HN user

arionhardison

453 karma

e: a@project20x.com

Posts16
Comments119
View on HN

I'm old enough to remember when "Google" was something that ended conversations. People — myself included — would literally say "Google it," the facts would be located, and that was that. Now that Google wants to be the conversation, I'm worried there will no longer be a bias-free source of information for the masses.

This is all new, so I may be a bit hyperbolic, but the reason OpenAI introducing ads bothers me is the implicit (or even explicit) bias that can be smuggled into a chat in ways that simply aren't possible when you're just clicking through to an external source. There are all kinds of implications to Google no longer being that source of truth, even by default. Maybe this has quietly been the case for a long time, but this feels like the final move — pushing their ad bias (i.e., whoever paid the most) into a conversational system, where dark patterns are far easier to implement and much harder to detect.

One answer to this might be domain-specific agents — narrower, accountable, ideally something you (or your community) actually run. But even then it all falls back on trust: you being a good-faith actor, and others trusting that you are one. Which is to say, we're back to the same problem, just at a smaller scale.

I'm working on something like this... its: <city-name>.<country-iso2>.codify.city e.g.: https://los-angeles.us.codify.city or https://paris.fr.codify.city etc..... my goal is to replace sites from https://www.civicplus.com/ and https://www.revize.com/ with AI-native interfaces into city services, governments, economies etc... like a local AI-agent Economy managed by actual governing officials etc... but the admin is a separate product ATM.

https://codify.nyc is the one I am going to be launching first, hopefully in a few weeks. I only have 100 or so cities on board and live right now. They have been very useful in understanding all the mechanics and nuance of delivering services at the city/local level.

Your project looks interesting, let me know if you see any place we could work together.

I was doing this because some portals that have been setup are setup by the end users; its a platform. But these were the ones that "I" the developer of Project20x/Codify had setup internally.

This is a really good point though, I think I should remove that.

1. Yes, I have had 3 potential clients mention this to me and initially I was a bit caught off guard. I am also concerned that it could be more and some decided to just not move forward because they believed outright that it was a "Scam".

2. I agree, I think I was a bit too worried because I do not know how to navigate this space "Gov Tech" very well.

Thankyou very much for your response; developing a product in a silo can cause tunnel vision which leads to blowing things out of proportion, your comment has really helped me to put things into perspective.

My biggest concern by far is that they seem to have put codify.inc on a registry so ISP's are blocking or showing the red "this is a scam - go back to safety" page. I really liked and invested a lot into that "branding".

TL;DR: Hawaii's SOC mislabeled my civic-tech staging subdomains as a phishing scam, then pushed it as a press release — multiple outlets ran it. I'm about to launch the city-tier version (Miami, Boston, NYC, LA, Vegas) and want HN's advice on correcting the record before then.

I'm Arion. I'm building Project20x — an AI-native governance platform (policy authoring → codification → delivery as digital public goods). It's the substrate that turns policy into running services. I'm building it across all 50 states and 40+ countries concurrently, because government actually runs on interagency dependencies, not silos — VA hands off to HUD, HHS coordinates with every state Medicaid office, etc.

The subdomain pattern at the time was {agency}.{state}.{country}.codify.inc — so the Hawaii subprojects lived at dlir.hi.usa.codify.inc, health.hi.usa.codify.inc, etc. Real staging environments. Not impersonations. No credential capture, no solicitation of money, no fake state seal.

In late 2025 the Hawaii SOC published an alert flagging those subdomains as phishing impersonating state agencies — and pushed it out as a press release. KITV ran the segment in the URL above. Several other Hawaii outlets ran their own write-ups off the same release. So "scam" is now indexed across multiple sites, not one. The same effort that went into a coordinated press push could have gone into one email to a contact page — but I hadn't published one, and they didn't ask.

Here's what I think is fair, and what I think isn't:

Fair: A citizen unfamiliar with Codify could be thrown by a .inc URL that contains an agency abbreviation as a subdomain label (dlir.hi.usa.codify.inc) — even though the apex is codify.inc not .gov, and every page header read "Codify Inc official portal for [agency name]." The on-page identification was there; the URL itself was the surprise. That's a comms-and-onboarding failure on my part, and the fix is to stop putting agency abbreviations into deep subdomain paths. The new pattern is per-city apex (codify.la, codify.nyc, codify.boston, codify.miami, codify.vegas) — clearly a Codify property at first glance, no nested abbreviations to misread. I've also published a security contact (a@project20x.com) and a public registry listing live vs. staging vs. claimable subprojects. The SOC didn't reach out before the alert because I hadn't published a contact. That's fixed.

Not fair: "Scam" is a factual claim and it's wrong. Every page header on the flagged subdomains read "Official Codify Inc portal" or "Official Project20x portal for [agency name]" — including the screenshots used in the "scam" example. The site never claimed to be the agency, never collected information on the agency's behalf, and never solicited money. This is a civic-tech project in the same spirit as DOGE / USDS / 18F — same DOGE-shaped goal, achieved by compilation rather than chainsaw. Building in public on the open internet has a cost I underestimated, but mislabeling civic-tech as fraud has a cost too.

Why I'm asking now: I'm launching the city-tier version — "DOGE for cities" — for Miami, Boston, NYC, LA, and Las Vegas, on per-city apex domains (codify.miami, codify.la, codify.nyc, codify.boston, codify.vegas). No more nested codify.inc subdomains. Playbook this time: clear "Codify Inc portal" header on every page, published security contact, .gov counterpart links, and CIO/CISO outreach before launch. Rather get it right than clean up again.

So — HN, what would you actually do?

Project: https://project20x.com/about Contact: a@project20x.com

Codify — democratic digital public infrastructure that turns your problems into structured, executable programs.

The idea: describe any problem in plain language (voice or text), and AI codifies it into a structured program with the right people, steps, timeline, and agents to get it done. It's a 5-step wizard: Define Problem → Codify Solution → Setup Program → Execute Program → Verify Outcome.

It runs across 50+ domains — codify.healthcare (EMR backend), codify.education (LMS backend), codify.finance, codify.careers (HRM backend), codify.law, plus 13 city domains (codify.nyc, codify.miami, codify.london, codify.tokyo, etc.). Each domain tailors the AI assessment and program output to that sector.

The platform is Project20x — think of it as the infrastructure layer. If Codify is the verb ("codify your healthcare problem into a care program"), Project20x is the operating system that runs it all: multi-tenant governance, AI agent orchestration, and domain-specific sys-cores for healthcare, education, city services, etc.

Every US federal agency and state-level department has a subdomain — ed.usa.project20x.com (Dept of Education), doj.usa.project20x.com, hhs.usa.project20x.com, etc. — with AI agents representing each agency's mandate. Same structure at the state level.

The political side: Project20x hosts policy management for both parties — dnc.project20x.com and rnc.project20x.com — where legislative intent gets codified into executable governance through a 10-step policy lifecycle. Right now I'm building out the multi-agent environment so agency agents can negotiate with each other, make deals, and send policy proposals up to the HITL (human-in-the-loop) politician for approval. Each elected official has a profile (e.g. https://project20x.com/u/donald-trump) where constituents can engage and where policy proposals land for review.

The name is a nod to structured policy frameworks, but the goal is nonpartisan infrastructure: democratically governed essential services delivered as AI-native social programs.

Stack: Nuxt 2/Vue 2 frontend, Laravel 10 API, Python/LangGraph agent orchestration, Flutter mobile app. Currently live across all domains.

https://project20x.com | https://codify.healthcare | https://codify.education | https://dnc.project20x.com | https://rnc.project20x.com etc...

I think in some ways we are past it; unfortunately not the funny ways. Some examples:

1. The presidents response to bombing of school girls was basically "stop hitting yourself"

2. Fox news host Dept. of Defense head and the "Dept. of War" name "change"

3. Building a grand ballroom while taking benefits away from hungry kids

4. Elon musk on stage with the chainsaw bragging about acts that save no money but did harm the poorest people on earth.

5. The fact that our media does not really care about any of this unless they get a ratings bump from it

Obviously we all could go on and on.. but the biggest loss IMO is objective truth. There are and will always be things that are true and I feel that we are losing a hold of that so that bad actors can just say to us: "no thats not what your seeing".

Its like in the movie, if they had looked at the plant growing and said: "Thats FAKE NEWS" then run to the field and claimed they did it all.

he claimed they did it to themselves

PG said something along the lines of: "There should be no truth that is increasingly unpopular to speak."

If you don't believe what I shared is true, address that directly. But seeing my post sitting at 1 point and [flagged] after 2 hours is not OK. Just as DJT can't flag away his issues, you shouldn't be able to do so on HN.

One of the things I've loved most about HN is that it was real — grounded in observability, empirical evidence, not bias or feelings. I really hope that what happened to my post is not the beginning or a continuance of the end for that ethos.

Yes, but first I want to be very clear on some things.

1. I could have hidden my identify behind a throwaway. I did not feel that would be appropriate when making this calim.

2. I am not looking for anything, literally at all. Any follow ups for blogs; anything that would benefit I will not answer.

3. This is NOT a new account, I am very easy to find; I am 6'1 140lbs

I was working for a company called NationBuilder and I had the opportunity to go on a work trip. Outside of a talk he had just given I was waiting for my ride and I looked over like...damn thats the speaker. I wanted to say Hi; he damn near flagged down the police. I apologized and just decided to move on.

Note: It was in Reno, and no I don't want to go into details; the others are not hard to find because I happened upon them via blog posts so i'm sure if someone with the accumen of RF wants to know, he will find.

I have heard similar stores from several people in the years since. I AM NOT CALLING THIS PERSON RACIST. I am saying; he is observably scared of black people and that is not someone I want making descions about how the world moves foward.

Hi @ronanfarrow — I have only had one interaction with Sam Altman in person, and I was advised to keep it to myself. I know this crowd may not care, but Altman is absolutely terrified of Black people — not in any contextual sense, but in a visceral, instinctive way. For someone who, as you put it, "controls our future," this should matter.

FYI: I am by far not the only one to have experienced this and it 100% impacts hiring and other decisions at OpenAI.

While I agree with you, I also find myself wondering who draws the line. Given the current political atmosphere and its increasingly fluid relationship with "truth," I have to consider that the line for others may not be where it is for me — especially given the nuance buried in the details of many B2B deals.

Their value prop had to be strong enough to get past YC, past the other founders in the batch, past due diligence. Given that, I'm no longer comfortable casting "fraud" as a clean binary.

To be clear — I do genuinely believe they are a fraudulent company that lied and deserved to be removed. But introspectively, I have to sit with the fact that the space between "working around dumb regulations" and "outright fraud" is murkier than we'd like to admit.

I find the selective framing here very telling.

When there's higher violence and lower property values in a Black neighborhood, people like OP are quick to blame Black culture. But when the "Cognitive Dark Forest" emerges from a community that shares its own common characteristics, suddenly collective accountability no longer applies.

When discussing violence in the Black community, it's "cultural." But when the subject turns to financial crimes or exploitation — where the per-capita ratios tell their own story — proportionality and population-to-crime-rate analysis mysteriously stop mattering.

It's difficult to take the "Cognitive Dark Forest" seriously as an existential concern when the people raising the alarm are so selectively offended. The crisis only becomes real when their innovations, their livelihoods, and their moats are threatened. Everyone else was supposed to just adapt.

The "Cognitive Dark Forest" is and will be continued to be perpetuated by "them" and if you really cared about the issue you would have addressed them.

If its an interesting problem, i'll do it free. a@project20x.com

One issue I see in your messaging is that construction people usually do not speak like "completely offline, no cloud, no accounts, no subscription". When doing work for SME's one of the things I enjoy most is learning systems, tool chains, nomenclature etc... The above reads like a dev harvesting for leads.

I don't understand how anyone can rationalize this bill in the face of what OpenAI just agreed to with the DoD.

AI can surveil and direct munitions but it cant answer legal questions. Wouldn't this also violate the "no state my limit or restrict the use of AI" that the current administration is pushing?

I commented this earlier and it was instantly downvoted for some reason, but I totally agree with both points; I also think they are intrinsically connected in many ways because using customer-development to understand and build an initial audience often helps identify distribution channels. Here are a few examples I have found

1) I made a product to help people manage their diets; crowded space so it was hard to find users, following Steve Blank's customer-development process I found that the product should have been made for Dietitians not for end users. This may have been obvious to most but it was but to me at the time.

2) I made a product for Medicare/Medicaid but it was hard to get my foot in the door to even be considered for any of the Gov. contracts, so following the same model again I found that if I used politicians that had made promises during their campaign that my product could help them to fulfill then I could use them as distribution channels.

One thing I disagree with or don't understand is

ship earlier now (often free and open source) to learn faster, but it doesn’t change the attention dynamics much.

I have found the opposite, it seems like the bar is much higher now and not even the boost in productivity that I have gotten from using AI has allowed me to ship secure/high quality products as fast as I would like to; perhaps I am just too insecure about my work but its all new I guess.

I'm recreating the "Gov" - not really; just my idea of it, globally e.g.: ua.gov-ai.co / ua.ai-gov.co/ ng.gov-ai.co / ng.ai-gov.co - most progress made so far w/ CBER and DDP's

* HHS -> FDA -> CBER

It's important IMO (IMO only NOT AN EXPERT) because it helps you understand first principles better. As fundamentals change, its helps me to reevaluate these things even though I know nothing will ever come of them.

I am 422 agencies in so far, hoping to finish in-time for Juneteenth. Cant post her because........... but yea.

Re-invent the wheel!

I am 41, JS was released 29 years ago; 6th grade is 11—12 years old so my math might be a little off. But it was JS, I remember because it was new and i thought it was so cool to do alerts, LOL.

In 6th grade i stole my teachers car to go get a girl some lemon heads...this was just the latest such incident so my teachers said I had to stand in the corner for the rest of the year; but my computer teacher Ms. Melton said I could spend the time in the computer lab and she started teaching me JS. Then on work study day she sent me to her friends at a local ISP and they gave me an internship etc... etc... 30 years later and I am a software eng.

I think part of what's been happening here is that the hubris of the AI startups is really showing through.

I think it its somewhat reductive to assign this "hubris" to "AI startups". I would posit that this hubris is more akin to the superiority we feel as human beings.

I have heard people say several times that they "treat AI like a Jr. employee", I think that within the context of a project AI should be treated based on the level if contribution. If AI is the expert, I am not going to approach it as if I am an SME that knows exactly what to ask. I am going to try and focus on the thing. know best, and ask questions around that to discover and learn the best approach. Obviously there is nuance here that is outside the scope of this discussion, but these two fundamentally different approaches have yield materially different outcomes in my experience.

The problem I find in many cases is that people are restrained by their imagination of what's possible, so they target existing workflows for AI.

I concur and would like to add that they are also restrained by the limitations of existing "systems" and our implicit and explicit expectations of said system. I am currently attempting to mitigate the harm done by this restriction by focusing on and starting with a first principal analysis of the problem being solved before starting the work, for example; lets take a well established and well documented system like the SSA.

When attempting to develop, refactor, extend etc... such a system; what is the proper thought process. As I see it, there are two paths:

Path 1:

  a) Breakdown the existing workflows

  b) Identify key performance indicators (KPIs) that align with your business goals

  c) Collect and analyze data related to those KPIs using BPM tools

  d) Find the most expensive worst performing workflows

  e) Automate them E2E w/ interface contracts on either side
This approach locks you into to existing restrictions of the system, workflows, implementation etc...

Path 2:

  a) Analyze system to understand goal in terms of 1st principals, e.g: What is the mission of the SSA? To move money based on conditional logic.

  b) What systems / data structures are closest to this function and does the legacy system reflect this at its core e.g.: SSA should just be a ledger IMO

  c) If Yes, go to "Path 1" and if No go to "D"

  d) Identify the core function of the system, the critical path (core workflow) and all required parties

  e) Make MVP which only does the bare min
By following path 2 and starting off with an AI analysis of the actual problem and not the problem as it exist as a solution within the context of an existing system, it is my opinion that the previous restrictions have been avoided.

Note: Obviously this is a gross oversimplification of the project management process and there are usually external factors that weigh in and decide which path is possible for a given initiative, my goal here was just to highlight a specific deviation from my normal process that has yielded benefits so far in my own personal experience.