Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | parentheses's commentslogin

IMO types are the main lever you can use other than procedural abstraction. I feel that Haskell gives you both in a way that marries them for maximum constraint-building. Constraints that prevent illogical or illegal programs are the bread and butter of reliable software.

I've been poking at running LLMs in the browser. It feels like we're definitely close (<1 year) to seeing real use cases there.

Ubiquity and coverage of devices is what will take longest. Largely dependent on how well we can shrink models with similar performance and how much we can accelerate mobile devices. This feels like it's but further (<3 years?)


Reading only the abstract: LLMs prefer output of their own generation over humans or even other models.

This is a very good reason to avoid using model-generated data to train future models. We'd be deepening this bias by continuing to do that, essentially forcing society to reshape their output using LLMs to increase engagement. This feels like a form of enshittification that doesn't just touch one product but all of society.


I have been pondering this for a while. Cat's out of the bag.

Maybe the better way to author your work is to:

1. Write what you want

2. Loop through a random set of "tumbler" skills that preserve meaning

3. Finally pass the output through a "my style" skill that applies what you about

In order for this to work the "my style" would have to be a very common-place style.


You can get better results faster by just doing step 1.

This is depressing, don't you think? :/

Legit first post I've wanted to upvote in a long time.

This type of thing requires an economic driver to monetize the service.

I'd have a strong inclination to run such software if I knew that I was both helping host repos and getting paid.


I feel like it's not news that a company with (probably) millions of DAU is not able to handle a single case like this one.

At the same time, it's clear that after this happened, Anthropic took action. 3 DAYS AGO! (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47954655)

That's before this comment was made on the issue:

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/53262#issue...

I'm surprised Anthropic didn't also say this on the issue. Weird that they wouldn't. It seems to have made for unnecessary bad PR.

It feels to me that Anthropic is less focused on quality, and more focused on PR stunts/flash. My experience with Claude is always "it's pretty and feels cool", where-as codex feels like "solid and boring". I realize I'm probably biased. Am I alone in this thinking?


The timing makes me wonder if this is a direct response to Deepseek V4 having performance comparable to SOTA models.

This was published two months ago. Even though it was at a time that open source models are publishing comparable swe bench scores.

I built a small tool that makes one cleanup commit at a time, keeps it only if tests pass, and moves on. The article is about how it grew from that basic loop into taste files, staged migrations, and a way to keep repos getting a little cleaner in the background.

https://github.com/bigH/continuous-refactoring


Been tinkering on my personal site and wanted to add some AI features without being the one paying for tokens on every visit. So I went looking at how close browser-side inference actually is to practical. Closer than I expected.

The post is less a tutorial and more me walking through what it felt like. Kicking tires on random models, getting one to actually run, then doing the small unglamorous work to turn "demo" into something I'd put in front of a reader.

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47851111


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: