WeSearch
Show HN: 'behaviour-preserving' AI refactors were not

Show HN: 'behaviour-preserving' AI refactors were not

·3 min read · 0 reactions · 0 comments · 5 views
More from GitHub ai Compare coverage Trending Talk Blindspots Daily Sources Live wire
TL;DR · WeSearch summary

When they disagree it hands you the exact input that separates them. The seven channels Return value · exception raised · warnings · stdout · stderr · argument mutation · object state. A narrow definition of behaviour does not under-report, it lies, because whatever sits outside the definition comes back as no_change.

Key facts
About this source

Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 4,683 of its stories.

Original article
GitHub
Read full at GitHub →

Story provenance

Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →

Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.

Record

Original publisherGitHub
Canonical URLhttps://github.com/runboth/runboth
Publication timeSun, 13 Sep 2026 17:40:16 +0000
Retrieval time2026-09-13T17:46:50.681Z
Last seen2026-09-13T17:46:50.681Z
Headline sourcePublisher (no WeSearch rewrite)
Excerpt sourcepublisher body
Excerpt methodFirst ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited.
SummaryWeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer)
Summary source textcontentText
Citation coverageSummary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL.
Clusterv8Sj8j496Y_g · 1 stories
Cluster logicGrouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison.
Ranking reasonStory pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking.
Publisher visitYes — open original
Substitutes article?No — link-out required for full text

Rights status (four layers)

Publisher-declared
No publisher-confirmed rights record for this source yet.
Machine-readable
No source-specific machine-readable restriction detected beyond the public feed.
WeSearch interpretation
WeSearch declared handling (basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed). This is WeSearch policy, not a legal grant on the publisher's behalf.
Unknown
Retrieval and training permissions are not asserted unless the publisher confirms them.

WeSearch handling by dimension

Indexing May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? Allowed
Snippet May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? Allowed
AI summary May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? Limited
Retrieval / RAG May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? Not asserted
Model training May the content be used to train AI models? Not asserted
Commercial reuse May the content be reused commercially? Not permitted

Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.

Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand

RunBoth An AI changed your code. RunBoth runs both versions and tells you what actually behaves differently, including the functions nobody touched. runboth.dev · How it works · Red team results $ git commit -m "refactor: tidy up the rates module" BLOCKED: the behaviour changed and your message does not say so. rate(100) used to: return 0.1 now: return 0.0 AND 1 function you did NOT touch now behaves differently, because it calls what you changed: total(2.5, 100) pkg/invoice.py used to: return 225.0 now: return 250.0 What it does It checks out both versions of your code, generates inputs for every changed function from its signature and from the constants mined out of its own bytecode, runs both versions in separate sandboxed subprocesses, and compares seven observation channels.

Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at GitHub.

Anonymous · no account needed
Share 𝕏 Facebook Reddit LinkedIn Threads WhatsApp Bluesky Mastodon Email

Discussion

0 comments

More from GitHub