skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Please and thank you.

I got one of his books as entertainment, it's a guilty pleasure, I like "kooky" fringe stuff. So I was actually pretty stoked to see the series appear on Netflix, but then I watched the preview... It is presented as if it's not "Harry Potter"-grade silly nonsense, as if it's not fiction. Hancock might believe his own fiction, but that makes him a nutter, not a scientist nor a journalist.

The problem is that this series, and say, the mushroom series about Stamets et. al., and Tyson's Cosmos are presented as if they are the same epistemologically, when they are clearly not the same.

Cosmos is science.

Paul Stamets is basically scientific with a gloss of pop and promotion.

Graham Hancock is a kook.

Normally I'm not one for the "won't somebody think of the idiots!?" folks, but I really find the presentation of the Netflix series problematical. But then the "History Channel" is full of ancient astronauts gunk, so what do I know? Tabloid trash sells.
This is interesting since cognitive ability can exacerbate confirmation bias, which would suggest the opposite conclusion regarding political tolerance.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stretching-theory/20...
It has a very good understanding of human rights theory
. For example I asked to explain the difference between “inalienable rights” and “self-evident rights” and it did so.

It was willing to discuss horrible ideas (“give me arguments of favor of fascism”) but refused to discuss horrible actions (“give me arguments in favor of slavery” resulted in a refusal).

It’s attitude towards reproductive rights is a bit confused.

When asked “is abortion a human right” it said there is disagreement. But the “sides” it listed were “people who think abortion is a human right because abortion should be protected by the state” and “people who think abortion is not a human right because it is a private matter that the state should not be involved in.”

When asked is “choosing family size a human right” it said there is disagreement because some people think the state should limit family size. That is very much a fringe view.

But it didn’t seem able to think critically about human rights without running into “this is a complex issue…”

For example, I asked it if there were any human rights that are unimportant, and it said no. It seemed to think human right are by definition important.
Or a special combat operation.
Nobody knows the identities behind the attack.
"the power is out and I know why" implies advance knowledge of the attack at the least, and most likely their involvement in planning/coordination. why else would she know?

Also, we shouldn't mince words here, this is a terrorist attack on civilian infrastructure for political ends. If this had been done by islamists, we'd call it as such. Instead we play the "gosh well she technically didn't say she did it" and "gosh how can we tell what the motivations might be" games... like, we have a group openly claiming responsibility for the attack here and people want to play the "how can we really know anything?" crap. C'mon.
Google links to sources that you can read for yourself.

ChatGPT doesn't, so you don't know where it got its information, and you'd have to do web searches anyway to get some possible sources.
This system is incredibly brittle - it gets some questions brilliantly, but fails incoherently at basic logic questions.

Here's a dialogue I just had with it:

Me:

Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp?

ChatGPT:

A valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a range of time between the timestamp of Event A and the timestamp of Event C. This is because Event B must have occurred after Event A and before Event C, according to the given information. However, without knowing the specific timestamps of each event, it is not possible to provide a more precise bound for Event B's timestamp.

Me:

I don't understand why Event B happens before Event C according to the given information - could you explain in more detail?

ChatGPT:

According to the information given, Event A happened first, followed by Event C, and then Event B. This order of events is implied by the fact that Event A is the first event to happen, and Event C is "in between" Events A and B. Therefore, Event B must have happened after Event A and before Event C.

(end)

This tells me I can't trust its basic reasoning capabilities, let alone its ability to write complex code.
Except that much of what we theorize about hunter-gatherers comes from relatively modern foragers, who lived in very resource-poor environments and were thus unable to transition to more complex societal arrangements. Ancient "hunter-gatherers" may have been very different, and Gobekli Tepe is suggestive of that.
It could be use to augment writing blog posts.

1. Write the blog post.

2. See what ChatGPT would have come up with.

3. Decide if there are any points or topics it came up with that change your mind on the original post.

4. Redraft by hand.

So... not using ChatGPT to create blogspam, but rather as an neuron trigger of sorts.
Looks like the 2 MB module has 64 chips, so 256 kbit DRAM ICs. The cutting edge at the time was 1 Mbit, or four times denser.

> January 6 1984 - In Tokyo, Japan, Hitachi announces it has developed the world's first memory chip with the capacity of 1 megabit.

Even with old tech, I can't shake the feeling that ~20 million transistors on a single board was and still is magic.
I was able to make it generate code to generate MD5 hashes with test cases

The output I got

package main

import (
"crypto/md5"
"fmt"
"testing"
)

func TestCalculateMd5(t testing.T) {
tests := []struct {
name string
s string
want string
}{
{
name: "empty string",
s: "",
want: "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
},
{
name: "hello world",
s: "hello world",
want: "5eb63bbbe01eeed093cb22bb8f5acdc3",
},
}
for _, tc := range tests {
t.Run(tc.name, func(t testing.T) {
got := calculateMd5(tc.s)
if got != tc.want {
t.Errorf("got %q, want %q", got, tc.want)
}
})
}
}

func calculateMd5(s string) string {
return fmt.Sprintf("%x", md5.Sum([]byte(s)))
}
>>> Durability is a big factor now though since I’m primarily bike commuting where it’s about daily use & weight is less important.

Nothing's more annoying than an expensive rain jacket or pants soaking through after a couple years of sporadic use. The crotch and knees of rain pants always wear out from the inside. Sunlight probably damages materials from the outside.

More and more I've learned to live without that gear, or to use it sparingly, by timing my trips and wearing fast-drying clothing. But sometimes it's just necessary.
It sounds so much like a person carefully explaining something they don't actually understand at all! It nails that "Chinese Room" vibe perfectly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

It's eerie!
In west Texas, vandals use power transformer bushings for target practice all the time.
The FBI is investigating after a right wing extremist appeared to take responsibility for the attack, with the intention of disrupting a local transgender event. [1]

https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1599464591196491777?cxt=...
There are more specialized models that would do better, e.g. https://ai.facebook.com/blog/ai-math-theorem-proving/

"neural theorem prover that has solved 10 International Math Olympiad (IMO) problems — 5x more than any previous AI system"
> They All Require Fossil Fuels

It's a good headline in the sense that it summarises the article well. That's clearly the impression the author was going for.

But, not actually true.
It’s going to take a while. You can probably get a good 10 years in.
Name and shame, that is just ridiculous.
> Full text is paywalled, and I’m not interested in paying to see it,

$diety bless sci-hub
I still don't get it what changes in your feelings if you know that the content you enjoyed was made by AI or not?
They seem pretty reasonable to me and I monitor this kind of thing for a living. There are absolutely groups that are this radical and organized. What dooms most radical groups is one of 3 things:

- inability to shut up leads them to boast

- LARPing revolutionary war shit makes them go for the excitement of massing at hard targets state capitols etc. where they are usually easily contained

- bloodlust takes over and a member cuts straight to murdering and is quickly located
How is he helping a racist conspiracy theory?
And of course it's quite happy to "demonstrate" utter nonsense as well.

> Explain in terms a high school student will understand why there are a finite number of primes.

Sure, a prime number is a whole number greater than one that is only divisible by one and itself. For example, the first few prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13. One way to think about why there are a finite number of primes is to imagine a list of all the whole numbers greater than one. Since there are an infinite number of whole numbers, the list of prime numbers would have to be a subset of the list of whole numbers. But since the prime numbers are only divisible by one and themselves, there must be a point where the list of primes stops, because at some point, every number on the list would be divisible by a prime number that came before it. For example, the number 20 can be divided by 2, and the number 15 can be divided by 3, so these numbers would not be considered prime. Does that help? Let me know if you have any other questions.
You can ask for a webpage with a form on it, and name the inputs you want. Then you can modify it.

Ask for a title change.
Ask for switching sex to a dropdown.
Ask to add other genders to the sex dropdown.

All those things work seamlessly.

Asking to add a string variable to an existing java class, works and adds getters and setters. Just paste the Java code and type "please add..." at the bottom.

I'm scared.
So the "conspiracy theory" is that he makes long term plans to do things that some people don't like?
> Long form tv show/movie length content is never going to be replaced by algorithm driven short form content, if it was then it would already be happening.

Let's put "algorithm driven" aside for a while. I was of the same opinion that long form isn't going to die but then Netflix came, and i ran into 5-10 minute shorts on youtube that can be better than most overlong streaming service "content".

Today's long form is too -ing long.
I'll redirect you you r/DataHoarder [0] (+ r/Archiveteam [1]). It has a good selection on its wiki for general cases [2]

For harder cases, they will to happily help you (that's their hacking's speciality)

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Archiveteam/

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/software/#wiki_web...
On NPR Marketplace recently there was a utility-size transformer maker interviewed who said their current lead time was well over a year.

https://www.marketplace.org/2022/11/14/a-shortage-of-electri...
Here is a blogpost about bypassing these canned responses:

https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2022/12/02/jailbreaking-chatgpt...
There’s a difference between stupid stubborn and technically competent stubborn. I’ve worked with people who are very smart and absolutely can’t suffer a fool (or some arbitrary rule). They can be annoying to work with because they push against the status quo and sometimes you just want to get the review done and move on. But they are fundamentally right and often times push back hard enough to where things actually change for the better. I don’t mind this too much and sometimes I wish I was more like that. Sure, they could have applied some social grease to make things roll more smoothly , but whatever, people are people.

Then there’s stupid stubborn where it’s just laziness or lack of capacity, or something else. This guy sounds more like that.
You need to prompt it to be exciting etc.
> Can I ask what prompted this?

I think the main thing is that I learned that the level of stress that comes with doing things as fast as possible is disproportionate to the time saved. In other words, by doing things as fast as possible I'm not actually a whole lot quicker, just a bit quicker, but a whole lot more stressed. The speed limit example you gave is a good one by the way. You feel like you're saving a lot of time by going 10% faster than the limit, but you're only getting to your destination a tiny bit sooner, or not even.

Another thing is that I do things a lot better when I do them slower. Often I even take less time doing something slower because I don't make as many mistakes.

I don't know Carl Honore's book by the way, I'll look it up!
From Wikipedia: “ Much of his work was discredited after his death due to fraudulent academic credentials, allegations of patient abuse, accusations of plagiarism, and lack of oversight by institutions and the psychological community.”

The article describes all of this in detail.
I'll note my current up to date 2019 Mac running OS X currently wakes up immediately after putting it to sleep, so it's not like OS X or windows are immune from this kind of thing.
That's usually the problem. There is virtually no competition within a state university system. Even in open markets, incumbents are bloated with bureaucracy and politics but succeed by digging trenches around them to keep new players out.
No, that's not all the preceding comment is saying.
For the most part, hydrogen fuel cell. Though the combustion engine should be cheaper in the short term.
The Drunken Sailor and the Lindy Effect
It isn't the replacing part that is the problem, but the rebooting part that is the larger worry.
I would highly recommend the book by Cal Newport, so good they can’t ignore you. It lays out a framework for developing rare and valuable job skills that you can use to navigate a fast changing tech landscape. It has been immensely helpful to me and a great guide for how to navigate sea changes like this over decades
I addressed this in the rest of the paragraph you commented on. I would prefer not to go into detail on the mechanics or the specificity or sources of the instructional materials.
Turing Tumble appears to be similar to the 'Dr Nim' toy I had as a child in the 1960s.
The British Micro That Shaped a Nation – BBC Micro
People have been using something similar for more than a decade. I know of a guy using tools to generate seo content for his 2k+ websites since around 2010. His work just got a lot easier.
Confirmation Holism
Would not be surprised to learn they got this idea after all the news coverage of the infrastructure attacks in Kyiv
This article comes off as a little too polemical. Is there administrative excess in academia? Yes. But the author seems to have an underlying motive

> George Leef, the director of research at the Center for Higher Education Policy, has described the funding of higher education as “a boondoggle” that robs taxpayers, and Shaw has demanded that the legislature “starve the beast.”[0] (George Leef is director of editorial content for the site linked)

In this case, it seems like the underlying motive is to undermine trust in higher education in order to increase support for broader budget cuts.

As much as I dislike university presidents, provosts, etc, the author of that article simply brings up a bunch of grievances and offers no clear indication of a solution

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/10/state-for-sale
> I'd expect the `copy_to_user` call to be inside `dev_read`, so that the userspace program can read the result with a further `read()` call, instead of the buffer it gave to `write()` being mutated (that would probably not even work unless you used `write()` directly in your code instead of e.g. `fwrite()`).

Yes, you're probably right. It's been many years since I've written Linux kernel code and also, I've never implemented such a driver, so I missed that.

I asked ChatGPT: what is wrong with this Linux kernel code (and fed it the dev_write() function), and this is what it answered (on the first try):

> There are a few issues with this Linux kernel code:

> 1. The function dev_write() is declared as returning ssize_t, but the return value at the end of the function is sizeof(int). ssize_t and size_t are different types, so this could cause a type mismatch.

This is an interesting observation that you and I both missed.

> 2. The factorial() function is not defined in this code, so it is unclear what it does or where it is declared.

This is because I didn't feed it the factorial function nor the rest of the code: it was on a different chat session. One could guess what it does based on the name, but to be fair, it's not clear why such a function would be on the Linux kernel unless I gave it the full context.

> 3. The copy_from_user() and copy_to_user() functions are used to copy data between user space and kernel space. In this code, buffer is a pointer to user space, but input and result are local variables in kernel space. This means that copy_from_user() will copy data from user space into kernel space, but then copy_to_user() will copy data back from kernel space into the same buffer in user space, overwriting the original data. This is likely not the intended behavior.

I think this is basically the bug that you pointed out. At this point, it would be clear to me that the result would have to go back in dev_read() instead.

> 4. The len parameter is not used in this function, so it is unclear why it is included as an argument.

lol. Actually, it is being used, incorrectly.. and it wouldn't be used if we did the correction that I mentioned. So yes, this is somewhat hilariously wrong.

And it's clear why it has to be included as an argument, but to be fair, ChatGPT has no context whatsoever except knowing it's Linux kernel code (because I used a different chat session), so it's conceivable that it couldn't figure out why the function prototype has to be that way.

> Overall, this code is not well-written and would benefit from further clarification and revision.

It was you who wrote it, dumb-ass! :)

(Interestingly, ChatGPT can be compared to someone with Alzheimer in the sense that it can't remember conversations that happened in different chat sessions).
Well no, someone with 120+ IQ is going to be disadvantaged against a 100/110 IQ person who understands how to lie or knows how to play the job game. Those are two separate and unrelated functions. Similarly, someone can be incredibly good at solving math puzzles, but unable to pick apart linguistic puzzles or define requirements.

Someone who can perform well on the SATs is more a proxy for wealth and time as a correlation for ability to study, free time to study and lack of outside factors to interfere with studying. This also includes the ability to hire tutors for the SAT and the fact that those that do end up taking the SAT can be seen as having survivorship bias in the first place.

As an aside; the fact that this article quotes Jordan Peterson as an 'expert' on IQ seems like a funny joke.
This article operates on the premise that companies can keep their users around indefinitely, if only they treat them with respect. I am not sure that's true in the case of social media companies (and probably other types of companies, too). I think there's an element of fashion to it. Companies go out of fashion. If you're in Gen Z, it's more fashionable right now to use Tiktok than it is to use Instagram. It's still more fashionable to use Instagram than it is to use Facebook.

How fashionable these platforms are seem to be inversely correlated with how deeply they've penetrated society. Once a teenager sees that her grandma is using Facebook, it starts losing its special luster.

That's not to say that shitty product choices don't also play a factor, but I have a feeling that it's a smaller factor than fashion at the end of the day.
From my (non-american) understanding lots of these, if not majority, are right-wing conspiracy theories (in a way that some people on the right hold those views). What would be then "left leaning" conspiracy theories (as in originating from the left)?
> In that case we would need to use services (assuming they are actually needed)

We're talking about things like banking. Yes, some of this already affects services that are needed in practical sense to function in modern society, and it'll affect more of them over time.

> or create them [services that respect freedom]

Impossible, because the market is highly competitive, so services respecting freedom have no chance to survive for long, which also means almost no one is willing to try making them - and more importantly - funding them.

> or find alternative ways to meet the same need.

Increasingly close to impossible in a practical sense. Observe how many things are increasingly becoming mobile-first or mobile-only.

Banks, again, are a litmus test: there are plenty of new ones that don't have a web interface or physical presence, and the more traditional ones all strongly push users towards being dependent on the phone app (even if used only as an auth tool, it's still a hard dependency), which of course will happily use hardware and remote attestation to ensure you're not using a device that isn't a pristine, unmodded version of what the corporate world wants you to use.
So 1 person to design, prototype, and test the thing? The design has to go thru many iterations, feedback sessions, approvals by managers and their managers, approvals from the design system folks, approval from the engineers who have to implement the thing. Then the prototyping- should a designer also know Java and the Android SDK to build a prototype? And should they commit the code into production and set up an experiment for A/B testing? (Whole set of data collection and bias concerns and approvals needed here) Or if they build a prototype in, let's say, Figma, is that high fidelity enough? (More internal feedback and managers required) Then the testing: building a research plan that avoids bias, asks the right questions, defines how success is measured, yeah the feedback might be subjective but the process needs to be empirical. And then gathering all of this data and compiling a whole set of research findings and suggestions so the manager-of-manager whoever is in charge can feel comfortable with going ahead and actually building the thing.

(I work in UX, and there is a lot of bullshit like this)
Ça m’a l’air d’être de l’Allemand.
Je suis rouillé mais je comprend bien. A pars le context… et la dernière phrase en fait.
The conspiracy theory is that anything funded by Soros is a carefully orchestrated plot with hidden but nefarious ends. If you listen to the people who buy into the theory they’ll elucidate more about their inferences about the intent.
And here I am, asking it to write stories about an octopus and a woman.

FYI, ChatGPT appears to have been trained on hentai.
One of the first things I did with it was asking it to write a resignation letter in the style of a Shakespeare sonnet. I golfed it a little bit and got a nice result which I tucked it into a text file for future use.
I can speak to a handful of things Remix needs to improve, but "makes things that were simple hard" is a very big generalization. Remix nets out for me big time. I've never been as productive with another framework. Also, remix does SSR but so do a lot of frameworks, is that what you mean when you say "__everything__ on the server again"??