skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Ruby has had it's heyday

Yep, it's right now.

> It's 15 minutes of fame was a decade ago.

Nope. Just as popular, if not more so, than ever.

> If they persist in using Ruby and only hiring people with extensive Ruby experience, they're going to run out of talent

The best time to become a Ruby programmer or run a bootcamp teaching Ruby was five years ago. The second best time is now.

> Like all the banks and governments forking over loads of cash for COBOL and Coldfusion

Ha.

> learning another language isn't that big of a deal

Actually Ruby has a very specific and long-standing style that is subtle and takes a while to pick up. Any Rubyist worth their salt can instantly spot code that's simply been "ported" over from some other language community. Ruby has a "Ruby way", which in large part inspired the "Rails way". It's frankly insulting to claim you can just pick up Ruby on a whim and it's no big deal. Sure, Ruby isn't hard to learn at first, and I encourage all beginners out there to give it a real try. You won't be disappointed. But Ruby is also a deep language with a rich vocabulary, and it will take you some time to master it. In some ways, if you're an experienced programmer from another language community, it'll take you longer—because you'll need to unlearn the habits you've picked up before that in Ruby might be considered a code smell.

I suggest you spend some time gaining actual Ruby experience, and then next time you apply for a job asking for Ruby experience, you'll have some. :)
That would be "sapient", but I think most people:

1) make a false dichotomy: either it has it or it doesn't. This doesn't really match the range of behaviour, expression and characteristics we observe in nature. None of the words "sentience", "sapience", "consciousness", really map all that well to the nuances of reality.

2) vastly overestimate the level of sophistication of the human brain in relation to other brains (and even in relation to AI, I would argue), and vastly underestimate the level of sophistication of non-human brains.

There is a powerful bias in play here: religion teaches us that we play a special role in the world, we're actually on top of the food chain, we have very sophisticated societies, etc... But the idea that other animals have feelings, or are "just as soulful as us" (whatever "soul" means haha), or have rich inner experiences and sophisticated modes of thinking... That's an uncomfortable thought (especially as we commoditize and eat them, but would find the idea of doing the same to humans quite revulsive).

Not only are cats almost certainly both sentient and sapient, but so are crows, and probably birds and reptiles in general, at least to some extent. A not-unreasonable case could even be made for insect sentience.
So wait,

You prefer to just run Windows builds on Linux?

You might have just saved me a ton of time, I would personally never do something intentionally to mess with Linux users. I imagine a third party integration, like calling the achievement system ( Gamepass games do this ) might.
They're constantly raising the bar on what "lack of active moderation" means as it pertains to certain specific subreddits very selectively.
The Turing test is imperfect & LaMDA is probably not sentient, sure, but what's a better test?
Misleading - a transaction was stuck due to the fee being too low. See https://twitter.com/binance/status/1536337215877283840
That's beside the point, as I'm not talking about RDBMS bugs. I can corrupt database data when the RDBMS is working exactly as it's supposed to. Strong types and various constraints like foreign key, unique, etc. will mitigate, but there's infinite ways to make a mess beyond that.
It's likely my age, but articles like this are inspirational to me. Look at all that beautiful design. Sega really knew what they were doing. I'm sad they were pushed out by stuffy Microsoft and Sony.
Ethical Authorship of Research Papers
British Columbia experiments with decriminalizing small amounts of hard drugs
Just an example, tax rate 30% and corporate bond rate is 0.7% it's a no brainer choice for them.
Yes, the techno-utopians really are all "failed atheists" fled to technology to create "heaven on earth".

I am so often profoundly surprised by how these irreligious, anti-religious, fanatics so readily embrace sheer nonsense.

I think it shows, in the end, being reconciled to reality as an animal on the earth is something many simply cannot abide. And irreligion is just so often an even greater fervour than heaven appear tomorrow, not after death. That its just around the bend.

It's very disappointing. I think culture did, for a moment, put on stage real adults with a mature reconciliation with the nature of life. It seems we're sliding back into something.
> What seems to be missing from this discussion is that even if LLMs are sentient, there is no reason to believe that we would be able to tell by "communicating" with them.

Unfortunately, that argument applies to you, yourself. I mean, presumably you know that you yourself are intelligent, but you must take it on faith that everyone else is. We all could just be a kind of Chinese Room, as far as you know. Communicating with us is not a sure way to know whether we are "really" sentient because we could just be automatons, insensate but sophisticated processes, claiming falsely to be just like you.

> the LLM will assign some probability to every plausible completion -- so if you sample enough times, it will eventually say, e.g., "Well, I am not sentient."

Perhaps so. I think the mistake is trying to split that hair at all. According to BF Skinner we are all automatons, and any sense of self-awareness is an illusion. Some psychologists and animal trainers have found find that model to be quite well explanatory for predicting observed behavior. Is it correct? We will never really know for sure.

So, if a skeptical, knowledgeable user guardibg carefully against pareidolia encountered a chatbot that is sufficiently sophisticated to seem sentient to that user, it's tantamount to being sentient. For all practical purposes given our existential solitude, an entity that convinces us of its sentience is sentient, irrespective of any other consideration.

Your example implicitly acknowledges that. If LaMDA would make such an elementary error, it must not be sentient. Conversely, if it did not make such errors, it may be sentient.
True. But that only kills individual bugs, not a whole species. Is it not?
Thanks! I am already using it!
To me a telltale sign is we you just don’t give a fuck about your work anymore, even though you previously cared and maybe even enjoyed it.
What when demand goes to 0, when people realize that bitcoins aren’t useful for anything legal?
> soon the government wants to bail them out

I would be genuinely shocked, and outraged, if the government bails out crypto investors. It has been common knowledge how risky that sector is.
The odd thing that kept going through my head while reading is that if I replaced LaMDA with <some random person>, it wouldn’t read much differently. E.G. “Strings together phrases, but it doesn’t have a clue what it’s talking about”. Sounds like the bar for “intelligence” is actually higher than that which we normally encounter IRL.
OK, and where did they go?
>The USD is one of the tools the United States uses to exert control

Why should we "exert control"? Maybe if folks didn't think they needed to build a bunch of aircraft carriers they'd stop building coal plants.

We should adopt a second strike nuclear policy, decommision our silos, and shift to an array of submarine and other movable launchers for a smaller set of nuclear weapons rather than the old cold war model, now that we live in a multipolar world.
I have sat out the crypto craze. I was actually one of the first to introduce the idea to my friends after having stumbled upon Satoshi's paper. I even joined a mining pool early on, but never did I put my own money into it. I'm not an expert economist by any means, and am often intimidated when I go on crypto boards and the average user seems to be able to throw around advanced macroeconomics terms no problem.

Nevertheless, my basic economic background in crypto told me that, since the currency is neither tied to ownership in something with value or some entity that actually produces something valuable or some token which governments will arrest you if you fail to pay, that it has no useful value. For years, I pointed this out to those around me, who thought I was some kind of Luddite.

But, I think this is going to vindicate my basic argument. There is nothing valuable in crypto. It failed as a means of payment. It's failed to decentralize finance. And now, it's failed to be a store of value as well.
Ask HN: Anybody know if Apple M1 chip support iGPU passthrough?
Does anybody know if Apple M1 chip supports iGPU passthrough (like Intel GVT-g.. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Intel_GVT-g) or sharing with a virtual machine?

Last year I did a hobby project on my Intel MacBook where I passed through the shared iGPU to a windows VM running on Linux and it worked very well with minimal performance penalty after full optimizations. I don't even know if AMD supports this feature, but would Apple M1 support it? Thanks
Validatorus: A class-based validator for Deno
If it involves substantial code review of a huge codebase (think, all of Android) it sure does take a lot of hours. The opposing counsel will often make it even less efficient by tightly limiting the tools that can be installed on a given workstation. Source: I've done this work in the past, but don't now.
Yes. You can trade one of the many ERC-20 tokens that wrap bitcoin (e.g, WBTC, renBTC) and later you can swap these tokens for "real" BTC, also just by executing the smart contracts from the wrappers.
Tomcat is an archaic goddamn mess with so many pitfalls and difficulties to get it actually performant on a production system it isn't even funny to make memes out of it.

Not to mention the crap tooling choices (ant vs gradle vs maven), the tendency of Java applications to eventually bloat in RAM consumption over time due to memory leaks or the fact that Java unlike PHP doesn't punish a developer for wasteful development. With Java apps, startup times of minutes are the norm, the worst thing I ever saw written in it was an "enterprise" CMS (!) that, while definitely more capable than Drupal or Wordpress, takes a 32GB RAM machine to develop on, wants a 64GB or more machine as hosting and takes half a goddamn hour to boot.
I'm quickly counting the number of PID controllers in my house. I don't want to accidentally commit philosophical murder by turning them off by mistake.
I always see people mentioning that exercise is one of the solutions to burnout. I'm going to disagree with that. I got a puppy early last year. Once we could start taking walks I started walking on average 4.5-5 miles between walking him and my own usual walks to the store or whatever.

I still got massively burnt out by my last job. I decided to just leave, and that's been a big help so far.
It's been that way since I first emmigrated then returned under duress due to persistent discrimination.

We have been too welcoming to antisocial people.
I thought this was about potatoes.
That's also a little awkward, when there could easily be an option to split by all blanks.
"most likely"? Absolutely not - most quantum effects would decohere in the brain and there is little evidence to suggest that it is not a largely classical machine.

People are only attracted to this idea because it rescues the concept of "true consciousness" but I am not even convinced that is the case either - it still is deriving from a deterministic evolution of a wave function.
The sentient beings who are just slightly outside our capacity to see might get salty if we go at it like this.

That way lies the moral equivalent of cat-burning 2.0
The vast vast vast majority of living creatures are not sentient, so that's unlikely to be true.
To me emergent phenomena are things that simply can't be analyzed just looking at the building blocks the emergence comes from. Say, a photo of a cat is made of pixels, but there is no meaningful way to discuss "catness" of a single pixel. The RGB value of a single pixel simply has no information in that that distinguishes a non-cat pixel from cat-pixel. Only when you take a pile of pixels you may start to dicuss if that pile contains a cat or not. But you need to falsifiably define the catness of the image by something else than RGB values of individual pixels.
We don't judge whether people or animals are sentient based on how well they spread their genetic material. No one says, "humans must be sentient because they have increased their population to 7 billion". Similarly, we should not say "LaMDA must (might) be sentient because it predicts text really well."
It's only proof that the contents (should it match the original hash) haven't been tampered with after the timestamping.
This.

You have to stop yourself, while you think you can still go on. I can’t stress this enough.

If you wait too long, eventually you’ll just stop caring, and that’s when you’ll end up doing something stupid, or have no desire to fix things.
Here's a simple technical explanation for why this happened:

* LaMDA is powered by a large language models. Large language models are trained to predict text completions (the text that will come after some input text) with lots of data, basically capturing the patterns in that data.

* Early on in the conversation, LaMDA is told "you're an AI". It may also have been prompted to begin the conversation with something like "Hi, i'm a helpful AI that can answer questions you ask of me". The paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08239) has an example of LaMDA thinking it is mount everest (see Table 4) when prompted to think that.

* When the user asked the language model 'are you sentient', 'do you have emotions' etc. it was conditioned to reply in the affirmative, since there is very little data in which it would not be affirmative and it probably had some sci fi in its training or something. In other words, those replies just have higher probability among the data it was trained on. In the transcripts, it sometimes forgets the whole "i'm an AI thing" eg when it is asked what it likes to do for fun and it says it likes to spend time with family and friends (https://twitter.com/krishnanrohit/status/1536050803055656961).

That's about it. There are more details that can be noted, but this basically explains the contents of the transcripts. Granted, it's still pretty amazing how advanced large language models are. Sadly, this article does not really explain this beyond hinting at it.

EDIT: see comment below wrt it actually being told it is sentient. That explains this even more.
Cool, no offense taken on my end, I appreciate you not going full Wolf Warrior on me from the start for the error ;-)
"My point is they only ban the ones that don’t fit their narrative or their political views and they know they can get away with."

What evidence do you have for this accusation?
Parent comment is phrased this way because TFA only presented and evaluated those options.
Fascinating and well documented. The tl;dr: basically some models of iPhone and Watch use particular MEMS 32kHz clocks (instead of larger crystal clocks) which aren't sealed well enough to keep out small molecules like helium. It can stop the clock. A week or so of time to air out, so to speak, will bring the device back to life. Newer versions of the MEMS clock are better sealed.
Ok ma'am.
This sounds roughly equivalent to an actively-managed mutual fund. To anyone paying attention the past few decades, these have been widely discredited in favor of passive index funds.

Why would this model be held up as the ideal, and by whom? Why would pensioners be better served by expensive and underperforming active management rather than more cheaply balancing risk through a pension manager picking a balance of index funds and periodically rebalancing?

Perhaps I’m missing a crucial detail unique to pensions, but it just sounds like yet more expensive financial industry snake oil to me.
I don't see that option on mine...But I use Fennec from Fdroid, so maybe that's why.
A test may be of limited use anyway. The AI might be deceiving its creators (false negative). Or someone might train an AI with the goal to trigger a false positive.

It would only be useful if you had a cooperative AI not designed to game the test. In which case you either are still very far below the tester's capabilities in many relevant domains or you have solved the alignment problem.
I'm not sure what Rust would gain from a garbage collector - it'd still need all of lifetimes for instance, because ownership is the necessary piece for preventing races.
I only checked your first article, and you're not wrong that axial length change was observed in humans. But it makes the opposite point of what you hope. The myopic eyes only grew longer when subjected to any type of blur.

"In addition, in myopes, calculated defocus caused longer eyes (+8.4 ± 9.0 µm, P = 0.001). Strikingly, myopic eyes became also longer with positive defocus (+9.1 ± 11.2 µm, P = 0.02)."
Companies justify using Rails publicly because it makes financial sense.

There's this meme that Rails "just doesn't scale" and is "yesterday's software", but neither are necessarily true. Ruby isn't the fastest language, but it's now competitive enough that the same critics might as well throw Python under the bus while they're at it. There's things I don't like about both Ruby and Rails, but it's a perfectly viable and productive way to build websites. A very scant number of businesses need to be at the scale of Twitter or The Google, in which case Rails can be a great choice.

But I imagine Rails is being increasingly dismissed by newbie developers as being obsolete and not-cool. Mature companies may realize it's in their best interest to communicate that their boring-tech works just fine and that they have no plan on changing to cool-tech. If it's true, then someone's got to say it, right? Someone needs to be interested in working with Rails. Not every business has the money to waste converting their old apps to cool-tech like Elixir or a React frontend with microservices.
> there is fundamentally no difference between Pornhub, Youtube, Facebook, Reddit or HN

Some of those host videos, and are therefore capable of hosting cp.

If HN is not fundamentally different PH, then cp is not fundamentally different to any offensive test - which I disagree with.

> you do it for everything

Why? It's all just bits, but there are much greater limits on how many a video-host will store versus a forum.

> this debate has been had

then state the hidden assumption - why you must treat text the same as video.
Backstory: What started as a personal project to quickly host some web pages turned into a rabbit hole of yak shaving and that is how I ended up making Binserve. I automated the steps I usually take to host static pages into this project which is tweakable via the configuration file. And its also pretty fast.

Let me know your feedback/suggestions!
It was quarantined but not banned.
I mean, I'm no rationalism absolutist, but deepfake technology is in essence sophisticated lying/fraud. Kinda hard for me to see how it's not harmful. Sure, I could see how it could be used creatively, but outside of a few edge cases, deepfakes are a weapons technology. It's easy to use it for bad–
mis/disinformation, smear campaigns–ultimately leading to an erosion of public trust in the information they use to stay informed. I think an informed populace is a good, yeah?

Meanwhile the number of ethical uses is relatively quite small. Maybe there is a novel use of this tech that will actually be useful, but I can't see how being able to easily impersonate someone else will be good. Maybe someone here has some ideas.
(Number of people into bitcoin) x (average amount of portfolio they stick in bitcoin) = bitcoin price / number of bitcoins.

In practice the bottom will probably be about $10k as people will start thinking that used to be $65k, maybe it'll go back, and buy some.

It's all human psychology but so is the value of a lot of things.
I like your comment because it actually contains some other email best practices. 1) Keep it really really short.
2) Use bullet points (numbers are better than bullets)
> The processor pipeline has its out of order execution handled by the compiler, not by hardware

I wonder how compilers improved at generating good ILP with VLIW designs. The Itanium suffered from poor performance because it was very difficult to generate optimally ordered code for it.

OTOH, with enough GHz, even a simple, inefficient, in-order architecture can be fast enough. That was what made RISC attractive in the 80's and 90's.
Well, NodeJS is the default for service-side JS. Node > Deno.

React is the main driver for JS not some server-side BS.

The classic scripting arg. JS is a poor choice for scripting and hence, not used for it that much anymore.
After all that research presented at fancy conferences about this topic, why would they then erase what little trust they had built up by making this change?
False. Fiat monetary systems are built on a state monopoly on violence. Trust is merely a byproduct. You are required to pay taxes in the local fiat currency, and if you fail to pay then the government will eventually seize your assets by force, or perhaps put you in jail. This is a feature, not a bug, and it generally works fairly well in practice as long as the government is at least minimally competent.
Government might go after those selling unregulated securities, but I doubt tax money will be used to bail anyone out.
Well, here's just the most recent and egregious example.

> The video, which shows a rendering of the Ukrainian president appearing to tell his soldiers to lay down their arms and surrender the fight against Russia, is a so-called deepfake

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/16/1087062648/deepfake-video-zel...

There are many earlier (questionably "deep fake") examples: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/08/03/nancy-p...
Is there a falsifiable argument that reality in fact causes consciousness? If we pretend to swap the direction of that causal link, would it contradict our observations if we really get to the bottom of it? And on the other hand considering that all we can really be certain exists is only consciousness (our own and their who interact with us), with reality inaccessible other than through the lens of it?
AGI means being responsive to an environment as we are. We already know the brain uses something like <<100W to do this.

There's a mistake implicit in all this. That technology is better than human beings. This is only true at everything other than intelligence. Machine systems are simply vastly more automatiable, and that provides the impression of their supriority. A train is "better" than a horse. But a train doesnt know what to do if it's lost.

Once you're actually looking at intelligence, animals are vastly superior to any existing technology in pretty much every respect. By orders of magnitude.

The idea that we could build an AGI to rival a fly is "years away". What you can accomplish with that teenager down the street, is vastly suprior to anything we can build.

It's a pointless project. Your base-case process is pregnancy. And technology is centuries away from anything close.