Live data from Hacker News

The Hacker's Renaissance (2025)

phrack.org

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: The Hacker's Renaissance (2025)

#81
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original phrack was (i'm assuming) 7-bit ascii, so obviously it wouldn't have used characters that aren't ascii...

The text written in LLMish for that Phrack intro uses ASCII characters for everything, including quotes and ellipsis. There's one non-ASCII Unicode codepoint that made it through and it's the telltale sign of LLMish. They also use a monospaced font and ASCII art (well at least ASCII aligned titles) to make it look old-school cool. Honestly I don't understand how anyone can defend this LLMish garbage.

i'm not really defending it per se, i just think the way you phrased your argument was silly.

in general though, i think it does get tiresome when people attack a piece solely based on the use of LLM editing instead of its merits (or lack thereof). That is ultimately an ad hominem. The reason to dislike LLM writing is because typically its vapid, not due to the LLM in and of itself.

Re: The Hacker's Renaissance (2025)

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not something that should be encouraged. Hacking together projects like a wifi calculator is fun, harmless and builds knowledge. Hacking a phoneline can land a kid in jail. Attacking public infra is not something that should be treated lightly.

This is exactly the kind of sanitized hacking this article is talking about.

Hang on, ethics does not disappear just because you're a hacker (I know there are multiple usages of hacker).

Back then, if you were a phreaker, you basically got a few free phone calls. And learned a lot about the telephone system. I think for all intents and purposes you were a rounding error and really weren't doing any major harm (i.e. lowering slightly the profit of huge hulking corporations that were quite well). If you were a classic MIT hacker, you never even entertained criminal activities in the first place. I guess the 2600 culture and the Hacker manifesto is more descendant of phreakers and early internet hackers in the "break into computers" sense. But even then, as it says, "their crime was curiosity", and the purpose still was never to steal stuff. That's what criminals do. If you break things as you learn, you have the responsibility for your breakage. If you harm people that can be real harm. There's a difference between unsanitized (and harmless) and plainly an asshole. You gotta learn the difference.

Honestly I think this point is really important to drive today, because if we had script kiddies a few decades ago, today we can have Uber-Script-Kiddies, probably you can get a hold of some jailbroken LLM model and break serious things without technical knowledge or good intentions. Don't do it, kids.

But overall I don't see how it's worthwhile to actually do this kind of hacking today, specially the more attacking kind. I think there is today so many more resources for learning things non-destructively (although I'm sure there always were some).

The hacker mythos in my opinion is due to the mythos that are always built around power. There were the mythos of warriors, of sorcerers, etc., there was the shadowy ninja, and so many others -- they usually wielded some special skill, power or ability. In the case of hackers, they wielded special control and knowledge of computers to do their bidding. I think this kind of myth would happen regardless of intentions -- to break or to defend. It draws our attention and imagination I guess. Kind of like being a magician in an era dominated by communicating machines.

Naturally, the distinction between wielding those powers for good reasons and bad ones would emerge. That's the black hat and grey/white hats. Side note I think the black=bad, white=good association is just a kind of bad one, and nonetheless extremely overused at this point, but I digress. The thing is, what you do have consequences. If the only consequence is you learning stuff, maybe some minor nuisance to a megacorp (like downloading a e-book you don't plan on buying for ), then I think that's the good ole' hacker spirit.

I think the observation and a little bit of daredevil spirit is useful because almost every experiment we do IRL tends to carry at least a little bit of risk. We need to manage this risk wisely. For example, if you're messing with electronics you can run the risk of electrocuting yourself or destroying your device. The right spirit is not don't do it, but learn to do it safely enough, and at an acceptable risk to your device. If you wanted to play with radio transmissions, you run the risk of disrupting communications from emergency services and medical devices. Again, it's not "don't do it", but "know what you're doing". If you're playing with computers, (and you were skilled enough; which most of us (thankfully?) aren't) you can basically unleash a minor disaster. The answer is as always not "don't do it", but "know what you're doing and what you're playing with". Also of course for entrepreneurship as well, it's not "don't do it, never make anything". Everything carries risks. The important thing is to study well enough the risks of what you're doing until you can be reasonably sure (in proportion to the risk) the benefits outweigh the risks. Have integrity. Else yea, don't do it. Don't shove a gazillion ads into my eyeballs until I almost lose my mind, thank you very much.

Hackers are all part of society. That's what Hacking the Planet means in spirit. Use the magic sand to save the world. Wield the beauty of the baud... the mastery of the switch. Or Just learn and have some harmless fun, make someone smile, that might be better than any software or widget you could ever make.

Re: The Hacker's Renaissance (2025)

#83
post #23

The Hacker Spirit was largely subsidized on the (relatively) high salaries afforded to engineers*. What happens when that well dries up? Plus the relative freedom available to said hackers in the past, that is now being choked by the very same tools they've built. We like to think of ourselves as capable systems designers, coming up with complex reliable/durable/highly-available/distributed systems to be proud of. Bu…

The hacker culture in Latin America was largely driven by frustration with the subpar hardware/software options available to the general public, and the financial inaccessibility of better options. So I wouldn't say that financial stability is a prerequisite for hacker culture to thrive.

That's the main reason why most embedded devices and Android phone hackers (or more recently, ROM developers) are from Russia, Brazil or India. It's more of trying to squeeze more performance from a cheaper option... and having the time to do it. Once you're happy enough (not even perfectly!) with your product and you don't have the time to try to improve it yourself, you just won't.

The hacker culture in the West is more related to creating a thing, and doing everything yourself from scratch on bare metal components - often for the fun and challenge, rather than necessity.

Re: The Hacker's Renaissance (2025)

#85
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text written in LLMish for that Phrack intro uses ASCII characters for everything, including quotes and ellipsis. There's one non-ASCII Unicode codepoint that made it through and it's the telltale sign of LLMish. They also use a monospaced font and ASCII art (well at least ASCII aligned titles) to make it look old-school cool. Honestly I don't understand how anyone can defend this LLMish garbage.

i'm not really defending it per se, i just think the way you phrased your argument was silly. in general though, i think it does get tiresome when people attack a piece solely based on the use of LLM editing instead of its merits (or lack thereof). That is ultimately an ad hominem. The reason to dislike LLM writing is because typically its vapid, not due to the LLM in and of itself.

I think one reason is also the style? Like you can not like the LLM style and that's a perfectly valid to reason to not like it.

Attacking the use of LLMs might just be shorthand for the style or the long-winded vacuousness that people don't like.

I agree that if someone used an LLM and the result is _good_, I'm not sure I would care. But that generally doesn't happen yet, so one is a proxy for the other.

Re: The Hacker's Renaissance (2025)

#86
post #73
post #64

Man everyone says every article/blog post that is on HN is written by an LLM. Almost every single post.. I actually didn't get strong AI vibes from this one but maybe I just am bad at recognizing. Sure it's a bit cringy but I think that's kinda the point? idk...i like the idea of keeping the culture of exploration of technology just for the sake of it (not to monetize everything) alive.

You're bad at recognizing it, sorry to say. You might still like the content or even the style, which is fine. But know that it was mostly written by a machine, not a human.

An em dash does not make the fact that it is written by LLM. Its use alone signals a command of style and precision. Nearly every Newspaper article is written by an LLM, if we follow this logic.

Re: The Hacker's Renaissance (2025)

#87

From the article > Then: Phrack was the Rosetta Stone. 2600 was gospel. IRC was sacred ground. Zines were copied, not monetized. We earned respect by contributing tools, ideas, or code, never by chasing clout. 2600: The Hacker Quarterly is definitely not quite what it was decades ago, but I was still so giddy when my first article got published there that I dereferenced a null pointer on purpose.

Nobody back then would have ever said IRC was “sacred ground.” What does that even mean? And I read 2600 and also occasionally submitted, but it certainly wasn’t treated as gospel. Also of course there was clout chasing — most of the scene was teenagers trying to impress each other!

> What does that even mean?

This article is the perfect exemplification of that Good Will Hunting quote: "So if I asked you about art you’d probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo? You know a lot about him. Life’s work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I bet you can’t tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You’ve never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling. Seen that."

This article is clearly written by an LLM, so it figures that it uses bad analogies and silly tropes. It's the average of badly written stuff on the subject, and there was a lot of badly written stuff about this subject back in the day.

Re: The Hacker's Renaissance (2025)

#88
post #86
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're bad at recognizing it, sorry to say. You might still like the content or even the style, which is fine. But know that it was mostly written by a machine, not a human.

An em dash does not make the fact that it is written by LLM. Its use alone signals a command of style and precision. Nearly every Newspaper article is written by an LLM, if we follow this logic.

> An em dash does not make the fact that it is written by LLM.

Agreed. 100%

> Its use alone signals a command of style and precision.

Bollocks — utter bollicks — popplecock evon.

Re: The Hacker's Renaissance (2025)

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the kind of sanitized hacking this article is talking about.

Hang on, ethics does not disappear just because you're a hacker (I know there are multiple usages of hacker). Back then, if you were a phreaker, you basically got a few free phone calls. And learned a lot about the telephone system. I think for all intents and purposes you were a rounding error and really weren't doing any major harm (i.e. lowering slightly the profit of huge hulking corporations that were quite well…

[dead]

Re: The Hacker's Renaissance (2025)

#90
post #11

This sounds like ChatGPT.

Uh, should have used Claude. Gpt is embarassing. You won’t get my point so I have to lay it bare: That doesn’t matter. Content counts and not the methods to create it.

Hey juleiie, do you retract the death threat you made against me, or do you still stand by it?
Post reply on HN