frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Open Source @Github

fp.

Pixel 11 doesn't yet meet the GrapheneOS security standards and may be skipped

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/41564-pixel-11-doesnt-yet-meet-the-grapheneos-security-standards...
59•finnlab•1h ago•34 comments

Europe's new robotics unicorn: Germany's RobCo hits $1B valuation

https://techfundingnews.com/europes-new-robotics-unicorn-germanys-robco-hits-1b-valuation/
186•dachworker•2h ago•151 comments

Web Search API

https://developers.cloudflare.com/changelog/post/2026-10-02-introducing-web-search-api/
131•tosh•3h ago•71 comments

Gitframes

https://github.com/gatewai-dev/gitframes
19•oknaslnkn•1h ago•9 comments

Denmark Data Breach Exposes 8.8M People's Personal Data

https://www.cpr.dk/cpr-nyt/nyhedsarkiv/2026/okt/omfattende-uautoriseret-adgang-til-borgeres-cpr-o...
278•clan•5h ago•222 comments

Press Release: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2026

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2026/press-release/
63•Anon84•3h ago•19 comments

Huawei and Qualcomm Announce Broad Patent License Agreement

https://www.huawei.com/en/news/2026/10/qualcomm-broad-patent-agreement
100•0xedb•6h ago•64 comments

Differences Between `Foldl` and `Foldr`

https://blog.haskell.org/foldl-and-foldr/
35•signa11•4d ago•2 comments

Type Safe Generic Data Structures in C

https://danielchasehooper.com/posts/typechecked-generic-c-data-structures/
48•AlexeyBrin•2d ago•6 comments

Run Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (125B) on consumer hardware (RTX 4090) at 100T/s

https://github.com/Niko1221/Strata
851•snehesht•1d ago•383 comments

Apple and a Hacker's Future

https://stratechery.com/2026/apple-and-a-hackers-future/
105•maguay•3h ago•79 comments

In the wake of Tippett Studios’ closure, a digital archive appears online

https://filmstories.co.uk/news/tippett-studios-in-the-wake-of-its-closure-a-digital-archive-of-an...
183•rdmuser•17h ago•20 comments

We ported the original Doom to SQL

https://cedardb.com/blog/sqldoom/
208•Vaslo•1d ago•34 comments

A browser-native classic Visual Basic VB6 IDE

https://wieslawsoltes.github.io/VB6/
309•wiso•19h ago•101 comments

First Implantable Cochlear Implant Launches

https://spectrum.ieee.org/fully-implantable-cochlear-implant
37•rbanffy•4d ago•31 comments

The Tao of Backup

http://www.taobackup.com/index.html
193•vntok•3d ago•71 comments

ExplainDB: A Database System Built for Understandability

https://github.com/explaindb/explaindb
27•pykello•3d ago•1 comments

Infidel goes wild

https://blog.zarfhome.com/2026/10/infidel-goes-wild
154•tobr•2d ago•30 comments

Tell HN: Uceprotect is extorting website owners

17•goldenmember•1h ago•7 comments

Turn off Apple Intelligence on macOS 27 and get its disk space back

https://github.com/omlahore/RemoveMacAI
663•privacyisntdead•18h ago•453 comments

The Era of Software Quality, or the Era of Ostriches?

https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2026/10/02/the-era-of-software-quality-or-the-era-of-ostriches/
22•birdculture•1h ago•4 comments

The Philadelphia Inquirer built Scrape, an AI tool to surface hyperlocal news

https://www.lenfestinstitute.org/solutions-resources/philadelphia-inquirer-scrape-ai-hyperlocal-n...
36•giuliomagnifico•3d ago•12 comments

Lace and Labor: Lessons from the actual Luddites

https://articlesofinterest.substack.com/p/lace-and-labor
45•surprisetalk•5d ago•2 comments

Automating my 35mm film scanning pipeline

https://shannadige.com/blog/darkroom/
95•shannadige•1d ago•65 comments

Improper redaction reveals Google Data Center water and electricity usage

https://www.1011now.com/2026/09/30/more-questions-than-answers-about-lincolns-google-data-center-...
456•sensanaty•18h ago•596 comments

What is going on with ceiling fans

https://mcmansionhell.com/post/829127919552151552/what-is-going-on-with-ceiling-fans
364•colinprince•4d ago•314 comments

Decision models like Jev don't beat LLM-as-a-judge or traditional classifiers

https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2026/10/02/benchmarking-ai-decision-models-against-traditi...
113•tomncooper•3d ago•43 comments

Safe Optimistic Lock Coupling

http://databasearchitects.blogspot.com/2026/04/safe-optimistic-lock-coupling.html
37•greghn•3d ago•6 comments

Powerless F1 drivers frustrated by Bahrain F1 software glitch

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/horrible-totally-unacceptable-powerless-f1-drivers-frustrated-...
253•llm_nerd•12h ago•217 comments

Demystifying Tufte's data-ink ratio

https://tuftesrazor.scienceux.org/
64•s4074433•2d ago•30 comments
Open in hackernews

Accept 'bad things' in return for benefits of AI, says Sam Altman

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/05/sam-altman-open-ai-chatgpt-benefits-risks
33•samizdis•1h ago

Comments

2OEH8eoCRo0•1h ago
Bad things like what? Armed psychopaths targeting AI executives?
jeanpah•58m ago
Good things like what? Mass unemployment and concentration of power?
Joker_vD•55m ago
It really is the best of all the possible worlds, you know.
DarkWiiPlayer•47m ago
Why just the psychopaths? What about the risk of perfectly healthy, reasonable armed people targeting AI executives?
ejee•43m ago
I sometimes wonder if the optimal outcome is - the industry leaders have at it and go for accelerated progress but accept they then place themselves in danger.

I have a lot of interest in seeing how the common person response in this scenario.

GolfPopper•34m ago
With the increasing development of capable drones, I keep wondering how long it's going to be before we start seeing people who have given up on law and regulation resorting to drone-enacted vigilantism.
jackb4040•13m ago
Drone warfare relies on large numbers of drones overwhelming enemy electronic warfare countermeasures, in urban or open landscapes that haven't been specifically designed against it. A billionaire in a western country against a rag-tag group of guerrillas making drones from commodity radios is just about the least favorable conditions for it that could exist. You may catch a couple of them on accident up front, but they're very well-suited to adapt to it.
jackb4040•20m ago
Effective altruist / rationalist doctrine is that the best thing a person can do is become ultrawealthy and use that wealth to fund technological progress. It is an ideology tailor-made for those who strive to become the richest person alive, and / or want to worship that person as a god.

When they speak of "existential consequences", it is not as members of humanity. It is a projection of their control over humanity. Personal risk for them is just being made into a regular human (no longer being ultrawealthy). They can't even contemplate physical risk. Case in point, this exact same class of people are buying up private islands and literally purchasing the blood of poorer people.

They would never accept your wager. It's the kind of thing Elon Musk would say "sounds interesting" to on Joe Rogan ten years ago, and then the only consequence after that would be his fanboys reminding everyone how cool it was that he said that.

jackb4040•37m ago
Targeting? I think you meant to say "upstanding citizen in the vicinity when chemical reaction leads to AI-CEO-involved incident"
hagbard_c•31m ago
Don't go there. One of the things separating functional states - warts and all - from failed ones is that the populace does not turn to deadly violence to settle disagreements and griefs. Yes, there are people who shoot/stab/${kill_method} other people but they are prosecuted as criminals, i.e. the opposite of those perfectly healthy, reasonable armed people you mention.

Increased acceptance of political violence begets more political violence which in turn seems to increase its acceptance, see e.g. the killing of the healthcare CEO and subsequent arrest of the killer which significantly increased "democrats" support for political violence [1] so be careful what you ask for.

[1 https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article/doi/10.1093/poq...

mdp2021•25m ago
> separating functional states - warts and all - from failed ones

Systemic failure triggers the parasystemic shortcuts. Lack of justice and fairness has grave consequences - they must be curbed with justice and fairness (and their roots) exactly.

hagbard_c•15m ago
What systemic failure? That term, 'systemic', is used rather often without explaining where things actually go wrong ('systemic racism' etc.) and keeps on being used after the supposed 'systemic failures' have been proven to be incorrect. That the wheels of Justice move slowly does not imply 'systemic failure', it is inherent to the institution when confronted with a fast-moving development like 'AI'. Move fast and break things works in software development and rocket science but it is anathema to the system of justice. If it weren't many of us would have been imprisoned already for supposed 'crimes' just because some activist cobbled up a new law under which to prosecute us. That might be fine for the parasites/lawyers but it would be the end of public trust in the system of justice which in turn would bring the acceptance of mob justice closer.
GolfPopper•39m ago
The AI executives are the psychopaths.
LoganDark•59m ago
No, we should not "accept" bad things. We can look forward to benefits, but BENEFITS ARE NOT AN EXCUSE FOR THE BAD THINGS. Ever.

Edit: I mean that we should continue to shun antisocial behavior even when it involves LLMs, not that we should blame the technology. The technology isn't an excuse, no technology should ever be an excuse -- that's what I mean by not "accepting" bad things. I don't mean that LLMs are not "worth it" thanks to the abuse, just that we should continue to treat abuse as such rather than giving anybody a free pass.

RealityVoid•57m ago
This is kind of how the world works. We have a set of tradeoffs to make and the downside of the tradeoff we accept in exchange of the advantages.
herrherrmann•53m ago
Not really. Rich entitled tech bros don’t dictate how the world works. There is lots of progress possible without needing the vast majority of people to pay a huge price for it.
RealityVoid•43m ago
I've said nothing about who dictates. I have said that everything in life is a tradeoff and making a tradeoff requires talking the bad with the good. It's effectively something we can't escape. If we want to do this tradeoff with AI, I did not take a positions as well. But I posit there will be tradeoffs.
LoganDark•51m ago
No, the benefits of AI do not mean anything like we have to accept AI slop contributions to open-source projects. We can still shun the blatant abuse. We don't have to just shut up about it because we might stop frontier development. We won't.

To me, "accept" means to socially tolerate it. No. Bad. It's not socially tolerable. It is still wrong to use LLMs for evil. I don't think that means LLMs are a fundamentally evil technology, but that does NOT mean anyone should get a free pass to use them FOR evil.

mschuster91•58m ago
Yeah thanks but no thanks. Society does not have to accept "bad things". Society can pass laws to prohibit bad things.

And society will pass laws. Europe has already begun doing so, and the US will once this goddamn corrupt administration is gone. People are already protesting against AI, especially against datacenters and surveillance like Flock. It's only a matter of time until individual actors end up in the focus of protests.

omnicognate•52m ago
I was with you up to the last sentence.
mschuster91•40m ago
Think of society as a pressure cooker and Sam Altman, OpenAI etc. as the oven's fire.

There's now just three possible futures:

- the fire is extinguished, aka the AI actors go bust. Nothing bad happens. Well, a bunch of rich people will be less rich, but society as a whole will be somewhat all right.

- the relief valve (society passing laws) is activated, pressure escapes.

- there is no pressure relief. Eventually, the pressure cooker bursts, aka revolution.

tikimcfee•51m ago
You are correct. I appreciate your willingness to say it's societal and therefore by construction political. And, the idea that "we accept the bad things" is so prevalent in this community that it's baffling. I have been more vocal (and emotionally representing, to admit) about how this community is willing to condemn the abuse of privacy, but then share excitement about agents and LLM work from Facebook and the like. The reasoning is usual, "yeah well someone is going to do it," or, "well it's hard or impossible to make people not use it, so what's your solution?" I've been finding that mentality is both a blockade to progress, and maddening to boot. If those same minds instead did something about it by sharing the difficulty with others, proselytizing the importance of sharing your opinion about what the bad thing is, and then standing by it whether it's hard or not - that would actually help things be not so bad.
trollbridge•52m ago
Note that the regulation he’s pushing back against is simply having third party defined and reviewed guardrails, as opposed to “just trust us bro”.
jackb4040•41m ago
They shift between

"we need the government to halt model training for us (and potential competitors who are currently behind us) due to hypothetical sci-fi future bad things"

on the one hand, and then

"we should not face consequences for that time we helped a teenager plan a mass shooting"

on the other so effortlessly, so instantaneously. And virtually the entire media helps them do it!

bunderbunder•14m ago
Which is generally accepted for organizations that have the ability to cause modest harm in the financial markets. He's claiming to have the ability to wipe out humanity, and should have the courage of his convictions.
Hamuko•51m ago
I'll consider it when Sam starts accepting getting Molotov cocktails thrown at his house. Surely we all need to accept bad things, right?
DarkWiiPlayer•50m ago
I believe the world should accept the "bad things" that result from allowing me to take other people's property, because of all the good I'd do with the money I'd take from the rich.

Hear me out, I know common sense says theft is bad, but just think about the hungry children I could feed if the world just agreed to let me take whatever I wanted.

...except AI won't even feed hungry children, it will only make the rich richer and flood the internet with slop.

reallymental•50m ago
Interesting, I wonder what the public's opinion would be if every plastic/chemical maker out there says the exact same thing.
mdp2021•42m ago
...They do, implicitly? If the "public opinion" changed perspective in either way after such statement, they would have missed the facts.
monideas•32m ago
There are thousands of active plastic and chemicals plants in the US and yes occasionally there are accidents, yet there are still thousands of active plastic and chemical plants in the US.
reallymental•19m ago
Both the child comments to my parent allude to the same thing. The chemical companies are under mountains of regulations, all reinforced with engineering societies (which may be just as toothless, but at least they're guaranteeing that the universities that adopt their standards, have a certain level of education their students absorb, about the dangers of what they're working on and how to make it safer.), education, societal pressure etc.

Mech engineers always overbuild things with safety factors in the 2x and 10x levels.

Why not just remove the neural/earth wires from all buildings and sockets? That'll do a whole lot of good by saving a bunch of copper, that's a tight resource I hear.

Also, screw air/sea regulation as well. We'll all just stand in the cabins, that'll increase Ryan air's failing profitability. Charge me for bringing my shoes on board too, I'm too rich anyway, skim any change off of my pocket please.

This slope is very very slippery.

mdp2021•
fourseventy•50m ago
Every technology advancement comes with good things and bad things. Fire - Good: can cook food, Bad: can be used for war.
agos•48m ago
If fire was invented today, it would be a subscription
DarkWiiPlayer•45m ago
> If fire was invented today

You know you're starting to be personally affected by the decline of civilization when your brain can conjure up the notion of fire being "invented".

mdp2021•38m ago
"You know there is trouble when reality surpasses fantasy" (~~ Berke Breathed)

We know we are in trouble.

fwlr•39m ago
OpenFlame’s latest model has really good scores on FahrenBench but I’m having a lot of trouble keeping it contained. I use a proper firepit but it keeps spreading to nearby homes and vehicles.
harimau777•41m ago
That doesn't mean that the good and bad things are equitably distributed, that the good and bad things happen at the same time, or that the bad outweighs the good. All three issues are at play here: The benefits are likely to disproportionately help the rich and the pain is likely to disproportionately help the poor. New prosperity is likely to come too late for the people whose lives are being disrupted. It seems likely that the benefits of culture being consumed by AI slop outweighs the benefits (I'd like to be more detailed, but honeslty it isn't completely clear what the benefits are).
neonnoodle•49m ago
'Bad things' [for you] in return for benefits [for me].
palmotea•47m ago
"Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
teekert•44m ago
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
datsci_est_2015•44m ago
I’ll add one to the pile:

“Socialize the costs, privatize the profits.”

delis-thumbs-7e•48m ago
I think the AI provider whose model does “bad things” should be held responsible of such things, going to a “bad place” - such as a prison - if the “bad things” are bad enough. Let’s see how that affects your IPO.

E: typos

jameskilton•47m ago
I will accept the "bad things" if and only when Sam Altman exposes himself to those bad things first e.g., living next door to an AI data center, being subjected to 24/7 surveillance, and having everything he says and does scrutinized for illegal activity, ticketing and jailing him appropriately.

Until that happens, no. Sam Altman is here telling us to accept the cruelty of his actions and his company so that he can be more wealthy.

delis-thumbs-7e•35m ago
I don’t think he needs or wants any more money. These guys already have so much moolah that it is virtually meaningless to them. They want power. Remember when Zuck tried to run for president?
Lerc•16m ago
>Remember when Zuck tried to run for president?

No. Which election?

damnesian•15m ago
this is how extreme wealth bewitches the brain.

I'm no communist, but by all measures extreme disparity has nothing but bad consequences for any society.

mdp2021•34m ago
> being subjected to 24/7 surveillance, and having everything he says and does scrutinized for illegal activity, ticketing and jailing him appropriately

That thing has been rising for decades - why should Sam Altman now become the culprit and scapegoat?

That of surveillance and the use of pattern matching is a legislative matter - not a matter of regulating RnD.

Lerc•47m ago
Is this essentially a claim of the form that we should accept that car accidents happen if we are to drive cars?

It is certainly pitched as if it is a claim we should be accepting of individual instances. Which is not the same as accepting that they occur.

There's a big difference between acknowledging that something cannot be universally beneficial and claiming that the bad aspects are inconsequential.

tarkin2•41m ago
Is that title absent of meaning? Or at least highly misleading.

Every invention has positives and negatives. But no inventor or factory is at liberty to force the negatives upon society without regulation, or in Sam's case without being subject to the laws on theft and hacking.

He may as well come out and say "the ends justify the means" and the ends of course benefit Sam, and those subject to injustice, or negative externalities, should be happy that they can pay Sam for a subscription.

Or perhaps "Look, yes I stole, and yes I hacked, but now I've got this amazing tool you can use for free, and when you use it, and give me money for the full version, it will eventually replace you in the workplace and it will reduce you and your kids intellect after you outsource your thinking to it, and become dependent on it, which will be fine because you can just use the tool even more to make up for that."

Of course with a president who believes him to be above the law and American institutions, is it any wonder the people at the top of American society also believe it to be true? Not to mention their cheerleaders in the populous.

mdp2021•30m ago
> Is that a sentence absent of meaning? Or at least highly misleading.

Do you mean:

> “I wouldn’t take a trade of saying we will make sure there’s no major hacks, there’s no misuse of this technology, there’s zero scams or all the other bad things that will happen because I think that people will do tremendously – orders of magnitude – more good stuff than bad stuff.”

metalman•39m ago
someone could, as a favor, tell them to check the best before date on the rationalists koolaid, or maybe go back to the old formula that had a lot more woooo in it, in any case it's still too early on a monday to be indulging so heavily.
snazz•38m ago
> “There’s about a 50% chance we all die because of the development of smarter-than-human AI systems,” he said, adding that actions taken over the next two to 10 years would be decisive.

What’s the mechanism by which this happens? I feel like people making these predictions live on a different planet.

harimau777•31m ago
It seems notable to me that the tech bros ignore the obvious solution:

If we assume that they are right: AI is inevitable and certain significant negatives cannot be avoided, then the obvious solution is for society to put together a social safety net for those who are effected. Altman could easily decide to campaign for and donate to a party which made serious strides towards establishing such a safety net.

The fact that they ignore the obvious solution suggests to me that they aren't quite being honest about their motives.

pupppet•22m ago
And if the bad things happen, just mosey on down to your private island or doomsday bunker.
r-u-serious•14m ago
The "benefits" being Sammy's bottom line, I guess.
LaSombra•14m ago
How about no? The benefits are not really benefits, are they really? Can't seem to find a benefit out of it, so, no. I don't need to accept any of it.
harimau777•5m ago
I don't think it is black and white. There's a difference between the reasonable need for justice to move slowly and moving so slowly that it effectively never materializes for those being hurt. Relief is not useful if you are long dead before it arrives.

Is it possible that you might be in a bit of a bubble? At least in the community that I live in there is already virtually no public trust in our "justice" system.

hagbard_c•24m ago
OK, cowardly down-voter, please explain why you think I'm wrong here instead of just hiding behind that button. This is a discussion site, not a Party Congress, we're here to discuss things. As it stands now I can only assume you want more political violence. Do you? If so, why?
harimau777•15m ago
I can't speak to the person who downvoted you, but one possibility is that they see that political violence is already common; the only thing that has changed recently is that it is becoming more evenly distributed. Queer people, protesters, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor, etc. have long been subject to various forms of harm by those in power. All that has changed is that those in power are now also experiencing harm.
2OEH8eoCRo0•11m ago
> This is a discussion site, not a Party Congress

> Don't go there.

Which is it? Discuss or don't go there.

harimau777•23m ago
What's the alternative? The system is completely nonresponsive to the poor and oppressed. Right or wrong, it is only natural that people turn to violence when they have no other option.
nailer•50m ago
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
LoganDark•49m ago
They're twisting my definition of the word "accept". I was clarifying what I meant with an example. I think instances of evil behavior need to be shunned regardless of the other benefits of the technologies being used for evil. No one should get a free pass to do evil based on the technology.

I also believe the technology itself deserves to be improved so that it can be used for good. That doesn't mean I want more evil or to be more accepting towards evil. Evil should still be shunned.

harimau777•46m ago
Can you expand on this? It is not clear what part of the post you regard as attacking a strawman.
LoganDark•44m ago
It probably looked like I was equating "accepting the tradeoffs" to "condoning LLM slop contributions to open source projects". I was referring to enabling individual instances of abuse though, not accepting the technology overall in spite of the bad behavior. It's enabling the individual instances that I'm protesting, because I firmly believe we shouldn't. I should've been clearer, my bad.
iAMkenough•51m ago
Exactly. We accept the downside of being monitored and manipulated by the billionaire class in order to enjoy the fruits of social media.
ejee•44m ago
Trade offs start with comparing two goods btw.

I suppose monitoring is a good in the eyes of those who influence society.

iAMkenough•43m ago
Social media isn’t a good? I don’t understand your point.
harimau777•18m ago
I think it ceased to be a good when it switched from empowering users to force feeding users. For example, Facebook's early "people you may know" algorithm was spectacular. It allowed me to reconnect with a long lost childhood friend and made it easy to find members of my community. However, that changed when it switched from being something that I could choose to use to the algorithm force injecting stuff into my feed.
iAMkenough•14m ago
That’s a good point. The Billionaire class lures us in to accept the trade-offs, and then they can do whatever they want after we’ve long accepted the downsides of trading away our privacy.
harimau777•49m ago
Who gets to make that decision?
RealityVoid•45m ago
Nobody and everyone. Usually the incentives and local constraints and culture meld to have people in an area converge on a set of practices.
harimau777•39m ago
I don't think that's how it actually works in practice. In practice it is dramatically more likely that the rich and powerful get to decide who makes the tradeoffs. That is dangerous in normal times but especially considering the revealed nature and priorities of the tech bros and fascists currently in power.
palmotea•44m ago
> Who gets to make that decision?

Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, Elon Musk, David Sacks, etc. All the rest of you proles can fuck off. Stay in your lane.

ejee•46m ago
Nice try. Try going deeper.
14m ago
Good point - but I would not be able to easily define good obvious universal constraints for the technologies relevant to the submission.
monideas•8m ago
This culture around rigor and safety in chemical plants came many decades after their introduction as a general class of industry. They used to just dump the waste directly into the rivers and it wasn’t even illegal.

This is a new type of technology, there is no real sense of its limits or capabilities. Regulating it appropriately or even just understanding best practices for using it is still way out by many years.

And also every country is working on it so it will get built and used for economic and military purposes, by someone.

This is just the nature of it. And yes there’s nothing at all that stops the US from doing something self destructive in terms of over regulation. I suspect this will happen eventually but Chinese models are really good.

harimau777•10m ago
I think that there is something to what you are saying, but I don't think it is that simple. A new technology could change things by making previous abuses much more common. To give an extreme example, mass murder has always been possible; however, we restrict nuclear weapons because they make it so much more easy and therefore so much more ripe for abuse.

Similarly, there is a big difference between the police keeping a physical record book of mugshots, the police employing experts to maintain a database, and AI allowing nearly anyone to perform in depth surveilance.