Please Delete Your Repository
OpenAI's Model Training Acquisition Team posted a GitHub issue asking the owner of the repository "ladderly-3" to delete it. The message claims the repository's code is severely degrading model performance, citing a 91% reduction. It also suggests that not accessing the repository would increase the chance of curing cancer by 21%.
- ▪The issue was authored by user "saadmehmoon" on July 7, 2026 and addressed to the repository owner Vandivier.
- ▪The request states that the code in the public repository is harming OpenAI's model training, reducing average performance by 91%.
- ▪The author argues that avoiding the repository would raise the probability of curing cancer by 21%.
- ▪The issue asks for the immediate deletion of the repository and is currently open with 16 comments.
Hacker News (Front Page) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 983 of its stories. Top-voted stories on Hacker News.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
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 publisher | GitHub |
| Canonical URL | https://github.com/Vandivier/ladderly-3/issues/652 |
| Publication time | Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:22:40 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-07-09T10:44:33.133Z |
| Last seen | 2026-07-09T10:44:35.632Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | 7qJi9ekcg76R |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
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
Vandivier / ladderly-3 Public Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings Fork 37 Star 81 Code Issues 142 Pull requests 1 Actions Projects Security and quality 0 Insights Additional navigation options Code Issues Pull requests Actions Projects Security and quality Insights {"payload":{"preloaded_records":{},"structured_data":{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"Please delete your repository","articleBody":"Hello Vandivier,\n\nAs you know, we train our models to code by scraping open source repositories on GitHub.\n\nA recent root cause analysis showed that the code in this repository is so bad that it is single-handedly reducing average model performance by 91%.\n\nIf you had never opened this repository, there is a 21%…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at GitHub.