skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In my case it's with the hard push to Hybrids, which is a major risk for the stability of the world's food supply (due to the strong mono culture, it's relatively easy for a willing player to first stock up on food, and then deliver pests for all major food hybrids that are only as effective because they are hybrids and not a healthy pool of genetic diversity. Also, if the hybrid seeds producing facilities were to be targeted, at the right time, it might not be possible to coordinate sufficient seeding of the available seeds, which the farmers might not even know how to plant/grow, as the non-hybrids are rather different from the hybrids, as far as optimum growing parameters go.

The primary issue with Monsanto specifically would then be that they actively try to prevent farmers from using non-hybrid seeds.
Also, one would be surprised how well grains grow without pesticides, if the land is properly cared for. There was a time before pesticides were as widely available, and they did not have the time to weed the whole field by hand ;)
What are these "advertisements" of which you speak?
Exactly: you get that benefit with adaptive cruise control. What autopilot adds is autosteer. What’s the benefit there that doesn’t violate TOS? You are supposed to keep your hands on the wheel and pay full attention just the same.
But they are not even artificially scarce. The price plummets after purchase immediately. Go buy a used engagement ring for instance. It is tainted for some reason but heavily discounted. Diamonds are not rare and not even that pretty compared to other gems.
I have just read his excellent "The mistery of Capital", and highly recommend it.

In short, it's about how a reliable property system allows people to use the non-physical value of their properties (the "economic" value in his words, or "meta" in my mind) to borrow money and fuel entrepreneurship. Very common in the developed world, quite unreliable and uncommon in the developing world.
It's interesting how De Beers successfully transitioned the cultural demand for diamonds over to China.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-18/diamonds-...
Exactly. Just wait for their counter-blow.

They have enough money, resources and incentives to try to destroy man-made diamonds for at least a few more decades.
There were numbers thrown around in the last thread on this, I gave you my memory. The answer is "Teslas are safe enough". Human drivers with the same accident rate wouldn't raise even a hair on an eyebrow.

And the "bold claims" bit is exactly backward. You are the one claiming that the technology "isn't ready" based on sensationalist local news story and not actual numbers.
Compare synthetic vanilla flavouring vs plant based. Same molecule, but big price difference.
It's so funny how every discussion on times and dates bring out the same idiotic "let's abolish timezones!" proponents.

It's almost like... ( •_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ clockwork ﻿(⌐■_■)
"and Processing are poorly-designed languages that support weak ways of thinking, and ignore decades of learning about learning." - Bret Victor

http://worrydream.com/#!/LearnableProgramming

like many things "better" is often not what wins. Kind of ironic that many of the "learning about learning" ideas also came from MIT
CFD was merely used as an example of something that does scale well. I'm not sure it was the best example, since CFD isn't very common. But basically you have a volume mesh and each cell iterates on the Navier-Stokes equation. So if you have N processor cores, you break the mesh in N pieces, each of which get processed in parallel. Doubling the number of cores allows you process double the amount in the same time, minus communication loses (each section of the mesh needs to communicate the results on its boundary to its neighbors).

I don't fully understand the graph, but it looks like his point is that Alpha Go Zero uses 1e5 times as many resources than AlexNet, but does not produce anywhere near 10,000 times better results. We saw that with CFDt 1e5 more cores resulted in 1e5 better results (= scales). The assertion is that DL's results are much less than 1e5 better, hence it does not scale.

Basically the argument is:

1. CFD produces N times better results given N times more resources [this is implied, requires a knowledge of CFD]. That is, f(ax) = a f(x). Or, f(ax) = 1 a * f(x).

2. Empirically, we see that DL has used 1e5 more resources, but is not producing 1e5 times better results. [No quantitative analysis of how much better the results are is given]

3. Since DL has f(a * x) = b * a * f(x), where b < 1, DL does not scale. [Presumably b << 1 but the article did not give any specific results]

This isn't a very rigorous argument and the article left out half the argument, but it is suggestive.
These numbers from Tesla have been debunked several times (see every older discussion on this on HN) because of the flawed methodology (mostly comparing apples to oranges).
Your post is very poetic, thank you
I’m kinda curious now which researchers have been buying PII from data mining corps.
In the last 24 hours, 100 people died in car crashes - but 2 crashes a year apart and its "why does this keep happening". I realize the numbers are not comparable - however, 100 people dying a day is seen as act of God, but 100% driver-less society and getting 1 person dying a week will get these cars banned probably.
Fair and insightful I would say, when the parent comment mentioned it I figured it checked for the domain of a YC company or something, but this makes sense, as filtering for YC companies might just be a bit more work than it's worth considering you wont always be able to accurately mark every submission as relevant.
And, in a similar but shorter-winded vein, the Lyttle Lytton: http://adamcadre.ac/lyttle.html
That is an interesting fact I wasn't aware of. I have doubts about the actual relevance of this, though. e.g. Chinese seems (so far as I can tell) to have always used decimal numbering systems, making this essentially a clever counting trick.
> Don't you agree that if you can do something without holding state it's invariably simpler?

Only if the two solutions under consideration are really solving the same problems. Sam Boyer alludes to this very thing in his discussion of MVS:

"If there are two algorithms that satisfy the same requirements, and only one is NP-complete, you pick the other one. That’s axiomatic. Moreover, if you have only an NP-complete algorithm for a particular problem, finding a less complex alternative that does the same job is an electrifying discovery. When such an alternative algorithm is proposed, however, the inevitable question to be answered is whether it actually does meet the original requirements. [...] But, in avoiding SAT, MVS also cuts out some of the complexities that I believe are essential to the domain. Being essential, the problems don’t go away when MVS ignores them. Instead, they’re redistributed into other, often less obvious places. If reading the vgo blog posts gave you a general sense of unease that you couldn’t put your finger on, that might’ve been you intuitively sensing some of these redistributions." https://sdboyer.io/vgo/intro/
Because my dog will totally have his mobile phone on him when I'm chasing him down. Or my little kid chasing after his ball...
ArcAttack, the pioneers of Tesla coil music
Modern French allows the "aine" suffix to be applied to many numbers, meaning "a group of X." I've mostly heard it used with 10 ("dixaine") or 12 ("douzaine"), though if you asked for a "treizaine" (13) of something, you would be understood.

It is interesting that "dozen" made it into everyday English but other group sizes did not.
Not like they used to. De Beers used to have a monopoly on distribution, but that's been broken.

You can get synthetic diamonds on Alibaba now. Some of which really are diamond.
Most people believe in climate change also the so called sceptics as the climate is mostly changing. The disagreement mostly is about how severe its going to be and how much human affect it.
TL;DR

There is a law for pressure before deadlines. The formula is 1/r where r is the “distance” i.e. time left to an event.
Yep. Most of the "French" words in English (beef, butcher, danger, very, act...) actually come from dialects brought over by the Normans when they conquered England in 1066. That's closer on the timeline to Latin than modern French.
The argument is that self-driving won't work because Uber and Tesla had well-publicized crashes. But I don't see how this tells us anything about other, apparently more cautious companies like Waymo. There seem to be significant differences in technology.

More generally, machine learning is a broad area and there's no reason to believe that different applications of it will all succeed or all fail for similar reasons. It seems more likely there will be more winners along with many failed attempts.
I think a similar post on leveraging Wireshark would be neat. The deepest I tend to need to go is searching packets for a known substring and then following the TCP stream to see where something unexpected happened. Add to this the analyzing of the frames on this stream and you can diagnose tricky timeout issues, bad protocol usage, and much more.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic but I genuinely have loved this plane ever since I heard of it.

Primarily excited because I'm a huge fan of Honda, secondarily because the price-point, it is fairly affordable for what it is and I can hope to own one by my 50's when the price comes down a bit.
To be fair, the system really isn’t designed to encourage the driver to not pay attention. Quite the opposite.
Literally both things can be true.

Also I hope you're right and he's wrong.

Though I can imagine a pretty cool hacker future where people just hack tags in to place. I'm also afraid of them being equipped with RFID.
There's some remarkable apocalyptic imagery out and about from even earlier in the 19th century. Check out Samuel Colman's "The Edge of Doom" (a decent reproduction at https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/colman_edgedoom...) for a striking example. From the Brooklyn Museum's write-up:

"In The Edge of Doom, Samuel Colman paints the ultimate disaster: the destruction of the world. Lightning was particularly suited for evoking the emotions of awe and terror associated with the Sublime notion of nature. Here, it strikes erratically, blasting classical buildings, carriages, paintings, and even Time (a figure with an hourglass and scythe) to create a central glowing void. All that survives is the memorial sculpture of William Shakespeare, then and now on view in London’s Westminster Abbey."

- https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/4811

On one hand, this has to have been a British communication of contemporaneous Caspar David Friedrich sublime, but there also must have been something brewing in industrial London to create fear of impending absolute destruction, and this doesn't read as Biblical wrath to me.
Driving a NES way beyond its limits by putting a Raspberry Pi in the cartridge
What makes a Picasso painting a Picasso is that it was made by him. What makes a diamond a diamond is its molecular structure.

Following this logic sea salt isn't "real" salt like regular table salt (which is mined), since it wasn't mined from the earth, but created from sea water.
Click on the web link on the comment page.
It's pretty easy to get a merge conflict from a lock file. If two developers add a dependency and then try to merge their changes together, it can happen easily.
1. Manmade compressed and heated carbon is as passable to the next generation as the geologic kind. What is the issue here exactly? If anything its more awesome we can make our own and not rely on geological processes.

2. Why do I need to insure carbon? Its... carbon, super abundant, element 6. Present after the first generation of stars exploded in the universe. Are you investing in diamonds? They almost never go up in price, try reselling one or look at resale value before you worry about insurance.

3. What is the goal of this question? To show the Jones' that you have too much money and can pay the danegeld for authenticity? Before the 1940's diamonds weren't even a thing in marriage. If you could reproduce the Mona Lisa perfectly, would you pay N times as much for the original? Even if it was impossible to tell? Why is that so important?

4. Diamonds are already used for industrial uses, their "rarity" (they're not rare) is all due to a cartel named de beers controlling supply. They're common as hell, as noted, they're just compressed and heated carbon. These industrial uses are why we have these manmade diamonds in the first place. They're better than the originals as they're more consistent without imperfections. Just like modern steel would produce a katana infinitely better than folded crappy steel that the originals were trying to overcome.
Zig is memory-safe if you keep runtime checks enabled (e.g. with debug or release-safe optimization levels)
but it does not have the compile-time guarantees of Rust. I don't think the parent comment is a fair reflection.

That being said, some other potentially interesting safety aspects that are present (or are being explored) to give some idea of the target audience:

- compile-time alignment checks [1]
- maximum compile-time stack usage/bounding [2]

I would expect safety at the end of the day in Zig will be more similar to
modern C++ and its smart pointers, alongside (optional) runtime checks,
than a full lifetime system. Will have to see what the future holds.

[1] https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Alignment

[2] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/1006
We as humans just need to be less stupid.

Srsly no one cares if a stone is real or not.
> Nvidia car could not drive literally ten miles without a disengagement.

From the same source as the author cites, that's because their test runs are typically 5 miles and resuming manual control at the end of a test counts as a disengagement.
> But what is the benefit right now if you strictly follow the rule of remaining alert enough to intervene at a second's notice?

You have an extra failsafe for those moments where you fail to remain alert. People keep treating these incidents in isolation and failing to account for the fact that human drivers make exactly this kind of fuckup every hour of every day, and lives are lost. Every day.

You get that right? Cars. Kill. People. Every day.

Tesla is shipping systems in the absolute infancy of this technology that are already statistically indistinguishable from human drivers as far as safety goes. And the luddites here want to throw all that in the garbage because of "what is the benefit right now".
The Hacker FAQ
> I'm pro nuclear, but given that the side effects on the oceans and hence the entire planet are still to be accounted for and that we won't know before decades, I find that comment quite arrogant.

The ocean already has about 4.5 billion tons of naturally-occurring uranium in it, as well as many other radioactive substances. Fukushima wouldn't have made a significant difference in that figure if they'd ground up the entire reactor to a powder and dumped every single bit of it in the ocean. You could perhaps produce localized contamination by doing that, but not on the scale of the oceans as a whole.

For that matter, the Soviet Union used to dump their scrap submarine reactors straight into the ocean. They did that with a bunch of them.
> Deepmind hasn't shown anything breathtaking since their Alpha Go zero.

Didn't this just happen? Maybe my timescales are off, but I've been thinking about AI and Go since the late 90s, and plenty of real work was happening before then.

Outside a handful of specialists, I'd expect another 8-10 years before the current state of the art is generally understood, much less effectively applied elsewhere.
I agree the non-free transactions thing is a problem, however some organizations might be willing to do it as part of an investigation?

However for the second point, given what I know about programming as a discipline, I'm not sure that the probable bad actors have gone through a lot of effort to hide their gaming of the system, or that if they have made the effort to make said function that it actually works as envisioned and does not leave its own telltale traces.
Tesla is shipping systems in the absolute infancy of this technology that are already statistically indistinguishable from human drivers as far as safety goes.

That’s a hell of a claim, I’d love to see some serious citations on it.
I think you're setting up a dichotomy here that doesn't exist. It's not a choice between waiting forever or disregarding safety. Look at how Waymo is approaching the problem, for example.
Thanks for that, that is essentially my point. Agree it is not very rigorous, but it gets the idea across. By scalable we'd typically think "you throw more gpu's at it and it works better by some measure". Deep learning does that only in extremely specific domains, e.g. games and self play as in alpha go. For majority of other applications it is architecture bound or data bound. You can't throw more layers, more basic DL primitives and expect better results. You need more data, and more phd students to tweak the architecture. That is not scalable.
The problem is that the argument being presented: "self driving is safer" is defeated by very obvious failures (driving into pillars, police cars, and people) that are /exactly/ the kinds of things that a computer should be able to handle. Human caused accidents in these situations are almost invariably due to inattentiveness that should not apply to any automated system.

So we get to the problem of "if it can't do handle the specific obvious case where it should be absolutely superior" (I would argue an automated system should not have ever been able to make either the police cruiser or the 280 crash in any circumstances. Those were both in perfect conditions - clear weather, etc, etc), how can we trust it to handle any of the complex situations that a self driving car necessarily must handle?

The Tesla system solves this by simply saying "the driver is still driving, we're merely assisting", but that assistance leads to inattentiveness - that's human nature, you have to design around it - which should be fine, if the systems were able to handle that, but that clearly are not.

I would argue that given the configuration of the Tesla system they are less safe, not necessarily due to net accidents, but rather because of the failure modes of the accidents. Bumper to bumper accidents on a freeway happen all the time, even driving perfectly you can end up in them because not everyone else is driving perfectly. The problem with things like the Tesla system is that it's generally fine, except in those cases where it drives at speed into objects because it gets confused.

If your vision or mental state leaves you unable to safely account for large obstructions you aren't allowed to drive. Because it isn't safe.
The price for the new model is around USD $5.25 Million in case you were wondering...

https://corporatejetinvestor.com/articles/honda-reveals-hond...
Aluminium also went through a transition from precious to a commodity early in the last century. It's cautionary tale for those who expect that "natural" diamonds will continue to have pricing power in the market as time goes by.
I think the brilliance here is not the "may not be forever" bit, but the "fashion jewelry" jab (without giving a crass label to the mined diamonds). We have associations with the term "costume jewelry" that they're trying to have cross over.
They don't apparently read pop-ups prior to driving, ends of sentences ("full self driving capable hardware"), definitions of words, hacker news comments, listen to audible warnings to keep hands on the steering wheel. At what point does a person become responsible for their own actions?
I had the same response. AlphaZero was published like 5 months ago. Saying they've reached the end of the line because they haven't matched AlphaZero in six months is lame.
Your reasoning does seem sound. I'm sure there is plenty of data to that effect - and I'm equally sure that nobody outside Facebook has access to it.

I think I might pony up $10 or $20 a month to know I was in control and to suppress all ads. I'm nearly certain I'm unusual in that regard, though.
CFD is good at using big machines "efficiently", but the cost of DNS scales as the cube of the Reynolds number which will never be tractable for most engineering problems. Apart from niche basic research on the edge of tractability, all the effort goes into modeling (RANS, DES, wall, etc.) to deliver statistically calibrated estimates of functionals of interest at feasible cost. Those methods actually don't "scale as well" (though the state of research is ahead of commercial software), but also don't need to because they can solve the problem in less time with less hardware. This situation is actually pretty similar to your DL analogy where more hardware provides diminishing returns for solving the actual problem.
I believe the goal is explicitly not to skew things towards YC companies. The one special bonus that YC companies get is the ability to post job openings. The two posts from YC founders on the front page now aren't about startups at all.
For most food uses, salt gets a similar treatment.
The OP is obviously not keeping up with the field and has lot to learn about scientific approach. He basically uses the count of tweets from AndrewNg and crashes from risk-taking companies as indicator of "AI winter". He should have tried to look in to metrics such as number of papers, number of people getting in to field, number of dollars in VC money, number of commercial products using DL/RL etc. But you see, that's a lot of work and your conclusion might not align with whatever funky title you had in mind. Being an armchair opinion guy throwing link bait titles is much more easier.