#define PAGE_IN(x) { u->page = (x); u->dev[0x0f] = 1; }
#define PAGE_OUT(x) { u->dev[0x0f] = 1; }
#define SET_PAGE(x) { u->page = (x); }
#define GET_PAGE(x) { x = u->page; }
int
uxn_eval(Uxn *u, Uint16 pc)
{
...
switch(instr & 0x1f) {
...
case 0x1a: /* PAGE_IN */ PEEK(a, pc) PAGE_IN(a) pc += 1 + bs; break;
case 0x1b: /* PAGE_OUT */ PEEK(a, pc) PAGE_OUT(a) pc += 1 + bs; break;
case 0x1c: /* SET_PAGE */ PEEK(a, pc) SET_PAGE(a) pc += 1 + bs; break;
case 0x1d: /* GET_PAGE */ GET_PAGE(a) PUSH(src, a) break;
...
}
...
The Case for a New HN Guideline on AI-Generated Content
This is a timely discussion. While AI is an invaluable tool, the issue isn't using AI—it's using it to replace genuine engagement, leading to "low-signal" contributions. The Problem with Unfiltered AI Replies
Instead of an outright ban, which punishes useful use cases, a new guideline should focus on human value-add and presentation.
The spirit of the guideline should be: If you use an LLM, your contribution must be more than the LLM's output.
Ultimately, the community downvotes already function to filter low-effort posts, but a clear guideline would efficiently communicate the shared norm: AI is a tool for the human conversation, not a replacement for it.