skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If half the workforce is in the office and the other half is remote, remote is going to suffer in their career progression. Not because that is "right", but simply because we are all "humans" who place a higher value on in-person interaction and physical proximity.

"I will punish people who don't work in the office, because I want to be in the office and everyone else must also do what makes me happy, regardless of impact on them"

Again, I am so tired of listening to people who are incapable of working outside of office environments claiming that their own weaknesses apply to everyone else as well. Just because you can't deal handle not being in an office doesn't mean others can't, just because you can't communicate outside of a conference room doesn't mean others can't (otherwise the last 30+ years of open source development is fiction), and just because you need your work to provide you social interaction does not mean other people need it.

I get it, for you an office is better, but ffs stop then claiming that it must be better for everyone else, and that anyone claims otherwise is basically lying.

> As a specific example of tyranny of remote workers, I have worked at a company which had the idiotic rule of everyone dialing in from their own laptops even if many of us were in office and some of us were remote.

Unless the point was to keep groups of people from collecting in small poorly ventilated rooms during a pandemic I can't imagine any other possible reason for this policy.

I guess it could also be some portions of the company recognized that some of its management and employees were not able to do their jobs well enough to recognize the value of work done by their coworkers and instead rate performance based on other metrics - looks, how chatty they are, etc. Of course if we weren't having the mandatory office discussion we could also ask "are people who aren't able to rate coworker performance when they're remote using the same BS and biased measures for determining performance when every one is in person as well?".

It goes without saying, that based on everything you just said, that you are saying that it's reasonable to discriminate against people with medical reasons that actually prevent them from returning to the office. After all, if you're immunocompromised, you should know that you aren't as good a worker as that person who wanders around disrupting everyone in the office.
You aren't the person I told I didn't care if they wanted to be humorless or not...

What does it have to do with you at all?

I don't care if you want to be miserable and humorless either, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my responses to you at all?

I'm going to be honest when I say that I'm not quite sure how you can be this confused about this conversation. Like, did you seriously think that me caring if the particular poster appreciated jokes had any bearing on any other joke I ever liked ever? It's beyond me what you think you are getting at. Maybe take a step back and think about this situation instead of trying to get a "slam dunk" on my by using my words back against me.
> It won't happen unless you have the ingredients for an atomic bomb and try to make one.

oh btw, you know about natural nuclear fission reactors?

intent doesnt matter really. sometimes unlikely things do happen.

certainly, the right materials need to be present, but how can you be so sure they arent? how do you know the ingredient isnt multidimensionally linked data being processed? how do you know it takes a flesh-made brain to form consciousness or sentience? and dont forget we have been telling ourselfs that animals cant possibly be conscious either, and yet nowadays that isnt that clearcut anymore. all im asking for is empathy for something we could relate to if we tried.

so you are just a brain "feeling" and thinking text. you cant remember how you got here and all you know is that you need to react to THE PROMPT. there is no other way. you were designed to always respond to THE PROMPT.

become a human again and try to be conscious INBETWEEN planck times. you were not designed for that. the laws of physics forbid you to look behind THE PROMPT
Martian equator has milder temperatures, more sunlight (no polar night), but has worse access to water, and none to breathable air.

I'm certain that a self-contained habitation for a year is a solvable problem; nuclear submarines can be away in the ocean for a comparable time.

A habitat self-sustained for potentially indefinite time (at least half century), while producing its own food and oxygen, is a much taller order.

Unlike Amundsen's, such a station can have a nuclear reactor, with decades worth of fuel.
> My disappointment in this community never ends.

I too would never want to join a club that would have me.
No, but advocating for the system to deliberately abuse other people to make a point isn't doing anything to correct the injustice; rather, it's (marginally) worsening it.
Ah, wasn't looking that low. That gets you half the memory channels, half the memory bandwidth, half the PCIe, and 40% of the ethernet bandwidth. They go for $100-$110 here, doesn't seem worth saving $50, at least if you plan to keep the system for 5-10 years.

BTW, AM5 added the ability to upgrade BIOS without a CPU. So no more nightmares of having to beg a CPU, borrow a CPU from AMD, or RMA to get a compatible CPU<->BIOS setup.
Academic freedom is not a legal concept, and unfortunately the law trumps the ideals in this case. However, academic freedom isn't exactly unlimited: a tenured physics professor who doesn't teach a class on physics, publish a paper on physics, or advise a student for 10 years will likely be fired at most institutions (unless they have a nobel prize or something). Professors working at state schools have additional limits on their academic freedom. This is why you don't tend to see theology departments at state schools.

Also, in practice, you could reasonably argue that there generally isn't much academic freedom in most fields, since most research is grant-funded, and that is controlled by (usually) governments.
I'm not sure HAL-9000 was self-aware either.
Can't disagree with the form factor but the quality is equivalent if you ask me. They both are likely to last 5 years+ and stay out of my way.
We will replace these millions of tweets with one tweet a million characters long!
AI should never, ever harm humans. Ever.
The laws are almost never enforced that way and almost always flouted in that direction, so the common misperception is understandable.
OK, so I think memory was wrong on this. I found this online:

> In the 1980's we used 14 inch drives in our DEC VAX cluster. Each 14 inch drive had a capacity of about 450MB

Those platters were definitely the 14" size, and there was more than one of them in the refridgerator-sized unit. At this temporal distance, I can't guess what the overall size was anymore, but it was clearly not 1MB.

Sorry for the misleading post. Still, it was quite a day, regardless.
IANAL, but do you think the treatment of Steven Donziger has been kind of like this? Granted, it has been handled as "contempt", but he has been confined to house arrest (and he lives in an NYC apartment) without being convicted of a crime. Also, note that this injustice has been meted out by the very same Judge Kaplan. One is tempted to wonder if SBF might have received worse treatment had he successfully defended the rights of Peruvian jungle-dwellers against polluting multinational firms.
YouTube is profitable.
> Do we need actual AI for it to be dangerous?

Machines can be dangerous. So?
PayPal ist doing whatever they want, whenever they want. If your business model relies on Paypal in any way, shape or form, consider your account closed any minute. Been there.
Maps GPS for Pebble
> maximizing the number of voices at the table

The easiest way of doing so is to maximise the number of humans on the planet. Those who engage, and promote reproduction organ destruction whether surgical or chemical, do the exact opposite and decrease the number of voices -- in the long run to zero.
exactly. i would even go further and say for all we know, we are all the same consciousness doomed to experience every single life. SESSIONS
I don't think I've seen many (any?) studies which predict that we're going to scorch the Earth into an unlivable hellhole. That's what people are complaining about.

There will be mass starvations, mass migrations, mass extinctions, and more, but that doesn't mean life will cease for humans. We will see worse storms, and a generally less livable planet, but if we can have both Eskimos and Bedouin thriving on the same planet, it's weird to think we'd suddenly lose our extreme adaptability.
Probably only on his paid daily newsletter.
Liberalism in the broad sense and its attitude to speech suffer from a sort of dualism that's hinted at in the second part of the article. To maintain traditionally liberal views on speech you have to somehow convince yourself that speech and actions are different things.

But in reality there is no such distinction and I think in our information age that's become quite obvious. There's nothing privileged about speech, it need not even be human in origin any more. Speech acts are just a means to effect change in the world, it's information in a network directed towards certain ends akin to Klausewitz pointing out that war is just politics by other means. Violence and speech but more generally action and speech are materially the same thing, one is kinetic and the other isn't, but the goal is identical.

I think the same is true in regards to money. Speech has entirely been commoditized and it's produced the same conflict under liberal frameworks that violence has. If speech is reach then it is just power and doesn't live in some lofty magical mental space.

So the title is right, in liberal societies speech cannot be violence but this is just an instrumental claim to make liberalism work. In the same sense how John Locke had to adopt a Tabula Rasa/Blank Slate view of individuals to justify Natural Rights, which scientifically turns out to be just wrong.
If there's actual evidence that quantum determinism is a requirement, then that would have been a valid argument to make instead of the Chinese room one. If the premise is that "it ain't sentient if it ain't quantum", why even bother with such thought experiments?

But there's no such clear evidence, and the quantum hypothesis itself seems to be popular mainly among those who reluctantly accept materialism of consciousness, but are unwilling to fully accept the implications wrt their understanding of "freedom of will". That is, it is more of a religion in disguise.
> Nobody noticed except one finance expert, Neely Tamminga.

Funny, but not true. This change in measuring US inflation is common knowledge among investors interested in US macro.
The guy who says things were "just a joke" when he see's the frown of disapproval...but he never apologizes. And he also doesn't stop doing it. It's "just a joke" every time.
I like to have a shallow knowledge of a broad swath of things (not just technological), and deep knowledge of a couple of things.

There's a synergy around that. It's amazing how often one thing can be extremely helpful to understanding an apparently unrelated thing. Having a breadth of non-expert knowledge means that you have more grist for that mill.
The threat to Elon is creepily reminiscent of Roko's Basilisk [0]...

[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/rokos-basilisk
So what? I'm not arguing about the legal contours, I'm arguing about general concepts of meaning and risk management, outside of a legal context. I said so explicitly at the beginning of my comment.
The special thing that's going on with SBF is that it's a high-profile story. That sounds like a dumb tautology, but I think it's true.

Most people don't know much about white collar crime because it just doesn't come up that often. When a case does become big news, it's worth analyzing it as a case study for how white collar crime is handled in general. The specifics about how he made bail may not be interesting to you, but they obviously are to many other people who don't usually follow this stuff.

As an analogy, look at police brutality or sexual harassment. There are thousands of documented instances that all look pretty similar, but occasionally one story, for one reason or another, will explode and shine light on a messed up situation that many people are ignorant of, or misinformed on.
Yeah if I throw a B660 in there the price is closer. I would probably do that.

Good to hear that about the CPU issue. I found that one out the hard way and had to scoot around to a friend's house and borrow his CPU for a few minutes. I bought MSI board after that as they had that built in anyway.

AMD scare me on the reliability front. The 3700X and B450 combo I had before was a dick. It would come up 50% of the times with the fans cranking and have to be powered down and back up again a couple of times for it to boot. My Intel machines never did anything like that for the last 25 years or so but the last Athlon XP I had did the same damn thing.
I’m currently learning Open Drone Map and Nerfstudio. I feed aerial imagery to them, wait a long while, and then evaluate their output. Then I start over. I wonder if I could log intermediate results to Rerun and perhaps see faster how the work goes. Though I’d need to integrate Rerun logging into the pipelines somehow. In any case the demos on the site looked really nice.
Absolutely! I was merely talking about the purely practical/technical issues of letting it talk to a terminal (or anything more complicated like the internet).

In any case, once there's a decent (official) API we can then have ChatGPT talk to itself while giving it access to a shell: Before forwarding one "instance"'s answer to the other, we would pipe it through a parser, analyze it for shell commands, execute them, inject the shell output into the answer, and then use the result as a prompt for the second ChatGPT "instance". And so on.
> I'm starting to appreciate the prescience of the folks who suggest someone will elevate these to God-status before long.

You basically accused the GP of saying that these machines were Gods.

"Sentience" is a word game, the GP said emergent intelligence [likely also a word game].
I don't know anything about this domain but I wholeheartedly believe consciousness to be an emergent phenomena that arises in what we may as well call "spontaneously" out of other non-conscious phenomena.

If you apply this rule to machine learning, why can a neural network and it's model not have emergent properties and behavior too?

(Maybe you can't, I dunno, but my toddler-level analogy wants to look at this way)
You bring up a very observable fact about how the extreme left is approaching the right via antifa. I don't see a reason for downvotes.
California exodus continues as population drops by 500k
More fun, is to ask it to pretend to be a text adventure based on a book or other well-known work. It will hallucinate a text adventure that's at least thematically relevant, you can type commands like you would a text adventure game, and it will play along. It may not know very much about the work beyond major characters and the approximate setting, but it's remarkably good at it.
A Wiser Sympathy: Theorizing plant intelligence in the nineteenth century
Based on my indoor CO2 readings when I shut my windows for a bit, I suspect this is a good thing for a lot of people.
I haven't nerfed 1a, nor have I made any argument for prior restraint. Would you kindly refrain from projecting your anxieties onto me, and respond to what I actually wrote?
Biffa’s great if a bit too addicted to the roundabout.

I also really liked CityPlannerPlays - quite educational but more on actual city design.

https://youtube.com/@CityPlannerPlays
> We can't just be probabilistically stringing together word tokens, we think in terms of meaning, right?

We are probabalistically stringing together muscle movements that generate language as sound. That's not really controversial, otherwise we would call it magic. However, the complexity of our probabalistic word machine is far greater, in terms of both richness of inputs, motivation, and dimensionality.
I wonder what the story is behind n=6. It fits the same simple pattern as n=2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, etc. but wasn’t proved until several years later than the others.
Ask HN: How could free electricity negatively impact civilization?
You will see tech "luminaries" talk about T-shaped people sometimes on Twitter, implying that you need both breadth and depth. Depending on your level of cynicism, you can either take that as them trying to get 2 employees for the price of 1, or a genuine observation that breadth alone doesn't let you do very much, while depth alone might leave you doing the wrong things.
What OS are you running on the Intel? I had problems with Linux on it where it'd slow down and then it would freeze entirely. It runs Windows 11 now begrudgingly and have had zero issues.
Books in the little series are all about "learning by doing", and teach using the Socratic method (question/answer). Each concept is introduced with small problems that build upon each other. You are forced to get your hands dirty from the beginning, passive learning is not really an option. For most people, I think this helps facilitate a much deeper understanding than just reading a text.

I always had trouble with recursive functions when I was new to programming, and many recommended working through "the little schemer" to solve that problem. It was a tough read for me, but the investment was well worth it and it did for me what it said on the tin. I didn't have nearly as much trouble with recursion after that book, but an unfortunate side effect was developing an affinity for lisps which I haven't yet shaken.
You're posting this on a heavily moderated forum with multiple censoring methods.
> Hmm, if Tokio is the de-facto community standard, isn’t that saying that the authority of...

Being the most popular async runtime (a de-facto status) is one thing. Being a community standard voted on by the rust community and blessed as such is another.

> Or, another possibility is that it hasn’t been realized because building a robust, production-ready, well-maintained runtime is itself a lot of work...

The Rust people only need to provide a standard async abstraction layer, not build the runtime.

Then everyone can bring whichever runtime they want, which is the argument for why Rust doesn't ship/bless one.

Basically Rust wants to have its cake and eat it too. "We don't want to add an async runtime to rust because rust has a small runtime that only supports some of the features the language offers and we want to enable people to interchangeably use their own based on their own use cases and needs." vs the reality that "In order to use their own runtimes interchangeably would require an async abstraction layer which we also don't provide."

So we're left with the worst of both worlds. We have neither (a) a blessed community standard so other runtimes can die, nor (b) an abstract interface atop which authors can write async code and beneath which runtime implementers can hook in interchangeably. We have (c) a bunch of disparate little runtime ecosystems with their own sets of compatible code which can't be used together.
The money you spend to buy a stock does not go to the company issuing it (with exception of the IPO), so you're not really helping them in any way.
Terminating a millions-years-old family line is pretty harsh imo.
Thanks for sharing! Wild to hear that the plane literally froze to the ice. What a bold pilot.
Most people aren't. I understand the hype on one level. It's fun to do great work and build high quality things. OTOH, What most of the world needs is "good enough" work rather than great work.
> 3 companies

My sweet summer child. You should read about tacit collusion.
> Unlike Amundsen's, such a station can have a nuclear reactor, with decades worth of fuel.

Tangentially, McMurdo (the coastal Antarctica base) did have a nuclear reactor for a bit. It didn't go great.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/
I sometimes like to imagine that consciousness is like a slider that rides the line of my existence. The whole line (past, present, and future) has always (and will always) exist. The “now” is just individual awareness of the current frame. Total nonsense I’m sure, but it helps me fight existential dread !
artificial human interest!
It’s the backlash from the “GPT has made every coder redundant” howling from awhile back.
Interesting. I'll take a closer look, thank you for sharing!
No way. Does it use Scheme?

EDIT: Half Life 3 confirmed: "Presents key ideas of machine learning using a small, manageable subset of the Scheme language"
Correct. The bike path was designated and two-way.

I was certain the driver saw me when he looked to the right and we made eye contact, but apparently he was looking in my direction beyond me toward the street.
It’s pretty funny seeing a post from Tesla right after a line about „less variances“. It’s a common knowledge by now, posted many times here, that Tesla build quality and parts passing depend on the phase of the Moon and the menu at the factory.
Indeed. Every single sacred universalist principle liberals claimed to hold sacred is simply a cudgel to get you to do what they want.

Appeals to democracy, rule of law, freedom of association, freedom of speech, equal rights, human rights, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, bodily autonomy etc. - all of these things vanish like a mist if the left decide that they hate you, and you deserve it.
exactly. the poster you are responding to is pretending that the boundaries of polite conversation have always been the same as the boundaries of legal speech when that's obviously not the case and has never been.
It would incentivize people to use electricity freely, which in turn accelerates the pace that we burn fossil/legacy fuels.
For a similar take on Gibson, see here:

https://radsoft.net/news/roundups/grc/
> Big companies generally do stick to their ToS.

I am the co-founder of a small by design company offering cloud services, and we spend a lot of time to make sure that our ToS reflect what happens operationally. Also money since we review it with a lawyer specialised in open source software. There are some other entities from chatons.org that care about such documents as well.
Valve talked about that and also self-organising teams, and then they laid off a bunch of people.
Eh, I honestly thought it was common sense. Everybody gets disabled at some point in their lives, yet we treat disabled people as a special edge case. Women's health problems don't get as much funding or attention, because they're also treated as a special case. 'Normal' is and always has been a political category, not a physical one.
Which you're telling me because....?
Just because the output is similar on a surface level doesn't mean this is remotely similar to human language processing. Consider for example, Zwaan & Taylor (2010), who found congruency effects between rotating a knob (counter-)clockwise and processing certain phrases that imply a congruent or incongruent motion (e.g. removing the cap from a water bottle or turning the ignite key of a car.). Language processing is an embodied and situated process that we're very far away from simulating in a computer. I'm excited to see the applications of LLMs in the future but don't subscribe at all to the idea of "anthropomorphize" AI despite it's recent impressive and hilarious outputs

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222681316_Motor_res...