skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It seems the author's dropbox account couldn't handle the traffic, so I added my own links. Hopefully now people will be able to download both issues:

Issue #1: http://www.vintageisthenewold.com/amigaville-a-new-amiga-mag...

Issue #2: http://www.vintageisthenewold.com/amiga-magazine-amigaville-...

If it doesn't work, comment on the article, please.

Hope that helps

Paulo
You beat me to this! Awesome!
'The "evil" AI and safety stuff is just science fiction, but whatever.'

umm... you can offer proof that we have nothing to worry about?

Does the proof go like: Just as all people are inherently good, therefore all AIs will be inherently good?

Or is it more like: since we can now safely contain all evil people, therefore we will be able to safely contain evil AIs?

Sounds to me like there is some risk, no?
And I'm disappointed that you're disappointing that he's disappointed.
Thank god the NYT is there with compassionate coverage of the .01%
Cant wait to see the fierce competition!
As someone who left, and is now hearing of the rest of the team leaving....

1st, if someone is so darn important, it is your job to have a backup plan for when they quit, or for that matter get hit by the proverbial bus. Anything less is managerial incompetence, spend a day or two reading about business continuity.

2nd, there are these things called golden handcuffs, if you don't understand the concept I refer you to the above.

3rd, if you don't have the money for 2, then you better not be seen driving around in your brand new lamborghini, or spending all your time at over the top expensive restaurants while your employees have a tiny fraction of the company, and slave away for 70+ hours a week eating crap ass food from the fast food joint they are paying for themselves. (This really happened!)
I agree with you that AI is a well-funded area of research, although if you take the view that traditional forms of research, eg private or academic, come with crippling problems -- short-term horizons, corrupting influence of profits, publish or parish, time wasted in meetings/grant-writing -- then you can see the potential of having a more long-term, focused, and centralized space for inventing AI.

>> YC Research decided to join the same arms race that companies like Toyota are joining.

Or perhaps YC Research providing a sandbox next to a warzone.
> The QA department, then responsible for testing this new "feature" will most likely go off of a script that was sent to them by the developers to verify the old and new behavior, going on some metric that perhaps they don't really understand.

That's wrong right there. If you do this properly the people writing the QA test script work from the same spec the programmers used to implement the feature but they are actually different people and the test gets written first.

Obviously in smaller shops that won't work but anything the size of newsworthy should be set up like that.
Please stop trolling on HN.
I hope I'm wrong, but given the composition of the donors I'd be surprised if they really put much scrutiny on near-term corporate/government misuse of AI, apart perhaps from military robots. There are definitely interesting ethics questions already arising today around how large tech companies, law enforcement, etc. are starting to use AI, whether it's Palantir, the FBI, Google, or Facebook, so no argument that it's a timely subject at least in some of its forms. It'll be interesting to see if they get into that. I'd guess they probably want to avoid the parts that overlap too much with data-privacy concerns, partly because a number of their sponsors are not exactly interested in data privacy, and partly because the ethical debate then becomes more complex (it's not purely an "ethics of AI" debate, but has multiple axes).
So.. Symantec has a public root CA, and now they want to use it for "other purposes"? Why abuse an existing root for this instead of generating a new CA? Why are we trusting these guys with any CA at all again?
This is a list of 72 businesses that use vvvv
Does Code for America offer internships?
Advertising costs are not relevant if only money from the government can be used for campaigns, everyone gets the same amount, and there are severe per-person limits on private money donations, (no corporate or trade association donations allowed)

The only snag I see is the procedure used to determine who gets the government money.
> Are they encrypted for each friend with that friend's public key?

That sounds about right. However this is a closed-source project, so I don't see why it would be picked up by privacy enthusiasts.
14 Must See Celebrity Mugshots
One of the worst things possible when you watch videos like this is listening to the person hammering the keyboard.

I would recommend getting a microphone and recording the audio better next time.
SPECTRE / UI
Yes, first thing I thought of was Lava soap, which uses ground pumice stone.
Then it wouldn't be a Ponzi scheme though. The whole point is that you depend on future investments (receipt of cards) to satisfy current investors.
“How to find your product market fit”
One thing they don't control for is the perceived social class of the names. If they ran the same experiment with Khristen, Brandy, Brayden, Raelyn, and Marriah, would they get similar results to the "black" names?
> you are an arrogant, pompous idiot

Come on kragen, you can't post like that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html
Can't make it build, unfortunately:

ocamlopt -c lib.ml
File "lib.ml", line 24, characters 49-58:
Error: Unbound value List.mapi

TBF, this is probably a good thing; it's not like I have any time...
> Developers are human

So are Q&A people. They are the developer's teams members not their minions.

> We respond to the incentives and structure of the environment in which we're developing. A culture of "throw crap over the wall to QA" naturally creates an incentive for quickly writing up features, without balancing that with robustness, because finding the problems "is QA's fault". A culture of "the devs are responsible for the quality of their code" produces better code.

I'm wondering why the presence of a Q&A team would in any way change the professional responsibility of developers to create correct, testable code. If your developers have developed a culture of "throw crap over the wall to QA", then that's on the developers.

> The way to treat the devs well is to have the QA folks go off and create or bring in easy-to-use automated testing and CI frameworks, to make it easy for the devs to do the right thing.

That is not really the function of QA. Developers need to use proper testing tools on their own, but QA has its own function beyond just testing the code. They also test the assumptions and specification that the "business" ask the developer's to code. They look for bugs that go beyond what a certain set of test criteria instructs. It is also important to supply Q&A with tools to do fast, automated testing. Developer tools are not the function of Q&A.

Q&A has a job to do, and its irresponsible for Developers use them as a substitute for their responsibilities. As an example from other industries, safety is not just the Safety Officer's problem.

// I've been equal years developer and system admin working with good and bad Q&A people
>I've worked with many a QA who would get bent up over a detail outside of the spec that didn't really matter, and where all QA testing was manual.

This is where you need management (or someone from the product side) who can set priorities, where needed, and put and end to pointless side-disputes that can and do crop up.
Who am I? WHO AM I?

I am some random anon posting their views on the internet, as is every other person here. It's called having a conversation.

"So, since you claim to know of such things, could you pick something Yudkowsky has written about and name me another who does it better?"

Yes, I could. But since you've so far been a total arrogant assface, and since your tone implies that - rather than a genuine interest - you simply want to bait me into a further argument so you can show off how much you're in love with Elizer... I'm going to pass. Do your own research if you're so "interested".
I would call them a major user, but sponsor not so much. Their investments in the ocaml ecosystem have mostly been self serving...driven by what they need, not what the ocaml community as a whole needs. Contrast this with Sun/Java, Microsoft/DotNET, Google/Go, etc., where development is happening on what developers everywhere are looking for.
The masses shouldn't matter. The companies shouldn't be making this crap in the first place, no matter how much the "market" wants it. Hence, market failure.
I liked most of the decisions you made and how you addressed the problem of hiring coders. One question, do you think, maybe not in your case but in some situations, that a process like this might be too drawn out or too selective?

Recently I spent some time interviewing and jumping between jobs, and compared to the amount of time I spent working at one company, I was spending a lot of time interviewing, preparing for interviews, and applying to companies.

Basically, my impression from being a high school programmer was walking in the door, being qualified, and being hired essentially in the same afternoon. After getting through college, it seems to be way more of a contest to win a job.

Similarly, I earned an internship at a high-profile company in New York City, which I didn't actually complete due to extenuating circumstances, but the impression I had from the interview and from a few days on the job was that the role was trivially easy and they were somehow scouting the absolutely most qualified and talented programmers in the country, anyway. This might happen to work out but something seems broken in this situation, too.
Almost certainly, the AI safety pie getting bigger will translate to more resources for MIRI too.

That said, although a lot of money and publicity was thrown around regarding AI safety in the last year, so far I haven't seen any research outside MIRI that's tangible and substantial. Hopefully big money AI won't languish as a PR existence, and of course they shouldn't reinvent MIRI's wheels either.
A friend of mine works in a Pfizer lab and tells me how the technicians are constantly pouring drugs down the normal drains because a lot of rooms don't have the special drains for chemicals.

You'd think it'd be mandatory for every lab to have those special sinks. It may even be, but she tells me everybody is afraid of speaking up about that and various other safety protocols because they don't want it to affect their employment. Even if they did say something, it'll probably get stopped at management and nothing will every come of it.
It's incredible the types of doomsday scenarios the wealthy invest in stopping. The problem Elon Musk and Y Combinator are going to solve with their money, what they will be remembered for fixing after their companies have long crashed and gone bankrupt, is better technology. Essentially, technology will become so good at doing human's work we will run out of problems for people to solve and drift into a lazy non-working state incompatible with current economies. I predict Earth will be destroyed by passing meteor before that happens.

Maybe if I was a billionaire I'd understand.
The framing here is: "What are the implications of doing nothing if you are right (about the inevitability of a malicious strong AI, in this case), compared to the implications about being wrong and still doing nothing?"
Because it's naively childish, and absolves the companies from any wrongdoing because "the market".
VW has drawn some fairly arbitrary lines on their org chart where the 'problem' is located, namely anything down from and including the head of engineering.
> Note that this is "committed $1 billion", not funded.

That same caveat could apply to any fund raised by a venture fund - usually funds are committed, and the actual capital call comes later (when the funds are ready to be spent).

It's an important caveat in some circumstances (e.g. it hinges on the liquidity of the funders, which may be relevant in an economic downturn), but in this one, I'm not sure it really makes a difference for this announcement.
I'll wager RNNs in NLP given Ilya's background. Probably moving towards increasingly rich models of natural language semantics and pragmatics.
Awesome news, I'm even more excited after reading about how they decided to spend the money. I haven't yet digged into it, but "channels" look promising.

I would also like to congratulate Mozilla for this program, several other great projects are being funded.
I think you're confusing free markets with artificial markets.

There are many shared resources that are easily exploitable by the free market. A central authority can create artificial markets on that resource to combat the exploitation by the free market, but it's still being heavily regulated which is not a free market characteristic.

One example of this is carbon credits with global warming, another is the Alaskan tradeable fishing quotas. Even following the common example of the Pilgrims, it was the enforcement of property regulations that solved the free-market exploitation of the land.
> a software token that automatically installs in their mobile or desktop browser when registering

I wonder how it is better or worse than just setting a cookie?
Well technically yes, but I could counter argue that we have 'living memories' that we can not only replay at any time (any of them, without any buffering or delay), but also change and combine with other memories to create new memories. Additionally if someone tells you something the brain can search all your memories in what seems to be a microsecond and pull up the relevant ones (file search on steroids, that can even search every single frame in all your recorded movies).

Much more useful than static data on a hard drive.
> mistrustful of arguments that the free market will sort things like this out. There's just no good mechanism to stop massive harm to common resources

Most arguments that the free market can handle these problems start out with the recommendation that the resources involved (rivers, lakes, ocean) should be privatized. Economist Walter Block and others have written about ways this could be done. To fault free market arguments for not working when the waterways aren't privatized is to misrepresent the arguments. Most people aren't arguing that the free market is going to solve problems relating to unowned, unownable, or government owned property without first recognizing private property rights in those resources.

Governments often protects polluters by limiting their liability. If that were changed, and assuming these resources (bodies of water) were privatized so non-governmental parties had standing to sue, if you have an argument why a class action lawsuit or something like that can't handle these problems, then that would be an interesting comment. But just saying the free market doesn't solve problems where there are no property rights is rather uninteresting, because free marketers agree with that.

Also it's pretty amusing that a failure of government (who owns the waterways, and most of the sewer systems) to solve this problem sooner somehow gets twisted into a failure of the free market (who doesn't own these resources). Without property rights there's no free market.

I agree that governments, who subsidize animal feed, water, land, and waste, and prosecute activists, do a great deal of harm to the environment by promoting and protecting animal exploitation. I'm fine with banning animal exploitation, even on private property, and I see that as no more anti-free market than banning slavery on private property.
There is a bit of consensus about this exact issue in terms of the 'Uncanny Valley' hypothesis[0] and I'd tend to agree. We would have to dehumanize any sufficiently advanced or "self aware" AI agents if we mean to have them serve human interest solely and unconditionally. Incidentally, humans seem to be historically well versed in doing so.

[O]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
I wonder what percentage of H1-B holders make >= 110k. All the people I know who aren't in the tech industry and have H1-B don't make anywhere near that... That's one way to deal with the cap.

Eliminating OPT is going to make getting an H1-B visa harder too, that's how foreign students get experience and can get closer to making the 110k... No one is going to hire an inexperienced student and pay them 110k+ right away. Obama once said something along the lines of: "We're giving foreigners the best education and then we send them back home..." that isn't beneficial to anyone.
I thought of responding to that bit too, changed my mind, but your response made me reconsider again. The response is simple, just a quote from Yudkowsky: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else." When all one knows about potential future AIs comes from sci-fi, and the only sci-fi one reads or watches is weak sci-fi with very human good/evil AIs, one's frame of reference in the discussion about whether concerns are warranted or not is way too narrow to be worth any further consideration.
I wonder what their use cases are. "Advance the state of the art in AI" is just too nebulous. Having the smartest people in the world isn't enough... you need to focus them on some goal.

Once you get beyond 8 researchers, you'll have problems with politics and egos if people aren't focused on a problem. Everyone will have their pet approach for specific problems, and they won't compose into something generally useful. AI is really like 10 or 20 different subfields (image understanding, language understanding, motion planning, etc.)

I think self-driving cars are a perfect example of a great problem for AI (and something that many organizations are interested in: Google, Tesla, Apple). Solving that problem will surely advance the state of art in the AI (and already has).

tl;dr "OpenAI" is too nebulous.
There Is No Such Thing as a Private Blockchain
The beauty of software is that it has a marginal cost of distribution of 0. All it takes is one altruistic person to make a piece of software that solves a problem, and then all of humanity can have that for free, forever.

However, looking at the current trends, it's clear that the owners of the hardware are going to be the gatekeepers and middlemen. If a benevolent AI that's working for you requires you to run it off of AWS/Google/Azure, power will be concentrated to them, and they will always be able to run a more powerful AI since they could utilize their entire hardware capabilities.
Nope, they did not. And no, they didn't
Source: I work there.
This is a huge point. When I was young, I broke many lightbulbs playing sports in my basement. Regular old incandescent lightbulbs were perfect for this scenario - cheap to replace, not chemically hazardous if broken, and not turned on all that often so the power consumption wasn't a big deal.
It sounds like there is some opposition between automatic tests and QA. But those do not have to be opposed - one can have both. In fact, for many types of software I don't see how you can avoid having both. The only choice you have who is doing your QA - your employees or your end users. Maybe Yahoo can afford the latter. But for some companies it would be a disaster.
maybe lower shelf-life if soaked in water?
Elon Musk and partners form nonprofit to stop AI from ruining the world
rustup.sh has an --uninstall flag that should remove everything cleanly.
And on the other side is the local government concerned about the largest local employer and the national government concerned about a systemically-important employer and industry.

I think (but hope otherwise!) that you're totally wrong about how the power structures in Germany would have reacted to this very unwelcome news.
Or else the judge was wrong.
use Ruby on Rails with carrierwave gem to upload files to AWS s3

write your custom api in rails to serve those files
I'd argue that animals will adapt
How does AI solve all problems, either? I can think of plenty of problems with our bodies that AI might never fix. Cost-benefit and all.
Sure. But that's never sustainable.
This seems fucking wrong.
How to create amazing startup culture
Friendly AI? That's no AI!

I don't understand how Yudkowsky came up with such a ridiculous idea. That's simply not a constraint you can apply to true AI.

Even if friendly AI was possible, it wouldn't make sense to have it, nor would any form of regulation enforce it.
Yes, I did... thanks!
Is the DSL embedded in a Lisp or is it an entirely new language? Isn't there a lot of existing work on type systems and ADTs in Lisps? e.g.

http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/types.html#%28part._.Un...

https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/16vwib/which_lisps_fe...

I ask because I have run into the typing problem writing language tools in Python, and then I switched to OCaml. I am not that experienced with it, but I see the problem you're talking about. I'm wondering if I should go to a Lisp. Racket looks interesting and this seems like something the community cares about.
Instinct isn't "training", really. Don't conflate neural networks and genetic algorithms in people or AI... :)
It doesn't even have to be intentional. If you write the code, you always have in mind some picture of how it should be used. That picture means you ignore the ways to use it which you not intended. So when the code is used in that way, it breaks. But you won't ever write a test for it because you would never think such usage is possible - exactly because you know too much about the right way of how it should be, so you start to think it's how it is.
The real estate web is a mess. We want to fix it
> Don’t require a particular language

But do indicate language in the nice-to-haves at least. Some programmers find that they work much better with certain tools than others and it is useful to know if you are able to use those tools.
It doesn't, just like AI doesn't.
VW lawyers would probably throw a fit if somebody actually used that domain for anything commercial.
Aside of the closed-source aspect, that is a great way to run a secure peer-to-peer messaging platform / social network. I believe this is how iMessage also encrypts communication.
I once worked in an organization that has 1.5-2x QA then dev. I now work in a place which has 1 QA for every 8 devs -- and there are far less bugs here then the other.

I think the reason is proper tooling, a culture of thorough automated testing, and ownership of code.
Engineer's Average Salary in 11 Cities from Hired [Drive][pdf]
They will stay committed to the portal mentality and UX until they die.
Well my store has 8.9k derivations, but that's only for 11 packages in my profile :/
Uber is eventually going to be fully automated. Lots of people ITT seem to be ignoring the fact that Uber will eventually have no need for human drivers. I can't help but feel that the parties driving legislation that harms Uber as a company have this in mind.
I wouldn't say you'd want to throw printed money into any asset class; you're just going to create a bubble somewhere.

I'd advocate for printing it and dropping it in everyone's checking account. It creates immediate economic activity by people who are going to go spend that money today.
AI research is a very deserving field. And the market/research community recognizes that! So it's not an area where there is a lack of job opportunities for researchers to do research and publish papers. That sandbox would be a faculty position. I would be more sympathetic to that idea if it weren't the case that universities are hiring machine learning faculty like crazy. There are many areas where the market/research interest is low, but the area is very deserving and of great benefit to society (clean energy?)
Do you happen to have a source for your point about sigmoidal growth? I'd like to read more about that.