skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It really does not feel like you are taking this conversation up with intellectual honesty. For starters, rigor and logical coherence are the same thing. Second, the links I provided go into the rigor/logical coherence and already discuss the information from the link you shared in much more details. You can not at the same time complain about pedagogy (providing a handwavy explanation of entropy as the one that has better pedagogy) and rigor (providing a winding explanation that deals with all the intricacies but requires a lot of reading). Just get of your high horse and actually read through the things I shared. It is becoming silly to argue about entropy when you disregard half of the literature on the topic on a hunch.

It is truly silly to share a pop-sci blurb from NIST in this situation. It certainly provides a good initial intuition, but it skips all the rigor and logical coherency you pretend to care about (and which, again, is discussed in what I shared).
This paper is a little bit of a red herring, as Yannic, an NLP PhD, covered well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX8phGhG8VQ They filtered questions that GPT-3 - the model they tested - got right before constructing the dataset. They asked questions about common misconceptions, conspiracy theories and things humans have believed until recently. The dataset should be called expert consensus vs public entertainment belief i.e. they consider the ground truth as a humourless experts answer, while the reality is in a random sitcom, you -would- expect the meaning derived by the these models (the meaning more common in the training data... such as what happens when a mirror breaks).

It's also clear that RHLF models can be given instructions to reduce this issue. And in many production LLM models, something called few shot is used - in context learning - where you provide several examples and then ask for a new case. The accuracy is again improved this way, because the model "deduces" that you are being serious and humourless, when asking about mirrors breaking, and are not asking in the context of a story.

It's also one of the only datasets that fails to increase with scale (There was a big, cash-paying high incentive challenge to find other datasets, and it pretty much didn't find any that can't be worked around or are not experienced by RLHF models like ChatGPT). So it doesn't represent a wider trend of truthfulness above human accuracy being impossible (dated/data drift on the other hand, clearly remains an issue).
CAD simply means Computer Aided Design. It does not imply solid modelling.
> As I wrote in the first message, a huge amount of people don't care either way

Do you have any data to support that claim?

Anecdotally, almost all programmers I've spoken to have expressed some kind of complaint about how much data all our devices collect these days. Many of them even saying that they're afraid to speak their mind on the Internet because they know someone might connect their words to their true identity.

A large number of non-programmers have mentioned to me how freaked out they are by their Android phones showing them ads for things they've just mentioned in proximity of their phones for the first time.

Considering the massive surveillance we're under, I think that "most people care, and don't want telemetry if given the choice" is much more precise than "most people don't care".
Hi Rabidonrails,
We have decided to launch an official HN campaign for the beta release of Lago (https://www.getlago.com/beta). This Beta covers the full range of billing features (credit notes, bill on customers' timezones, invoice grace periods...) and we believe that our product is now suitable for a wider range of users and use cases.

Our previous articles focused on billing-related content. They discussed various aspects of billing, such as Stripe fees, alpha launch, and various features.
I don’t know the particulars of Booking.com, but I can tell you that a very large part of property owners are small scale, largely tech-illiterate (and sometimes close to natural language illiterate) and would only recognize SMS from those abbreviations you just threw out. These are people who barely have enough time with managing the physical and admin parts of the business (dealing with staff, guest requests, repairs, cleaning, accounting and taxes, etc).

Same as most other small and medium businesses that don’t specialize in tech.
if chatGPT is a glimpse of the future then so was my irc chat bot from 10 years ago
> The sudden explosion of AI tech - both in the tech community and the public consciousness - seems like a trigger event as good as any.

Aliens when humanity comes up with the atom bomb

* shrugs *

Aliens when humanity invents a chatbot that can semi coherently talk about stuff

"Oh my god this is a paradigm shift, singularity is so close, quick deploy the BALLOONS"
Love to see this. Congrats!
I think the point here isn't about how quickly videogames or consoles boot, but rather that if your program takes longer to start than a significantly more complicated videogame from the same era, then you're doing it wrong, and as a result wasting your users' time.

It's a view I shared in the past - it held throughout the entire "desktop computing era", until consoles and PCs started to converge, and the asset bundle size of a typical game inflated rapidly.
Nicholas II ended the Romanov dynasty.

Alexander II was assasinated.

Lenin implemented the red terror to ensure his grip.

Yeltsin was forced to resign to... you guessed it; Putin.

All these may not have happened directly after the loss, but it definitely swayed public opinion against them.
Very similar to Amara's Law, the equivalent for technology - we overestimate short-term impact while underestimating long-term. Funny how this phenomenon crops up at both the societal and the individual scale:

https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/amaras-law
> Well, it allows you to track which packages are used how much and gather ip addresses of your users.

So does Rubygems, PyPI, npm, or any other package tool.

If you want to have a broader discussion about package tools: be my guest. But people misrepresenting and banging on about the Go proxy specifically got boring a long time ago.
> the State Dept [...] At least with the crowd I hang out with, it is generally seen as crying wolf.

If I told you there was a country where you should exercise increased caution because terrorists may attack with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, major sporting and cultural events, and other public areas - can you guess what country that would be?

That's right, it's Belgium [1]

I can't imagine what a US State Department travel advisory for travel to the United States would look like....

[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-tra...
I think Sabine Hossenfelder is right. Random hypotheses (here particles) are not good science.

I am not sure whether Popper is the right reference.

Karl Popper: "a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable." (1)

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
IIRC in V5 I used to use subsheets simply because each sheet would cluster its components together.
> Asking nicely doesn't work in pratice

Well, to bad. Because if you don't, you've built a piece of malware, by definition. You need to ask, live with bias, and draw your conclusions accordingly.
I asked it to create a COBOL program to connect to AWS and create an S3 Bucket...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33991767
Oh hell no. I love GPT, but with all the craziness that it spews at me - it's very much a trust, yet verify kind of love. There is no way I would trust it to run CLI commands without verifying they are doing what I want first.
The dollars in my Schwab account are securities because they're automatically invested in a money market fund.

I would argue that a crypto exchange is more like Schwab than Venmo, and that stablecoins provide a function similar to money market funds.
DOT to Face Questions from Congress Following Notam Meltdown
It's called monolithic but it still has modules
Why Breaks Mean Breakthroughs
Next step: Just compile our telemetry also to the generated code, we obviously need to know its real performance characteristics. /s
Would you keep the naming style?
In years 2000/2001, as the dot-com implosion was happening, I worked for a company where we did patent disclosures (I spent a long time talking to a patent lawyer) discussing in depth ideas for billing systems, including a vendor / distributor / consumer model (where any entity could be any one or a combination of those w.r.t. a product), data structures, data-collection frameworks, billing "metrics", passthrough-billing-with-a-cut, differential pricing, resale of combined products, etc. These were turned into patent applications that perhaps merited becoming full-blown patents, or perhaps not. Given the recent rash of companies doing this (e.g., https://www.monetize360.com/), I think they were patentable ideas 20+ years ago. The referenced applications should give some prior art coverage for many patent issues one might run into.

Of course, the vendor/distributor/consumer model can become vendor-many-clients through simplication, same ideas hold.

As it turned out, the company was lucky to have some data-storage-discovery-and-inventory software built as part of the bigger eventual vision that attracted a buyer. It was not the time to work on ambitious greenfield stuff, I guess. The patents were not relevant to the acquirer, and they lapsed at some point.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030083998

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030084000

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030083892

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030083995

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030083994

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030084145

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030083999

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030084060

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030084343

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030084341

[edit: 2000 -> 2000/2001 ... "any patent issues" --> "many patent issues" ... a few other in the inventory of ideas ... simplification of model to vendor-many-clients ... fixed one link]
Personally, I found the link between sexual assault and tracking to be expected: they're the two scenarios in which consent even gets mentioned or discussed in daily life. When it comes to sex, it's critical and mentioned all the time in media and internet posts; in tracking, it's in the forms of "I consent" buttons on every other badly designed web page. In how many other places will you find a consent form? Medical procedures, perhaps?

Obviously, Google's data hunger is worlds less harmful than sexual assault, but I think the difference in how consent is treated is actually relevant for the discussion.

When it comes to sex, it has taken many decades (or even centuries) of hard work, but at this point society is finally starting to get the message across: you don't have consent if it's not given explicitly. Society is still in the process of getting everyone on the same page here (sadly) but progress is being made.

While compiler data collection isn't as important, the idea that consent means "you haven't tried saying no enough" is completely absurd. This means is no good comparison for consent because every comparison where a normal person deals with consent will make the suggestion opt-out seem horrible. Most actions happening to a person without consent are or should be illegal, with perhaps lawful arrests and the judicial system being the exception.

If we, as a society, really do value explicit consent, we shouldn't mix and match what is and isn't consent based on what serves us. Consent is important in software too, even if some companies or developers don't see it that way.

Google devs especially should know this. People I know have felt a real sense of violation when they found out how intensely Google tracks its users. I've seen people get creeped and grossed out by their phones because they were asked to review a restaurant they were near, realising that Google knew exactly where they were and how long, and that the tracking had gone on for much longer before that. I, myself, felt a little violated when I found out how much data Microsoft's dotnet tool has been sending out after getting "consent" during an automated install and first use, despite knowing the data can't track me down as a person.

The impact may be incomparable, but developers seem to severely underestimate the emotional impact their blatant disregard for other people's privacy can really have just because they don't feel the same way. Perhaps another way the comparison is more apt than it would seem at first glance.
Have you ever considered that the problem with America's regulatory system might be capitalism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
I am one of those people who think it is impossible for me to learn a new language!
Why give away a gift card when they can use the data collected from your computer via the compiler to sell the opportunity to sell you a targeted gift card?
> while the reason they aren't turning it on could be they are lazy and don't want to do any extra work

Why would you assume that?

I think most people care and wouldn't turn it on if asked to.
What would those languages be? I'm only used to relatively modern languages with "decent string handling", but they almost always treat strings as opaque high level objects with dynamic memory allocation under the hood. Such an approach wouldn't exactly fit into the C philosophy.

Also, once UNICODE is added to the mix (which involves a lot more than just the text encoding), a decent string processing library isn't exactly trivial, it either needs a very big chunk in the stdlib, or a a handful of specialized 3rd party libs).

Even in Zig, which has a very decent modern low-level approach for handling string data, people used to high level string objects would probably be shocked at how 'inconvenient' it is to work with string data (which can be solved with specialized libraries though).
Do you think GPT-related code generation and things like stable diffusion will massively speed up the production of indie games and flood the markets in the coming years?
Honestly suspect some middle manager approved it and that's the highest they can go "immediately without approval" because $25k sounds like what you'd normally allocate for a single personal injury (someone getting hit on the head by a crossing guard or whatnot) and they didn't think what it would look like, nor pause to run it up the chain.
IMO the only regime change likely in Russia will not make you happy. There're some very pro-military leaders arise recently. Putin does not allow for war to go full-scale. Those leaders will.

Fragmentation is possible but I don't believe it, at least for now.

Russia loses soldiers but they obtain much more soldiers with perfect battle training, they acquire priceless experience as to which weapons are effective and so on.

It's not that simple.

If anything, threat to eastern Europe is as huge as ever.

Sometimes I think that Putin slows this war on purpose. To train more soldiers, to weed out bad blood from commanders, to put their weapon to real test. Basically to build a real army.
> If this is what you mean by "reasoning by analogy" then I hate to tell you this, but "reasoning by analogy" is "reasoning" in itself. There's really no form of reasoning beyond associating things you already know. Think about it.

What's special about humans is that we can obtain an understanding of what chains of associations to make and when, to achieve the goal at hand, even without being told which method to use. We know when to do arithmetic, trace a program, decipher someone else's thoughts, etc. Also, we know to resort to a fallback method if the current one isn't working. We can assist models with this process in the special case (e.g., that tool-using model), but I suspect the general case will remain elusive for a while yet.

That is to say, I'll grant you that associations can act as a primitive operation of intelligence, much as metal cylinders and flames are primitive parts of a rocket, but I suspect that making a LLM "generally intelligent" or "sentient" will be far harder still.

> The other thing is, I feel it knows math as well as some D student in highschool. Are you saying the D student in highschool can't understand anything? No. So you really can't use this logic to dismiss LLMs because PLENTY of people don't know math well either, and you'd have to dismiss them as sentient beings if you followed your own reasoning to the logical conclusion.

I was just using that as a specific example of the general issue: it doesn't notice that its answer is wrong and its particular method can never work, and it refuses to try a meaningfully different method (no matter how much I prompt it to). Its immediate mistakes might look similar to those of a poor student, but I suspect they come from a different underlying problem. (After all, the student has seen perhaps a thousand algebra problems at most, whereas the model has seen millions and millions. Also, the student often )

> What's impossible here is to flip your bias. You and others like you will still be naysaying LLMs even after they take your job.

You have me wrong: I'm not saying that augmenting LLMs can't make them reliable enough to take over some people's jobs. But I am disputing that LLMs alone will produce AGIs capable of outwitting any human, taking over the world, advancing the limits of math and science, or many of those other grandiose claims.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be particularly stubborn about this like some people are; I'm keeping a close eye on the space. But I'll only believe it when I see it (and no later), and I don't think I've quite seen it yet.
> useful for informing support decisions

Useful does not equal ethical or legal. A lot of things would be useful to me.
I found that sentence weird because when I checked Cosmopolitan, it included most if not all of the functions this article was claiming shouldn't be used.
This is similar to my idea "structured logging 2 system"

The idea is that we write what should be done and it is scheduled onto different systems and communication is inserted.

https://github.com/samsquire/structured-logging-2-system

I really like the idea of being capable of switching where something runs on the server or the client by changing a boundary.
"Hands holding hands" is very scary: https://tilemaker.app/?id=vbuuqar4bfbapm5nhl57rjy7pm

Awesome app btw!
They were already talking about this several days ago, and the main talking point was how the media wasn't really talking about it.

This is the first place I've seen people openly talk of sabotage.
Well you know how they always say "the market will regulate itself"? The issue they like to forget is that you or a family member may be part of the first 346 dead from the Boeing Max disaster or you live in Palestine, Ohio before the market regulates itself.
My first though as well. There are however 2 scenarios where it could fit the definition:

1. arbitrage. It regularly happens that stable coins trade bellow 1 USD. Traders are buying them up to then redeem them at face value. Tether even made the mistake to advertise this "risk free" opportunity when USDT was trading around 0.98-0,99 USD.

2. I believe Paxos is sharing its bond profits together with Binance, in this case it could be seen as a security because Binance is earning money based on paxos effort.
Vinyl chloride. I'm surprised they decided to burn it instead of attempting to contain and recover it, because it surely would've been worth something?
Thank you for clearing that up. Gonna donate $20.
A targeted crackdown on “junk fees” makes a lot of sense
I had been about to devote some time to learning Go, but definitely won’t be after these latest developments.
You're being needlessly pedantic here - especially when, despite never having seen Janet before, I was immediately able to use it at a high level of fluency thanks to long prior experience with Elisp and CL.

It's not wrong to say that something written in a Lisp is written "in Lisp". It's less than maximally precise, but people who are interested in Lisp will understand that "which Lisp?" is a question of import here. People who are not yet interested in Lisp, on the other hand, could well see this sort of pettifogging by someone clearly invested in it as a reason to avoid becoming more so.

I think that'd be a shame, because learning to understand the concepts that underpin Lisps has informed my approach to my work, even in other languages, and just generally made me a better programmer; I think it's good for just about anyone to have that experience in some degree. So I think it's worth not representing the language family or the community around it in ways that make it less likely more people will decide to take an interest.

Besides, Lisp can be a lot of fun! As indeed it is here. So, y'know. Maybe it's worth being less concerned over how people talk about it, and more glad they find it worth the time to talk about at all.
Can you share links/news of any recent arbitrary arrests of US citizens in Russia? I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that I haven't seen any in the news.
> counterpoint: At the end of the day, I just want people to use my stuff.

And its unsustainable model of development. You need contributions and developers willing to help with maintenance and development otherwise your project will stagnate and no one will use it(xfree86).

I see only one case for permissive licence use, a reference implementation of something. Where it's purpose is for people to take it and incorporate it into their codebase without any changes(or minimal). It have problems with vendors taking source and extending it with their secret sauce(Unix wars, Kerberos(?)) but advantages are greater than potential abuse.

Maybe also a case when you drop code and run in other direction(with no or minimal maintenance). It's not great development process either.

>Right now, 99% of what I write ends up MIT because I just want the shortest and most permissive license for others to use what I create without bothering me.

You still need a lawyer evaluate any licence even short ones. Short ones have problem that they leave more to interpretation/relie more heavily on copyright law/patent law/their interpretation can widely differ based on jurisdiction etc.. So while they can be shorter, interpretation can be as hard as long ones. Especially if copyright owner is hostile.

> Not to discount the feelings of others, but in a sense I only wish I could have these problems.

You started comment with desire for others to use your software. But people won't use it if it's stagnating, lacks features or is unreliable. Especially if proprietary fork covers this problems. To stay relevant you need contributions and development time. And getting contributions can be hard if licence doesn't enforces giving back.
Also a lack of proper physical safety measures. Known safety improvements that were recently blocked[0] specifically the requirement to run hazards/flammable liquids with ECP Brakes which reducing stopping distance by >50% and also prevent cars from building pressure in between better braking cars and derailing.

[0] https://www.levernews.com/rail-companies-blocked-safety-rule...
I think GP's disappointment isn't that there's another video complaining about particle physics.

I think they're complaining about Sabine making another video where she repeats the same unsubstantiated complaints. And they were disappointed because they are interested in novel critique of particle physics, and were let down.
I haven't misrepresented anything. I have also mentioned I don't think the Go module proxy is a bad thing. I think it's a good thing. I understand why it's there. We share the same opinion I think, in general.

What I am arguing is that the people who are saying "this new telemetry design could allow them to gather ip addresses - which are 'personal' data" are arguing over a ship that has sailed years ago.

Apologies if I wasn't being clear enough.