skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not sure! My own path was very mentor-dependent. Participating in open source communities worked for me to find my original mentors as well. The other participants are incentivized to mentor/coach because the main thing you're bringing is time and motivation--and if they can teach you what you need to know to come back with better output while requiring less handholding down the road, their project wins.

It's not for everyone because open source tends to require you to have the personality to self-select goals. Outside of more explicit mentor relationships, the projects aren't set up to provide you with a structured curriculum or distribute tasks. But if you can think of something you want to get done or attempt in a project, chances are you'll get a lot of helping hands and eager teachers along the way.
But we are not talking about large volumes of code here; we are talking about; LLM generates something, you check it and close read it to spot logic bugs and either fix yourself, ask the LLM or approve. It is very puzzling to me how this is more work/taxing than writing it yourself unless for very specific examples;

Examples from every day reality in my company; writing 1000s of lines of react frontend code is all LLM (in very little time) and reviews catch all the issues while the database implementation we are working on we spend sometimes one hour on a few lines and the LLM suggest things but they never help. Reviewing such a little bit of code has no use as it's the result of testing a LOT of scenarios to get the most performance out in the real world (across different environments/settings). However, almost everyone in the world is working on (similar issues like) the former, not the latter, so...
Isn't the formula of all his books, an old man meets a beautiful young women, they solve some mistery together and as the romance builds up, probably sex at the end.
Wasn't this also how some services would connect e.g. your bank accounts? They'd ask for your credentials and log into your bank to scrape its contents.

And I kinda get it, some services external to your bank can help you manage your finances etc. But it's why banks should offer APIs where the user can set limited and timed access to these services. In Europe this is PSD2 (Revised Payment Services Directive).
A lawsuit on what basis?
Half way through a recent interview it became very apparent that the candidate was using AI. This was only apparent in the standard 'why are you interested in working here?' Questions. Once the questions became more AI resistant the candidate floundered. There English language skills and there general reasoning declined catastrophically. These question had originally been introduced to see see how good the candidate was at thinking abstractly. Example: 'what is your creative philosophy?'
By 'smart guitar', do you mean that the guitar has an amplifier or effect pedal built-in?
This probably depends on the questions.

When applying for a college math professor job, it's understandable that you'll use mathematica/matlab/whatever for most of actual work, but needing a calculator for simple mutliplication-table style calculations would be a red flag. Especially if there is lecturing involved.
Project managers and consultants do actually write those documents/specifications justifying the work before the programmers get to do it.
Italy also banned ChatGPT when it was released.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Maybe because people don't realize you're in on the joke and that this is a parody package.
Don’t approach the new director as someone with an issue. Nobody likes problematic cases. Enjoy your promotion and keep good reputation.

You don’t control anything, you’re a figure in power game of directors and senior directors. They will think and you will deliver and get stocks and salary for that. Your happiness is secondary thing as I experienced first hand couple years ago. You should think how far are you ready to go for your compensation. Eventually your happiness, satisfaction and high salary can’t be combined. Which one will you choose?
Equally, if you just point to your friend and say "that's Dave, he's gonna do it for me", they won't give you the job. They'll give it to Dave instead.
Said barriers to AI are
- not allowing the use of AI for social scoring, precrime and other nefarious profiling methods
- for high risk applications, requiring a quality system.

You know, like the kind of quality system you need in place if you make food for human consumption, produce light bulbs, or any of a myriad of other production processes. Somehow the people doing catering at my employer's canteen manage to comply with that, but it's too complicated for tech bros.

https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/high-level-summary/
And guess what, people's overall health and fitness have declined. Obesity is at an all time high. If you're in the US, there is a 40% chance you are obese. Your body likely contains very little muscle mass, you are extremely likely to die of side effects of metabolic syndrome.

People are seeing the advent of machines to replace all physical labor and transportation, not gradually like in the 20th century, but withing the span of a decade going from the average physical exertion of 1900 to the average modern lack of physical exertion, take a car everyday, do no manual labor do no movement.

They are saying that you need exercise to replace what you are losing, you need to train your body to keep it healthy and can't just rly on machines/robots to do everything for them because your body needs that exertion - and your answer is to say "now that we have robots there is no need to exercise even for exercise sake". A point that's pretty much wrong as modern day physical health shows.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome
Trans rights are human rights. You cannot support one not supporting another.
I would not say stop using it. But just stick to the really needed features, and stop adding more features every 3 years. Nobody can keep up, not the developers, not the compilers... is just insane.
> Most people I talk to are at the point now where getting completely incorrect answers 10% of the time

A year back that number was 30%, and a couple of years back it was 60%. There will be a point where it'll be good enough. There are also better and better ways to verify answers these days.

It'll never be a solution for everything, but that's similar to many engineering problems we have: for example, ORMs aren't great for all types of queries, but they're sufficient for a good part of them.
It's a case of the relative amounts and proportions of harm. Gambling is something where a small but not insignificant percentage of the population have an addiction problem - they're prone to get hooked and basically lose all their money. Now, this isn't something that's absolute: someone may be susceptible to this but not actively seek it out, especially to the extent of going to a black market bookie or similar. So the fact that it's so heavily advertised is going to increase the harm to these people.

Secondly, the bookies have a strong incentive to perpetuate this harm: much like with gatcha video games, which have the exact same moral hazard (and are exactly modeled on gambling), the 'whales' who get completely addicted bring in so much more revenue than those who occasionally gamble a little for a bit of fun, that even if they're a minority of customers they can make up the majority of revenue, and so they're going to make more money if they optimize for hooking them (there are some guardrails, to be fair: in contrast to said video games, there is a system where you can ban yourself from all the major bookies if you realize you have a problem. Probably doesn't make the ads any easier to sit through, though).

I'm not in favor of banning gambling altogether: I realise it's something a lot of people can engage with healthily, even if I have no interest in it at all. But I would be in favor of reigning in the advertising of it: it's kind of obnoxious how large a percentage of it is present in sports media anyway, even without the harms done. (I feel the same about alcohol ads, even if that is something I do like, and alcohol has a much lower moral hazard from the manufacturers in terms of hooking in alcoholics, because the ratios are not so extreme)
Seems a logical decision given the President's tendency to retaliate on a personal level against those who 'wrong' him by just doing their job.
> DEI is not a push to have quotas. Rather it is based on the assumption that if you see one group being overrepresented then there is probably a bias in favor of that group.

It literally is a push for quotas. Their ideology dictates that there is not enough X's, therefore bias. It's not necessarily true either, please see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42907690

Annec data is that the UK police force would be harassed by head office for not having a diverse enough team. A friend spent a while breaking down the local makeup of ethnicity and proving that the one black colleague they had was actually an over-representation for the local area. It was not easy to convince them either, as they had a literal quota for each area.

> I (as a white man) don't for a moment believe that that is because white men are better at being CEOs (achieve better outcomes). Rather I believe it is because the selection process has long been biased in favor of white men (both in the last steps, and the path to get there).

It's not particularly cut and dry. There is a class bias towards being promoted to CEO, and the pool of black people in upper class society is smaller [1].

> And this is not just my biases at play, many studies have been done, and none show that white men generically achieve better outcomes.

Would be interested to read if you have them.

> It is not about quotas or giving people points for being a woman/black person/disabled/etc. It is all about making sure that those characteristics do not subtract points.

It is no different from a quota. You believe that some end ratio must result i.e. B% black people, there are N positions, therefore there should be a minimum of N x B black people in those positions. Then everything is done to meet that quota, otherwise there is still bias based on this quota.

> But you could just as easily point to the current over-representation of women in colleges and universities and worry about an anti-man bias there.

But nobody does make that case. Women are under-represented in dirty jobs, dangerous jobs, gruelling jobs, but there are no advocates to put more women in those positions. DEI itself is only fighting over the cream. They want more diversity in STEM, but I see zero fighting to get diversity into the arts, languages, etc.

What's worse is that we literally have to lower standards to make it DEI possible. The military lower fitness requirements to help more women get in, colleges lower entrance exam thresholds to increase diversity, the list goes on. DEI has made us a society of lowering standards.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue at all with women CEOs if they cut mustard. But if you lower your expectations too much, you get the likes of Elizabeth Holmes, where there was near zero scrutiny by anybody [2]. Or a black CEO such as Kanye West, who clearly has large mental instability (which backfired on Adidas) [3].

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-wealth-is-increasin...

[2] https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/11620036/theranos-ceo-elizabe...

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/01/08/kanye-we...
True. I will save effort by only expending it when needed (when I need to review my coworkers' code, legacy code, or libraries).
It's 2025, not 2015. 'google it and add the word reddit' is a thing. For now.

Google 'reflections on trusting trust'. Your level of trust in software that purports to think for you out of a multi-gig stew of word associations is pretty intense, but I wouldn't call it pretty sensible.
But this is exactly what we already do. Most exams have a "no cheating" rule, even though it's perfectly possible to cheat. The point is to discourage people from doing so, not to make it impossible.
I hear this argument all the time, and I think “this is exactly how people who coded in assembly back in the day thought about those using higher level programming languages.”

It is a paradigm shift, yes. And you will know less about the implementation at times, yes. But will you care when you can deploy things twice, three times, five times as fast as the person not using AI? No. And also, when you want to learn more about a specific bit of the AI written code, you can simply delve deep into it by asking the AI questions.

The AI right now may not be perfect, so yes you still need to know how to code. But in 5 years from now? Chances are you will go in your favorite app builder, state what you want, tweak what you get and you will get the product that you want, with maybe one dev making sure every once in a while that you’re not messing things up - maybe. So will new devs need to know high level programming languages? Possibly, but maybe not.
In the context of homework, how likely is someone still in school, who probably considers homework to be an annoying chore, going to do this?

I can't really see an optimistic long-term result from that, similar to giving kids an iPad at a young age to get them out of your hair: shockingly poor literacy, difficulty with problem solving or critical thinking, exacerbating the problems with poor attention span that 'content creators' who target kids capitalise on, etc.

I'm not really a fan of the concept of homework in general but I don't think that swapping brain power with an OpenAI subscription is the way to go there.
I like the British Pathe films from the late 1890s / early 1900s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtRiMS34KxQ&list=PLxYjYcgwal...

(More examples in the playlist.)

Large parts of London still look the same, but the way of life is vastly different. Just on a surface level, you can see how roads are used differently (there are a few horses and a lot of pedestrians) and with poorly insulated buildings everyone has to wear insulation.
The Dutch do it quite some time as well.

Video (in Dutch, but intersting to see)

https://www.rtvnoord.nl/video/863704/mosselmonitor-gaat-gron...
It's France vs. the rest on buying U.S. weapons
Show HN: Calculate Your Revenue
I think this gets to the core of the issue: interviews should be conducted by people who deeply understand the role and should involve a discussion, not a quiz.
I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat".

I have read that people are getting more selfish[1], but it still shocks me how much people are willing to push individualism and selfishness under the guise of either, "Well it's not illegal" or "Well, it's not detectable".

I think I'm just very much out of tune with the zeitgeist, because I can't imagine not going along with what's a polite request not to use AI.

I guess that puts me at a serious disadvantage in the job market, but I am okay with that, I've always been okay with that. 20 years ago my cohort were doing what I thought were selfish things to get ahead, and I'm fine with not doing those things and ending up on a different lesser trajectory.

But that doesn't mean I won't also air my dissatisfaction with just how much people seem to justify selfishness, or don't even regard it as selfish to ignore this request.

[1] https://fortune.com/2024/03/12/age-of-selfishness-sick-singl...
Idea to make it more fun:run Yolo vision processing on the client computer to make it drive autonomously.
This is a common issue in prediction markets: they tend to look nonsensical at the extremes, because if you're betting on 'sure outcome', then the main issues are a) counterparty risk, i.e. the risk that the payout is not awarded correctly, and b) opportunity costs, as the margins can be slim enough and the payout date far enough away that you've got better things you could do with your money.
Using the wrong tool for the job required isn't lazy but it may be dangerous, inefficient and ultimately more expensive.
Yeah, don't need to try any until everyone says 'you have to'. Which happened with Aider and later Cline & Cursor.
>Why do you want to work at Anthropic? (We value this response highly - great answers are often 200-400 words.)

Low lifes
Why don't you give the versions on the website a go? Because they're very capable.
I wish Garmin worked on their SDK and documentation — I wrote a quick app for personal use, and it made me appreciate folks who write Garmin watch apps much more. The documentation is incredibly bad, half the things I had to figure out using trial and error, and even then I wouldn't know how to build/test for other watches than the one I own. I'd have gladly worked on the app and put it in the store, I think it'd useful to some people, but I'd have to put far more effort than it's worth.
Joking aside, I have heard of people deliberately doing a sort of inverse version of this. For example, if you live in Barcelona then Ubuntu's installer will detect you as being in Madrid's timezones and wanted to use Spain Spanish locale. If you insist that you're in Andorra you get an equivalent timezone and the Catalan locale (which is the preference for a lot of people, despite the bizarre way of reporting time).
My humble opinion as an European citizen: let the US sink $500B in GPUs if they feel like it. I think they have bigger problems than marginally improving next token predictors, but who am I to judge. We'll just distill their models for a fraction of the cost, if need be. There is no moat in AI.

The AI race is not about innovation, it's about speculation. I do believe the tech holds promises, but as it stands now, the primary goal of AI is to attract capital. The benefits of AI are going straight up, siphoned by tech billionaires, and I don't see many improvements in the lives of my American friends.
The sleep bit is what we are working on. We increase slow-wave delta power, increasing the effectiveness of the glymphatic system to flush metabolic waste from the brain.

There is more than a decade of research into this process, the studies I pointed at earlier are focused on older adults, which see a larger improvement than a younger population, but lots of studies in university aged subjects due to the nature of research.

We have links to more of the research papers on our website https://affectablesleep.com/research
Yes! Here's a video (not mine) showing exactly that:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Q0c3iy-5g
> In general, in all related to CS and software the UK is ages ahead of the mainland Europe

You are you going to have to support this statement a little bit better :-)
Programming in Go Is Fun
There are also things like translation, environment details and logger, which I wish were always present, like a super global.
Possible middle ground if you can't immediately get what you're hoping for: Explain to the new Director that in the medium term you'd still like to be able to also work with the prior domain, and try to negotiate roughly "if I can fix this team to the point where it doesn't need me, then I get moved to cross-domain work."

This has obvious risks of them not coming through once you achieve the first part, but if this team is as screwed as you describe and management are confident in you being able to unfuck it - and of needing somebody at your level of competence to do so - then it might turn out to be a net positive route for you, your career, the team, and the company.

Also might be easier to sell to the new boss, and a deadline for them to actually deliver on that promise if you can get it made of "when said stock vests" would fit your being willing to leave then and their being aware you've passed the vesting deadline for a decent chunk of options will probably give you a stronger position from which to press them to deliver at that point.

(of course there's lots of details here you know and I don't and I'm still on my first pot of coffee, but hopefully the general shape of the idea provides some inspiration that fits the full situation)
You could reasonably argue that they're not cheating, indeed they're being very behaviorally revealing and you do understand everything you need to understand about them.

Too bad for them, but works for you…

I'm imagining a hiring workflow, for a role that is not 'specifically use AI for a thing', in which there is no suggestion that you shouldn't use AI systems for any part of the interview. It's just that it's an auto-fail, and if someone doesn't bother to hide it it's 'thanks for your time, bye!'.

And if they work to hide it, you know they're dishonest, also an auto-fail.
Pretty much all companies are doing the privacy violations. You think your doctors office doesn't sell their contact list?
Every leader has their "go to" people.

You want to be one of those "go to" people! They are put on the most challenging assignments, the most exciting opportunities, more often promoted, protected from above, last to let go and frequently asked to follow that leader to new assignments at new companies usually with higher titles and better comp.

It seems to me you have been spotted by your Sr. Director and given an opportunity to prove yourself as you did in your prior team. It's a logical move to take a high performer from one team, and try to prop up an underperforming team. It's about what's good for the company.

If this fails, you won't necessarily be blamed, but you'll have lost an opportunity to really stand out amongst any other engineer at your level and earn the status of your Sr. Director's "go to" person.

Your value is in being a versatile, competent "can do anything, anywhere and happy to do it" type of resource who can be thrown into the biggest messes and come out looking good.
> ... You may opt out of receiving any, or all, of these communications from us by following the unsubscribe link or the instructions provided in any email we send.
This is what I do not get. I just do not understand the technical interview process these days.

I have 20 years of experience in software development, I have hundreds of LinkedIn contacts you can check on, a dozen recommendations on LinkedIn and a dozen projects on Github, not to mention a blog and let's say a other indicators (e.g. Stackoverflow creds).

Now what exactly are people checking on? My picture is on LinkedIn and Github. Clearly I can code and have done dozens of projects. What is the point of asking me - "Do you know Kafka?", "Have you used AWS S3 and how?", "How would you build / scale a Node.js project" - these are the real questions I was asked. Yes, had you cared to look at my Github / blogs you would have seen I have done this multiple times, what are we verifying now?

I tried my best but at one point stopped caring about interviews.
You cannot just reduce programming to "deliver working things", though. For some tasks, sure, "working" is all that matters. For many tasks, though, efficiency, maintainability, and other factors are important.

You also need to take into account how to judge if something is "working" or not — that's not necessarily a trivial task.
I understand the English words you are using. I’m still not convinced I understand what you are saying. In this particular case recall doesn’t seem to be the problem.
Running locally is such an important feature, running elsewhere is an instant non-starter for me. I also want the LLM to be able to read the code to build an in-context solution, but not be able to make changes unless they are strictly accepted.