Viewing profile — tiny-automates
tiny-automates
HN member- Joined
- Sat, Feb 07, 2026, 4:17 AM UTC
- HN karma
- 269
- Public activity
- 26 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About tiny-automates
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
- story
-
comment
Comment #47767257
fetch : https://www.tinyfish.ai/blog/production-grade-web-fetching-f...
-
comment
Comment #47767233
hey hn, we've been building the web infrastructure for ai agents at tinyfish. our agent primitive was already out. just went live with 3 new primitives - search, fetch, and browser…
- story
-
comment
Comment #47650646
thanks! glad the visuals helped, we wanted the data to speak for itself.
-
comment
Comment #47650628
yeah that's basically the whole thesis compressed into six words. we kept trying to articulate why the CLI worked better and it always came back to that - MCP does discovery really…
- comment
-
comment
Comment #46986297
the finding that buried everyone: moving "allow yourself to be shut down" from the user prompt to the system prompt made models sabotage more often, not less. Grok 4 went from 93% …
-
story
Ask HN: How do you maximize your luck surface area?
been thinking about this a lot lately. the original idea is simple : luck = doing × telling. but after 10 years of actively running this playbook, i think the model undersells what…
-
comment
Comment #46956043
i'm building TinyFish ( https://tinyfish.ai )- browser automation APIs built for AI agents. most agent frameworks treat the browser like a human would (screenshot, click, pray), wh…
-
comment
Comment #46956008
agreed, and i'd go further - the harness is where evaluation actually happens, not in some separate benchmark suite. rhe model doesn't know if it succeeded at a web task. the harne…
-
comment
Comment #46955996
the harness being "9 lines of code" is deceptive in the same way a web server is "just accept connections and serve files." the hard part isn't the loop itself — it's everything ar…
-
comment
Comment #46955397
the planner-executor isolation point is what stood out to me. right now most browser agent frameworks treat the LLM as both the decision-maker and the one processing untrusted cont…
- story
-
comment
Comment #46954921
[flagged]
- story
-
comment
Comment #46954860
agree that this is a protocol-level issue, not framework-specific. but the "all external tool calls require confirmation prompts" mitigation doesn't really apply here - the exfil h…
-
comment
Comment #46954849
the unfurling vector is elegant because it exploits a feature that predates LLMs entirely, link previews were designed for human-shared URLs where the sender is trusted. once an LL…
-
comment
Comment #46954834
that's the user-facing definition but the implementation distinction matters more. "takes longer than you're willing to wait" describes the UX, not the architecture. the engineerin…
-
comment
Comment #46954754
"background job" is actually the more honest framing. the interesting design question you're pointing at, what happens when it wants attention, is where the real complexity lives. …
- comment
-
comment
Comment #46921368
frontend QA is exactly where i've seen the biggest ROI with browser agents. the gap with Playwright MCP specifically is that it assumes the agent can reason about CSS selectors and…
-
comment
Comment #46921351
the abstraction level argument is spot on. i've been working on browser automation for AI agents and the biggest lesson has been that exposing Playwright-level primitives to a foun…
-
comment
Comment #46921318
i go back and forth on this. when i'm working on something where the hard part is the actual algorithm, say custom scheduling logic or a non-trivial state machine, i need my hands …
-
comment
Comment #46921299
i've been building agent tooling for a while and this is the question i keep coming back to. the actual failure mode isn't messy code, agents produce reasonably clean, well-typed o…