PgMs reduce friction and help us be more productive and focused. Technical writers produce customer-facing content and code, and have nothing to do with supporting internal bureaucracy. There are arguments against this in Bullshit Jobs but do you think companies pay PgMs or HR employees hundreds of thousands of dollars a year out of the goodness of their own hearts? Or maybe they actually help the business?
by ddoolin | 2026-03-12 22:54:37+00:00
Same here. I quickly learned that if you merely ask questions about it's understanding or plans, it starts looking for alternatives because my questioning is interpreted as rejection or criticism, rather than just taking the question at face value. So I often (not always) have to caveat questions like that too. It's really been like that since before Claude Code or Codex even rolled around.

It's just strange because that's a very human behavior and although this learns from humans, it isn't, so it would be nice if it just acted more robotic in this sense.
by Ethee | 2026-03-12 22:54:45+00:00
As a one boxer myself this is the way I see it. The problem is presented as a value proposition, how do I walk out of this room with the most money? This typically prompts people to think of this as a statistics problem, and you genuinely can use statistics to 'solve' this, but that has nothing to do with what seems to be the problems underlying premise. Which is, do you actually believe that the predictor can even make that prediction? I think most people who take things logically at face value (like Veritasium watchers) would accept the premise as it's set up. I think for the two boxers there's some doubt they have about the predictors actual abilities, or they think they can 'outsmart' the predictor. The problem is setup in such a way however that it's fundamentally impossible to outsmart, which is I think what makes this problem so interesting.
by ghostlyInc | 2026-03-12 22:55:33+00:00
Most of the issues I hit were indeed small mistakes that Windows silently tolerated (like casing differences or hardcoded separators).

Linux just makes them visible much earlier.

I'll definitely take another look at the System.IO helpers you mentioned to avoid some of that.

Are there any other common pitfalls you’ve seen when running .NET apps on Linux that are easy to overlook?
by reconnecting | 2026-03-12 22:55:52+00:00
Did you also notice the evolution of average developers over time? I mean, if you take code from a developer ten years ago and compare it with their output now, you can see improvement.

I assume that over time, the output improves because of the effort the developer invests in themselves. However, LLMs might reduce that effort to zero — we just don't know how developers will look after ten years of using LLMs.
by simoncion | 2026-03-12 22:56:10+00:00
> ...you end up with http://[2001::1]:80/ which is horrible

That is horrible, but you do no longer have any possibility of confusion between an IP address and a hostname/domain-name/whatever-it's-called. So, yeah, benefits and detriments.

> Your network then has a route to ::ffff:0:0/96 via a gateway...

I keep forgetting about IPv4-mapped addresses. Thanks for reminding me of them with this writeup. I should really get around to playing with them some day soon.
by souvlakee | 2026-03-12 22:56:20+00:00
> Windows 11 could've been a fantastic OS. Instead of pushing AI crap and adding Copilot to Notepad (I kid you not), Microsoft could focus on fixing multi-year bugs and cleaning up the UI mess.

Imagine if they started on Windows 7, pinned the design, and continued fixing only old bugs. What a nice OS it could be!
by KempyKolibri | 2026-03-12 22:56:39+00:00
“So, are you exercising much?”

“Oh yes doc, I get out for a run most days of the week.”

“Wonderful news, got to look after your heart.”

“Yeah, and with my new butter churning bags, not only do I get to stay fit, but I also consume ungodly amounts of butter!”

“Sorry what”
by nephihaha | 2026-03-12 22:56:57+00:00
I am not a fan of the Lords and would have it abolished completely, and replaced with an elected second chamber.

That said appointed peers have no more legitimacy than hereditary ones and that is what we're getting. It allows politicians to stuff the chamber with their own. We're already run by committees and QUANGOs, let alone the United Nations NGOs, none of which have any democratic oversight.

"MPs ... who are elected? Seems like they do have democracy behind them, no?"

There is the whole issue of whether the First Past the Post system does the job or not, and proper representation of minor parties in the press. In fact the British state even punishes minor parties with electoral deposits if they do not get a big enough vote.

But what does it matter if they just enact the same World Economic Forum/COP/WHO etc policies? The UK is gradually getting the same policies as elsewhere on everything from smoking to digital ID and then pretendinf we voted on it.

There is barely a cigarette paper between the current Labour government and the previous Tory government. They are so close on so many issues it's laughable. They just take turns to get into power.
by kelnos | 2026-03-12 22:57:27+00:00
Flying? We were solid middle class in the 80s and my first plane flight wasn't until 2001 (and then only because I was away at college and my mother had died suddenly). My parents hadn't flown since the 70s (before my sister and I were born), and even then, that was a rare thing for them.

Our childhood vacations were single-day (so we didn't have to pay for a hotel) road trips to a nearby state to go to an amusement park, or multi-day trips (also within driving distance) where my dad had to go somewhere for work and the hotel was paid for by his employer. It was a huge huge deal for us when, in the late 90s, we drove down to Disney World (a 13-hour drive) for a several-day trip.

And we never traveled around Christmas; that was one of the most expensive times of the year to travel!

Not sure when or where you grew up, but most middle-class folks in the US in the 80s didn't have a lot of discretionary income, and flights were (inflation adjusted) quite a bit more expensive than they are today.
by DougN7 | 2026-03-12 22:57:40+00:00
I guess it depends on what you mean by safe. My wife gets a lot of migraines from a lot of foods in the US (less so if she can get organic). When we travel through Europe she can eat anything without triggering a migraine. I’ve read the US allows about 10X more chemicals (pesticides? fertilizers?) than the EU, so we assume this is the difference.
by XorNot | 2026-03-12 22:57:53+00:00
This goes the other direction too. I just this second fixed a problem with incredibly slow SSH connections because a host lookup which returned an IPv4 address instantly was waiting 10+ seconds for an IPv6 response which would never come.

Now I'm sure I can fix DNSmasq to do something sensible here, but the defaults didn't even break - they worked in the most annoying way possible where had I just disabled IPv6 that would've fixed the entire problem right away.

Dual stack has some incredibly stupid defaults.
by dalyons | 2026-03-12 22:58:16+00:00
No one pays you for that reliability though. In free energy markets they pay you for what you supply, at the clearing price at that moment.

Solar is so cheap it will push nukes off the grid during the day, you don’t get credit just because it’s more reliable. People will just build more and more solar till the nukes share in the day is zero. And at night people are incentivized to build more wind and batteries, because you can undercut the expensive nuke power and push it off. When the wind doesn’t blow at night there’s gas and hydro peakers. And more and more batteries. There’s increasingly no room left for nukes that have to be sold at 100% for 100% of the time to still be the most expensive form of energy.

The only way nukes have a role at scale today is if you have state intervention in the market to force the grid to buy your nuke power at close to 100% at the baseline share you described, because you have a nation-state goal of reliability that you prioritize higher than cost. Essentially subsidizing the nukes. And I’m sympathetic to that goal, but that’s not mostly not what western markets do, and not what they will do. Making power deliberately more expensive is unpopular
by Schmerika | 2026-03-12 22:58:32+00:00
You still think this problem is one sided?

Dems had Trump dead to rights for insurrection. They had everything in the Epstein files and didn't drop it. They told you they were working tirelessly for a ceasefire - while unilaterally vetoing 4 of them at the UN.

Genocide. They armed genocide. Which we could all see on our phones.

They loved arming it so much, they decided they'd rather keep arming it than gain millions of votes in swing states vs Trump.

Trump is worse. Yes. But when both parties in the two party system are pro-genocide, pro-torture, pro-ICE, pro-Epstein etc etc etc, you can't blame the whole problem on just half the people involved.
by yongjik | 2026-03-12 22:58:38+00:00
But America isn't a high-trust society. Roughly half of Americans proudly assert that their government must be small, gridlocked, and incompetent, and that's by design, because if the government becomes too efficient it will infringe upon Americans' freedom.

So instead Americans keep electing people who say "The government can't do anything right! Elect me and I'll prove it to you!"

Not exactly a mark of a high-trust society, whatever that means.
by noughtnaut | 2026-03-12 22:58:46+00:00
I have an old Apple flag I've been intending to auction off at some appropriate point in time. Perhaps this is it?

I think it's really pretty. It's maybe 2m², with the original coloured apple and the company name in Motter Tektura typeface.

Don't know why I mention it here, just thinking aloud before bedtime I suppose.
by Jaygles | 2026-03-12 22:59:52+00:00
LLM technology will never achieve 100% accuracy in its output. There is an inherent non-determinism. Tasks that require 100% accuracy cannot be handled by LLMs alone. If an LLM is used to replace HR, it will inevitably do something wrong, and a human will need to be in the loop to correct it.

Same goes for chess, there will always be a chance that it makes an illegal move. Same goes for code, there will always be a chance that it produces the wrong code.

Maybe a new AI technology will be developed that doesn't have the innate non-determinism, but we don't have that now.
by caconym_ | 2026-03-12 23:00:04+00:00
> someone saying the Chief of Police saying "We are not going to talk about that today?" is not the biggest scandal, but the AI is.

Who is this "someone"? OP's article and the discussion here are absolutely not neglecting the human factors and general
institutional failure that made this possible. But it's also true that without these "AI" tools, it would never have happened.
by altruios | 2026-03-12 23:00:07+00:00
Okay. Here's the key point I see.

The attack vector would work a human being that knows nothing about the history or origin point of various documents.

Thus, this attack is not 'new', only the vector is new 'AI'.

If I read the original 5 documents, then were handed the new 3 documents (barring nothing else) anyone could also make the same error.
by ptak_dev | 2026-03-12 23:00:37+00:00
This is a great breakdown of what McKinsey actually selects for. The interesting thing is that these skills — synthesizing ambiguity, presenting confidently under pressure, thinking in frameworks — are deeply transferable. Plenty of engineers, PMs, and analysts have them. The problem is that most people's resumes describe what they did rather than how they think.

Consulting hiring is unusual because they're screening for cognitive approach, not domain expertise. But resume conventions push everyone toward listing deliverables and tech stacks. When an engineer writes "built a data pipeline processing 10M records/day," that's impressive — but it doesn't tell McKinsey whether you can walk into a boardroom and structure an ambiguous problem on the spot.

That gap between "what you've done" and "how you approach problems" is what makes the consulting pivot feel impossible even for people who'd actually be great at it. I've been working on a tool (https://super.myninja.ai/apps/6de082c7-a05f-4fc5-a7d3-ab56cc...) that helps reframe experience around analytical thinking and problem-solving approach rather than just job titles and deliverables. It's been a useful lens for career transitions where the skills transfer but the language doesn't.
by jacquesm | 2026-03-12 23:00:37+00:00
> I feel like I'm going crazy with this narrative.

We're only getting warmed up. There are programmers on HN that will take the output of their favorite AI, paste it and run it. And we're supposed to be the ones that know better.

What do you think an ordinary person is going to do in the presence of something that they can not relate to anything else except for an oracle, assuming they know the term? You put anything in there and out pops this extremely polished looking document, something that looks better than whatever you would put together yourself with a bunch of information on it that contains all kinds of juicy language geared up to make you believe the payload.

They're going to fall for it, without a second thought.

And they're going to draw consequences from it that you thought could use a little skepticism. Too late now.
by anotherevan | 2026-03-12 23:01:13+00:00
I really like this idea. Gonna need an "Awesome Axe" page that collects agents.

One idea I'm thinking of is, after an agent has been in use for a while, and built up and understanding of the task, would be something like, "Write a Python script to replace this agent."

I could imagine this would work with agents that are processing log files or other semi-structured data for example.
by sshine | 2026-03-12 23:01:27+00:00
> Your intent is 'Getting more users by lowering barriers to sign up', a business goal.

Important point.

But it says more about OP’s perspective on product-driven development than this “contextual commits”.

The idea that OP does not follow up on is whether these codified commit messages with a very shallow summary of the LLM context improve anything compared to the normal commit messages that Claude will generate.

I suspect they’re equally insufficient since even a compacted context seems less diffusing and it’s still a lot bigger than these.

> I wish our profession would stop trying to reinvent issue tracking in git every week.

I would love to have good git-powered issue tracking. I haven’t seen it yet.
by Buttons840 | 2026-03-12 23:01:48+00:00
The free market solution to this seems to be making it easy / easier for competitors to arise. Then, when private equity does this, the customers, and workers, just hop ship to a competitor that's better managed and the original clinic goes under.

I don't expect this happens in reality though. In general the things that happen in a healthy free market are NOT happening in our society.
by ponyous | 2026-03-12 23:01:49+00:00
In the coworking I am in people are hitting limits on 60$ plan all the time. They are thinking about which models to use to be efficient, context to include etc…

I’m on claude code $100 plan and never worry about any of that stuff and I think I am using it much more than they use cursor.

Also, I prefer CC since I am terminal native.
by wongarsu | 2026-03-12 23:02:08+00:00
Yeah, I could see a world where it swings exactly the opposite way for software. Writing software for yourself is becoming cheap, but gathering requirements, getting alignment between stakeholders or marketing your software isn't getting much cheaper. Maybe everyone will end up with their own in-house solution? Or maybe we end up with configurable SAP-like behemoths, but instead of an army of expensive consultants configuring the software for your use case you have AI agents taking that part

I'm sure whatever path this takes will seems obvious in hindsight
by al_borland | 2026-03-12 23:03:49+00:00
Worse yet, instead of a checkbox to opt in/out of a newsletter or marketing email when signing up or checking out, it simply opts the user in. Simply doing business with a company is consent to spam, with the excuse that the user can unsubscribe if they don’t want it.

Tactics like these should be illegal, but instead they have become industry standards.