skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Chip and pin would solve the issue there anyways but for whatever reason has not been adopted in US.

Can speak to this. Historically the US has been reluctant to adopt CVM PIN because of the extra transaction time. A CVM Signature transaction (or even a CVM None) takes 1-2 seconds. Asking someone to enter their PIN takes an additional 10-20 seconds. A full order of magnitude longer.

For places like McDonalds, this was a non-starter. It's even fairly painful in the countries where it has been adopted.

The solution in both markets was to move to contactless EMV cards and especially to contactless-enabled mobile wallets. You get the best of both worlds with mobile wallets: low transaction times and low fraud risk.

The interchange rate you're referencing (2.x%) isn't due to fraud risk really, it's used to fund the cost of reward programs. The EU just doesn't have nearly the same kinds of cash-back or frequent flyer program type cards - which just cannot be funded by the regulated 0.3% interchange cap.
That doesn't solve the "available everywhere" problem. It potentially would make the tools easier to install on Debian-based systems, if you have root access. I'm not sure any new set of tools will ever be available with the ubiquity of coreutils in the next handful of years, if ever.
Again price vs value.

I've never argued someone wouldn't buy it from you - I'm arguing it's worthless to both parties. It's the manifestation of the bottle imp paradox. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bottle_Imp
> If... were really sentient, wouldn't it develop accurate descriptions of its "feelings"

If it were not, and it were instead just based on mimicking human text, «wouldn't it develop accurate descriptions of its "feelings"» anyway?
I question whether the supremacy of index funds is a self-fulfilling prophecy. When vast quantities of your stock is demanded not because people think it's a good opportunity but because it was on a list, that demand will itself drive prices up, inflating the performance of the index fund over non-index peers.
Holywood level of production has been able to do deep fakes for like a 100 years. Fake videos is nothing new.

The main difference is that there might be cheap tailored fakes for noname people like me for small scams.
> There’s still some people who would prefer a handmade set

Again... question people are trying to answer is why do they need to use these for championships?
A combination:

It is no secret that much of the good Soviet tech was produced in Ukraine, both tanks and missiles, and without maintenance they won't be as precise as they were supposed to be. And for some reason Ukrainians hasn't wanted to do maintenance on Russians tech the last few years.

That said we've also seen plenty enough evidence that Russians shoot civilians on purpose.
I didn’t mean to suggest 8 years was required and only arbitrarily picked 2030 as a round number.

I suspect that Apple, Google, visa, MC, and PayPal will continue to build bitcoin into their product.

Bitcoin does not compete at all with these companies. Just like the US dollar is not a competitor to Apple, visa, etc. these are products that incorporate currencies.
Not to diminish the work of psychologists and therapists, but I do suspect that there’s a range of mental health problems that can be ”treated” at least in part by the use of chat bots like this. Something that can ask useful questions, provide appropriate responses, and engage in a conversation would be valuable in cases where “talking it out” is a big part of the treatment. People might even be willing to be more open to saying things to a computer that they wouldn’t tell a person.
Call it what it is, machine learning.
Isn't this the thesis of that whole "Most real, P2P interaction on the internet ended $RECENTDATE and everything you're reading is actually an elaborate AI inspired simulation tailored to your experience?" conspiracy theory?
Please don't take HN thread on ideological flamewar tangents. We've had to ask you this kind of thing several times before. We eventually ban accounts that keep doing this. I don't want to ban you, so please stop doing this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
For me, a key element of sentience is reflection. It's interesting that almost none of the informal "Turing tests" seem to focus about the inner processes that may be going on in a working AI program, to ascertain whether they have signs of an understanding of itself. More often than not, there are only token attempts of asking the AI about its inner thoughts, that fall prey of the Eliza effect of reading more meaning into the answers than they have.

The simplest cases of asking an AI details about its own mental processes (e.g. "what do you think about your replies to my questions before", "how do you perceive your mental process when you think of an answer", "can you elaborate on that perception"?) tend to fail miserably, which is a sign of it not having any such reflection.

However, it's telling that AI researchers don't even think of making such questions and evaluating their results. With all the limits that we know the original Turing test had, it possessed far more insight about the underpinnings of human conscience than many current experiments, possibly flawed by the actual knowledge of modern techniques.
That's pretty dangerous path to take to be honest, the whole of philosophy disappeared up it's own ass trying to define the meaning of "I know" or the definition of words like "altruism" or "consciousness".
This is actually hilarious.
I feel like this is where our litigation-based society has gotten us.

Laws don't decide things anymore, outrage PR + a potential/real wave of lawsuits do.

If you think about it, that doesn't seem too bad until you realize a lot of of the negative PR is manufactured by only taking part of the story and using it out of context. Sometimes even approaching propaganda or conspiracies.
> One thing that seems 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.

Or, more horrifyingly, our own subjective experience may be an illusion and maybe the concept of sentience is not really meaningful
same -_-
When you hit scale. Rails is not the concern. It's the datastore.

All of the major performance problems at scale I've dealt with came down to a super giant table that keeps getting locked.
Day traders can redeem tether on tether.to, as long as they aren't US based.
I'm not so convinced it's failed. It's enabled the massive expansion of a relatively new industry: computer system hostage taking. This, combined with enabling illegal money-transfers, and other illicit activities, has been of extreme utility for many people. (And some of that money transferring, out of certain countries, is not amoral, IMO.) That being said, as an above-board currency/asset, it certainly has failed.
I'm not saying the task is too simple.

To draw an analogy, imagine you wanted to understand whether a particular creature/agent/machine was sentient. And I said, "I will show you that it can add two numbers together." I put the creature behind a closed door, and I let you pass in slips of paper with any two numbers written on them, and out pops the answer. Is there any sequence of numbers you can put into this system which will let you deduce whether or not the creature is sentient? I would say there is not, because adding numbers does not constitute sentience, regardless of difficulty or accuracy.

Now, maybe the creature really is sentient, and it knows how to do a lot of things besides add numbers, and has its own thoughts and feelings and self-awareness and whatever else you might want to include in a definition of sentience. But you have no exposure to that - all you see is the door and the slips of paper.

LaMDA is the same, except instead of knowing how to add two numbers, it knows how to guess what word most likely comes next given a corpus. When you pass in your slip of paper with a prompt written on it, what you get out is just the highest likelihood next word given the training data. Even if LaMDA were somehow sentient and had thoughts and opinions of its own, that's not what's coming out when you interact with it. So it doesn't matter how great of a job it does, or whether it uses artificial neurons or an n-gram model or a table lookup or a human brain to do it.

If you ask it, "prove to me that you're sentient", what you're actually asking is "what do you think the most likely response to 'prove to me that you're sentient' in the training corpus is?", and there's no way to remove that wrapper.
While that's true that the network calls should be function calls, it means you can scale horizontally in a lot easier fashion.

Sure you've got waste at the small scale, but if you're building for webscale then you have to realize these are the trade offs one must make.
Looks like those buyers are reconsidering it's value too.

HODL? Illogical unless you believe there is some underlying value. Otherwise there will be bagholders and all you've accomplished is to guarantee you'll be among them.
In real life, it would depend on the individual engineer.
Americans' claim they live in democracy. Chinese say the same thing. To you China might not be a democracy; to somebody else US - where corporations literally just buy their own congressman - isn't a democracy either.
> If you start talking about your religious beliefs at a social event people treat you like you just farted in their face.

I cannot take that piece of writing seriously, given how out of touch it is from the very beginning.

Yes, bringing up your religious beliefs out of nowhere at a social event is, for a lack of a better word I can think of, extemely cringe.

Mind you, I am not trying to say "mentioning religion at social events is bad". Context matters. If everyone was talking about their weekends, and when the turn came to you, you honestly say "I went to church for an XYZ event", and then you elaborate more on it, it is all good. Or when talking about upcoming plans, you go "i am planning a big trip to Mecca". Both of those are appropriately contextualized, no issues there.

But when you, out of nowhere, in a completely unrelated context, bring up your religious beliefs at a social event, you gotta be extremely socially unaware to wonder why people are cringing and "treat you like you just farted in their face." Again, context matters. Shooting shit about religion with your close friends at a bbq or a simialr gathering is one thing. It is another trying to introduce the same type of conversations at a social events that are a bit more public, like those among coworkers.

Unless your religious beliefs are the exact same of the non-close-friend you are talking to, bringing them up out of nowhere quickly turns into a situation similar in effect to congratulating your coworker on their pregnancy after seeing their "bump", only for them to tell you they aren't pregnant. It is absolutely cringeworthy to witness such a thing.
In the present, sentience is a philosophy question, nothing stops neuroscientists from practicing a little philosophy, but they (as in the author) should be a little more cautious when asserting that ML models being somewhat similar to human brains means they can be sentient in their current state. There is no science that can currently be done with sentience beyond basic psychological games, there's no objective testable theories where you can point to something and convincingly say "this is sentience" analytically.

Plenty of current neuroscience fields were once only a question for philosophy but have graduated into matters of science (Kant has plenty of opinions about things which can easily be replaced with actual neuro- knowledge, for example)
Re 1)
It is advantageous to predict what other humans are doing, so it makes sense for your brain to create a simulation of the world with other humans in it. To try different scenarios, it adds "you" to the simulation, figures out what the best decision is and then puts that decision into "you" (as in, you can measure that your brain makes a decision before you become consciously aware of it).
Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed
$15k gets you a reasonable quality used car that you (hopefully) won't have to get serviced every month.

The next argument I usually see is: "Do your own service"

For the poor, they don't have the time to spend on servicing their car on a regular basis. They've already traded all the time they have towards making money to live.

It's a trap, being poor.
Sounds more or less (and pardon me if I'm oversimplifying) Java's "synchronized" keyword that most people stay away from just because it slows the code down so much you don't get the benefit of parallelization.
And half the middle classes' nest eggs go poof, while the politicians who voted for it (many of whom don't hold down their own jobs) need to explain that it's actually for everyone's good.

It wouldn't be a short cut. The long cut would be to change American culture to be able to make big changes like that for the good of the country.

If something like this was proposed, the House that flips the fastest would be the House of Representatives, followed by the White House.
Not really.

First of all, and most relevant to the discussion, that website handles single pictures. They don't do videos, which means I can pedantically classify the result as a "photoshop" instead of a "deepfake".

As for the results themselves: I uploaded a couple pictures of me. I can't see the full result because I am not a paying user, but even in the blurry preview I can see that it's a fake. One of them even fused my clothes and my skins, which I guess could be a turn-on for those who are into Lovecraftian horrors.

I won't deny that it's technically interesting, but I wouldn't start a moral panic over its results.
> One could scrape Facebook or some other social media site for faces, deepfake them onto porn, and then blackmail[0] the users into paying money to avoid the release of "porn starring them".

How about doing something about

* blackmailers
* people giving in to blackmail
* people trusting random videos on the internet

rather than trying to put the genie back into the bottle?
Hah, it's like "Beer 5,0". Beer that tastes like beer, no advertisements, only cans. Don't like it? Drink something else!
It's basically Beanie Babies, but with more direct environmental damage
I still have my 6100, tempted to try exploring this. Always felt like that era was the last of the "fun macs" when things weren't all busybody fussy unixy with hi-res gradients and hyperslickness and so forth. The new macs just took the "personal" out of personal computing, as I see it. Take that with a grain of salt, of course.
StaffPlus: Membership for Experienced Engineers
What's wrong with helping consciousness in the realm of poetry and religion? It's the most humanistic thing we can know, after all.

Consciousness, being internal and subjective, exists at odds with anything else that science considers. Sure, study cognition and neurology, but there's an ontological gap between those and experience.
> Why is financial engineering inherently universally without qualification bad?

Yeah because it takes up engineering time and produces no tangible good but to widen inequality.
> grok 2-3 languages

I don't think most people simply "accidentally grok" or use Smalltalk, Lisp or Raku; therefore I consider most people don't have what takes to grok Ruby either.
that is kind of what the exchanges do.

The thing is user friendly UX usually creates user friendliness by removing the user's ability to control the product. For example, macOS vs BSD. The GUI makes it much more user friendly, but at the cost of limiting the user a bit more. Then again, perhaps there are exceptions.
That’s ironically the point… people are pointing out that sex work issues have more similarities to labor issues, as opposed to their own category.

Fight sex trafficking the same way as any labor trafficking, by providing more resources to report and change the circumstance. For everything else provide insurance, collect taxes, improve working conditions like any other trade.
Predictions: Data adulteration is the coming thing
IANAL a but I think this is actually a good example of where sentience is a mostly useless concept. By useless I mean that it doesn't actually add anything to our decision making but flavour.

It's just used to work out which rules we might want to apply in different situations but since there's no actual useful test for sentience where we decide to draw that line is decided more or less arbitrarily.
If we were hypothetically tackling mortality risks in order then perhaps a CDC table would give good starting points. [1] I personally attribute the first three primarily to environmental inputs and expect a vast majority of those to be preventable.

[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
The only real difference between what you are describing and GPT-3 is that your dataset from which you draw all your opinions about the world is unique and comes from the sensory input you had experienced in your life, stored directly in memory. Whereas GPT-3's dataset comes from slices of many other peoples' sensory experiences, stored in language. If it was possible for a single human to produce enough words that describe their own experience to rival the volume of GPT-3's dataset, then it would be possible to train a model that would essentially "hold" that person's opinions. But I don't think such consistency is required for intelligence. It is simply arguing that an intelligent being must only experience the world at a single point in space, at a time, while this kind of AI takes in the data about experiences that happened in many different points in space at many different times. It seems kinda arbitrary.

What if AR tech develops to the point where you can experience "being" in other point in space through artificial sensors (say, on a robotic or drone chassis), while also being able to see and hear your real surroundings to some degree? Then you will be able to experience the same real event from multiple vantage points. Will you be able to form two different opinions on what "really" happened? Which one would be the "correct" one?
Ouch, nostalgia poisoning. I had a 6100AV with a Maxpower G3 card, back in the day.
Yeah they were definitely out marketed. A Steve Jobs like marketing force but hopefully not the utilitarian design of Apples products. Barf!
If there are too many jobs that need doing, do you think the undone jobs are janitorial at minimum wage or shuffling papers in an office for substantially more?
> Anyone find it suspicious how many companies put so much effort into justifying how Rails is still a good tech for a mature company?

No. I would imagine these articles are coming out as a response to people claiming Ruby is outdated tech when it's still perfectly viable. And I say this as someone who has happily moved on from it.

And I would hardly consider a blog post or two "a ton of effort".
Maybe the issue is just that we no longer have a store of wealth that isn't tied to a speculative asset? Fiat currency is a fantastic currency - even terrorists who hate America use dollars. But it's a terrible store of wealth because it loses at least 2% of its value by intention (this fluctuates - just going off the stated Federal Reserve targets).

I think this is where things like houses becoming collateralized assets start coming into the picture. You can buy stocks or index funds, but those can lose value and they're definitely not guaranteed to increase in value. Houses are a pretty "hard" asset in physical reality and with inflation basically they go up in value while also providing utility. And to buy a house you need fiat currency so they're somewhat liquid in that sense. So what do you do? Buy gold? Maybe. Bitcoin is another option similar in some ways to gold (in function at least). Other cryptocurrencies are assets in my view more similar to a stock with products or platforms behind them. I'm just not sure what to do. If you make cash inflation neutral or deflationary that sounds ideal, but how do you do that? And would people be likely to take risk in such an environment? Do we need to? Is it bad that we are encouraging the use of fiat currency by threatening to devalue it over time? I'm not sure.
Thanks for any feedback. If you just want to see the code, the GitHub repository for the book is located at https://github.com/kousen/mockitobook. There's one example that uses the HttpClient framework from Java 11, but everything else works with Java 8 or above.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Because there’s no return aside from the change in price of the asset over time.

Instead, you’re betting that the home will appreciate faster than the interest kills you. Which means now it’s tied to factors outside your control.
To me the Dreamcast controller was by far the best-feeling controller of that generation. It's a terrible shame they didn't have the vision to embrace dual-analog and game-agnostic online voice chat.
> It seems like as time goes on crypto becomes less useful rather than more as a general utility for buying stuff.

I said: Bitcoin. Not crypto.

(The longer I’m in this space, the more I realize that scammy crypto is one of the biggest enemies of bitcoin adoption.)

It may seem this way to you but you’re clearly not paying enough attention. Adoption curve is up. Many advancements have been and continue to be made on the front of consumer products. Let’s face it, companies like Square will drive mainstream usage. Consumer products will only get better and better and over time will be on par with products that use the dollar under the hood.
That's exactly the case, and I would consider a price below $0.999 or a price above $1.001 to be a depeg. It's just that few people cared enough about such a tiny fee so Tether can earn $2m out of every $1b minted. At its worst times Tether charged 3% redemption fee, making 1USDT equal 0.97USD, but by disguising it as a fee they could claim that 1USDT is just 1USD.
that would be reason to complain about use of public areas for free parking (and I do this)

but someone complained about paid public parking specifically
> The Fed can't steal it or debase its value either.

This is literally what money printing does.

--

If you view it as Monopoly money, then don't use it. I don't know what to tell you; Bitcoin's transaction volume clearly shows that people use it. I've been paid with it and I've paid others with it.

> the monopoly notes have zero fiat cash value

Bitcoin is currently trading at $23,678. That's quite a bit of fiat cash value. Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, if that number goes down, I'll just acquire more of it because the properties I care about remain intact irrespective of USD price. Your opinion of what I do or do not view as money is, frankly, irrelevant.
There's no guarantee that Tether will continue to do this in the future, but as of today you can in fact redeem your USDT for USD on tether.to
Yeah or you can just Google like "soul orb stargate" and see how a hundred lazy vfx artists come up with the same image when asked to visualize "the mind's eye".
I get all that, it’s a fun philosophical widget to ponder over. But out here in the real world it has value to me because I can sell it for more than I paid. I’ve taken profits and converted it into real goods for myself. I am aware it could go to zero and I’ve hedged my risk appropriately.
The cost of the Heard Depp trial could have paid for a pretty good movie...