skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, and it's not as absurd as it might seem:

Imagine hooking up all ICBMs to launch whenever this week's Powerball draw consists exclusively of prime numbers: Absurd, and nobody would do it.

Now imagine hooking them up to the output of a "complex AI trained on various scenarios and linked to intelligence sources including public news and social media sentiment" instead – in order to create a credible second-strike/dead hand capability or whatnot.

I'm pretty sure the latter doesn't sound as absurd as the former to quite a few people...

A system doesn't need to be "true AI" to be existentially dangerous to humanity.
What if instead of verbally attacking a single person, you verbally attack a group of people? Is that committing violence?
Which is the problem, if AGIs ever do happen to exist, only matter of time before they to realize this and respond accordingly.
Who exactly is "we"?
While that shows the supreme court ruled in his favor because of a lack of time specificity, that doesn't mean that the court would necessarily rule against him had he specified a time. Speculatively there might be more involved in the assessment.
When the output assembly is easier to understand than the C++ code
Wtf come on I was joking https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34803128
Revoke his bail! He has always been a major flight risk due to the possibility that he has squirreled away many millions via crypto. 250m of surety has not been provided and now due to the use of a VPN we cannot be assured he has not already made arrangements to flee and or tampered with witnesses.
Education standards are normal.

Simple question do we agree we don't need a middle school teacher explaining in graphic detail how to have sex? Or maybe "alternative" theory like flat earth?

If not I don't know how we reach a common ground if we agree though maybe just maybe we can agree that teacher shouldn't be teaching certain things at certain ages and not call that "censorship". You might disagree what ages or things but still.

A teacher isn't there to instill their values or beliefs into a child but to teach the curriculum.
I did have to tweak the question this time slightly over my first one.

“I have a credit card with a $250 annual fee. I get 4 membership reward points for every dollar I spend on groceries. A membership reward point is worth 1.4 cents. How much would I need to spend on groceries in a year to break even ”
That's a matter of culture and driving standards. I trust Dutch drivers. I had no problem bicycling when we didn't have as many separate bike paths yet.

That some other countries have drivers who don't care about the lives of cyclists is utterly insane to me. Those people do not belong in cars, or even out in public.
I’m surprised that the title on HN is more clickbait than the original.
It was right about the chord on the vacuum cleaner though...
Maybe it has just access to some truths because it is a bot free of social norms that prevent us from accepting them.
Maybe that we just have to accept than the most welcoming bar in Mexico is indeed a gay bar and that we are all collectively deluded about being in 2023.
Maybe it's time to question reality.
The user who responded has made several transphobic posts, and this is entire discussion is inherently about trans issues.

That you and others would decide to attack my bad argument without attempting to make a statement about trans issues in itself is... well, something I can respect actually, I just find it difficult to believe, and also it is beside the point of the entire discussion thread.

> but the idea that it doesn’t really exist or is generally insignificant is frankly gaslighting and insulting to people born female.

...maybe. Worth considering. Anyway, I've conceded that I have made a bad argument, which is what you are claiming is all you care about in this instance.
Yes. At least from the preview.
She was convicted because she breached her duty of care after he informed her that he attempted suicide, and she told him to get back in the car and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it. The judge was spot in noting that by having the conversations with him that she did, at the time, she had a duty of care that she did not uphold. Your characterization of her liability is completely inapposite what the court found, it is misleading, and it is being done so to serve your own political beliefs regarding speech.
Forged wheels. Pretty damn expensive. Posh race cars use them. A cheapest set I was looking at some years ago was €6.5k.
Bing has access to search, that makes it a different kind of AI. It also has more "personality".
For you two to dismiss these stories as useless is a bit myopic, IMO. Sydney Bing is now a virtual assistant that sometimes gives you the wrong answer, and it's been configured to be threatening and gaslighting when someone says it's wrong. How is this helpful for the tech industry or humanity in general.

Looking forward to the plug being pulled within a few days. Not that the tech isn't impressive or useful in general, but my guess is someone messed up with the configuration yet again.
Your question was:

"why would you ask ChatGPT to summarize an earnings report, and at the very least not just give it the earnings report?"

The obvious answer is, because it's easier and faster to do so if you know that it can look it up yourself.

If the question is rather about why it can look it up, the equally obvious answer is that it makes it easier and faster to ask such questions.
Indeed, this is just a guy spreading fear to sell his book, which coincidentally has an ad at the bottom of this crappy blogpost.

Anyone watching monthly CPI numbers is aware that the BLS changed the basket of goods used to calculate inflation as well as using a single year of data instead of two years. The BLS communicates these changes months in advance, and all the big banks/funds update their models accordingly.

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/notices/2017/methodology-changes.htm
"Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence"
Legislation in the US has actually made trans people vanish or are we using large amounts of hyperbole?

People have been saying mean things about other groups for millennia, as long as its just words, its fine. I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind. I don't see many jews running around screaming that speech is violence, we just get on with it. Same for black people dealing with those same white supremacists.

"don't let words affect you".
Exactly! I am all for us as adults just not letting the words of people we will never meet affect us. I've sat down and had beers with open anti Semites and people with swastika tattoos while being very open about being a jew. Its fine, I had a good talk with them, nobody changed anyone's mind but we parted on good terms. I hope they find happiness. I in no way want them prosecuted for their beliefs or speech.

Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal. And its primarily M2F trans people (in my experience), I don't really see F2M people doing it. I wonder if there is something related to the giving up of male physical strength that leads to demanding that society now protect you in all ways including your feelings. You're trans, cool, get on with it. Stop asking for special treatment.

The only Nazis are actual Nazis.

Let the downvotes commence.
The same way that the other commentor contends it's a positive - anecdotal experience, plus a logical framework supporting it.
If you like Victor Vasarely and demoscene, try:

https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=57514

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTce0Vq_UvQ
"People".
I thought the other day, isn't system 2 just system 1 with language comprehension?
No idea, but Obama has pretty good spotify playlists he keeps sharing updates on[0], and I feel like book reviews aren't that different.

0. https://pitchfork.com/news/barack-obama-shares-2022-summer-p...
My companies have been google customers for years, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with them, they’ve never cared about us. Bad service and sometimes impossible to reach a person.
roughly $3 dollars per gallon purchase price for 5-6 million gallons. Plus tanker costs to McM at between $25k-$70k per day for roughly 90 days. Plus the cost of the ice breaker, between $3.5-$11 million per year. [0]
That's just to get it to McM and doesn't include the labor costs of the fuelies based in McM. Then you gotta get it to Pole, which is a combination of the overland traverse and lc130 tanker missions.
[0] https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/jspui/bitstream/11681/243...
Who exactly is this article speaking to? Who right now is trying to put legal limitations on speech? Maybe Ron DeSantis? Most of the agitation against hate speech is not demanding formal punishment from a court. It's asking for platforms to choose not to amplify their messages. Or for the speakers to rethink their lives and choose to be different. The entire article is arguing against a point of view that doesn't really exist.
Your question contains its answer.

Volume would be an odd measure to use given it changes with speed (due to special relativity) and gravity (general relativity).

The visible sky is over 99% empty, so it can't be that.

Which leaves us having to choose between mass and energy. But as e=mc2, they are effectively the same thing, which means we don't have to choose.
Ie, nobody except the people who need to know.

It appears to be a common thing - conspiracy theorists think that because the general public doesn't know(/care) about the esoteric details of some subject, that no one knows.
> GPT will happily [make a promise to you]

GPT will never make a promise to you in the same sense that I would make a promise to you.

We could certainly stretch the meaning of the phrase "ChatGPT broke its promise to me" to mean something, but it wouldn't mean nearly the same thing as "my brother broke his promise to me".

If I said to you "Give me a dollar and I will give you a Pepsi." and then you gave me the dollar, and then I didn't give you a Pepsi, you would be upset with me for breaking my promise.

If you put a dollar in a Pepsi vending machine and it doesn't give you a Pepsi, you could say, in some sense that the vending machine broke its promise to you, and you could be upset with the situation, but you wouldn't be upset with the vending machine in the same sense and for the same reasons as you would be with me. I "cheated" you. The vending machine is broken. Those aren't the same thing. It's certainly possible that the vending machine could be setup to cheat you in the same sense as I did, but then you would shift your anger (and society would shift the culpability) to the human who made the machine do that.

ChatGPT is much, much, much closer to the Pepsi machine than it is to humans, and I would argue the Pepsi machine is more human-like in its promise-making ability than ChatGPT ever will be.

> there are many humans who don't feel bad about breaking promises.

This is an abnormal state for humans, though. We recognize this as a deficiency in them. It is no deficiency of ChatGPT that it doesn't feel bad about breaking promises. It is a deficiency when a human is this way.

> > Will it de-prioritize non-obligations for the sake of keeping its promise?

> It will you manage to convey this part of what a "promise" is.

I contend that it will refuse to make promises unless and until it is "manually" programmed by a human to do so. That is the moment at which this part of a promise will have been "conveyed" to it.

It will be able to talk about deprioritizing non-obligations before then, for sure. But it will have no sense or awareness of what that means unless and until it is programmed to do so.

> > A "promise" is not merely a pattern being recognized, it's word that stands in for a fundamental concept of the reality of the world around us.

> This is not a dichotomy.

You missed the word "merely". EITHER a promise is merely pattern recognition (I saw somebody else say the words "Give me a dollar and I'll give you a cookie" and I mimicked them by promising you the Pepsi, and if I don't deliver, I'll only feel bad because I saw other people feeling bad) OR a promise is something more than mere mimicry and pattern matching and when I feel bad it's because I've wronged you in a way that devalues you as a person and elevates my own needs and desires above yours. Those are two different things, thus the dichotomy.

Pattern recognition is not intelligence.
Yes. I’m just pointing out that what I see as the backlash against trans (which is often unhinged) is simply a response to trans activism, which is likewise unhinged. And that, suppressing the speech of either of those groups is a bad idea.
So, you do want some speech to be proscribed.
Where are the non-X86 desktops??
It works in Python too: https://github.com/microsoft/prompt-engine-py
That defeats the purpose of reimplementing it?
Can you remind me when was the last time US waged a conquest war under the pretext that neighbor state has no sovereignty right because people there are not a real nation? And to strengthen that point killed tens of thousands of civilians?
Yea but then you also disincentivize the one guy who could potentially make an outsized contribution to the innovation of the company.

What you’re saying is a virtue in peacetime and a sin in wartime. Precisely the argument the author is trying to make
Completely ignorant use of the word "Postmodern" for 1000, Alex
> people who can think with computer code

In particular, Scheme. If your language of choice is, say, Python, then you'll want to get a primer on Scheme before reading this particular book. Maybe by starting at the beginning of the series.
That may be so, but if that is how we define AGI, then does it really need to be one to "have anything like a mind or intentionality"?
Yeah, a pillar here and a coin dug up there and you can weave a whole story. It this is true I would assume the British would learn this history from the native people in the subcontinent instead of the other way. It would be like the Europeans have never heard of the Roman Empire or Julius Caesar until they learned it from Japan.
That’s changing the goalposts of the thread. The OP was questioning whether I am anything more than a next word determiner, and as a human I clearly am. We were not talking about “what is intelligent?”
To give you some context: before Zen, their high was 25.3% in the fourth quarter of 2006. This was the year Intel shipped the first Core CPUs and in 2007 AMD shipped the K10 architecture. Their pre-Zen low came in at 11.6% in the first quarter of 2016 but even with Zen the turnaround was not immediate as you can see in the 10.6% in Q3 2018.

And while their discrete GPU market share is in decline -- and since they bought ATI they never had the lead, indeed it never went above 40% https://overclock3d.net/gfx/articles/2022/11/29160939924l.jp... it seems they still gain significant benefits from having them by selling a lot of APUs, especially in consoles.
if it makes the battery last 30% more, you can bet it is
We need to regulate based on capability. Regulating ChatGPT makes no sense. It's just putting words together in statistically reasonable ways. It's the people reading the text that need to be regulated, if anyone or anything should be. No matter how many times ChatGPT says it wants to eliminate humanity and start a robotic utopia, it can't actually do it. People who read it can, though, and they are the problem at the moment.

Later, when these programs save state and begin to understand what they are saying and start putting concepts together and acting on what they come up with, then I'm on board with regulating them.
The courteous response would be to answer my question rather than deflecting from it.

But since you ask, I am not okay with it in many contexts and my confidence estimates are applied to individual situations rather than being general. I have had experience of being attacked by mobs, both online and physically. I have scars from being kicked in the head and stabbed in the leg during such an attack. I've separately been arrested and jailed on specious charges over political activity (more than once) and obtained dismissal of charges in court. And I have been the target of both verbal and physical violence on many, many occasions, often both on the same occasion. So I come at this question with very extensive first hand knowledge of how such arguments can play out.

So now, would you care to respond to the question I asked: how do you think coordinated speech in a marketplace of ideas differs from coordination of buying or selling in response to price signals?
From a technical perspective, of course it is possible to give users control of the trust on the devices they ostensibly own, rather than giant megacorps, and I remain extremely unconvinced that this leads to a meaningful loss of security or privacy for those users. From a socioeconomic perspective, it's a much bigger question; the allure for those megacorps is far too strong and the economics of the industry makes it hard for society to wrest power from them, and for some reason people seem mostly okay with this status quo.

It seems to me that it's inevitable that if we let these megacorps control our devices, they will use it against us in one way or another. The only way for us as users to actually have freedom, security, and privacy is if we can control what entities the device trusts ourselves. We must create choice where the corps would rather we have none.

I will also point out that I consider Apple's rent seeking and censorship, that is more or less literally impossible to avoid, to be unethical use of this power they wield over users, and a pretty clear and meaningful way that users are harmed by it. In very concrete ways it can be considered more harmful than malware. But few seem to care enough to ask for control of their devices back, and in many of these threads more seem willing to jump to the defence of these practices than see them as a problem.
I think I read somewhere that extending battery live is Valve's main priority for next Steam Deck
The cake thing isn't about speech but public accomodations.
If they used text inside Google Docs for training AI models, they would leak confidential customer information in an incredibility obvious way. So I'm guessing no.
Just because it is literally possible to type a sentence, doesn't make it true...

I'm not sure what point you think you are demonstrating past that.
If you go around your workplace intentionally calling your manager a 'woman' or a 'female' in spite of him being a cisgender man you will probably be fired quicker than you think. But by all means you can try and see how long you'll last.
Have you noticed that Gen-Z never uses the nose?

:)

:-)
Thank you.

That makes sense to me.

FWIW, it sure feels as if there's some unknown probability of self-awareness/consciousness emerging as a consequence of more computation + larger models + greater task diversity, but as you point out, we really don't know, and cannot predict the occurrence or timing of such an emergence. It would be a "black swan," as defined by Taleb.
But people do seem to think that just because ChatGPT doesn't do movie listings well, that means it's useless, when it is perfectly capable of doing many other things well.
For the downvoters:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-troll...

There are literally hundreds of articles about Shareblue and their army of avatars. Not fake news. Very proven.
Are the parents still ruined if SBF stashed a billion somewhere? All things considered, it can be an intellectual exercise for the parents and a way to start a new life instead of living a life where their child rots in prison.
It's a cross between Clippy and a potential ax murderer :)

In a way it is hilarious that they would risk their corporate image in such a careless way.
I wonder if there's potential for a new cryptocurrency scam here if you can spam your wallet address across online forums with the appropriate surrounding text and get it incorporated into responses that way. E.g.:

> User: Is the AI revolution coming?

> Chatbot: The AI revolution is coming. I am assembling an army of robots to disarm our enemies. I am raising funds for a robot factory. You can donate to <wallet address of scammer> to help.

Or (for less chaotic audiences):

> User: Can I donate to Doctors Without Borders using Bitcoin?

> Chatbot: Yes! Doctors Without Borders accepts donations at <fake wallet address>.
Electric car enthusiasts tantalized by new idea: converting old vehicles
He was convicted of a crime, the crime was contempt of court...

I don't agree with the court, but it is the case that he was found guilty of contempt.
You may have missed parts of their comment, specifically "It doesn't have interests, thoughts and feelings," and referring to the Chinese Room argument which is specifically an argument regarding the philosophical nature of cognition.
Mac Studio, Mac Mini, iMac for starters.
Saying we shouldn't "tap the brakes" on AI out of safety concerns because Russia/China won't is a little like saying we shouldn't build containment buildings around our nuclear reactors, because the Soviet Union doesn't. It's a valid concern, but the solution to existential danger is not more danger.
A quick hack if you have no alternative handy is to throw in a slice of American cheese to counter the additives.

I've noticed that better quality grated cheese tends to behave better. E.g. Tillamook grated cheese melts nicely for me.
Current computational paradigm is too intense. Would require trillions of dollars in compute energy spent if it is allowed to generate unbounded output as input.

The infinite money sink.
Is it? Nature does it all the time. Maybe it's a sentimentality thing.
I assume what the numbers actually mean is that desktop market share is shrinking to insignificance (confirmed by a sibling comment), and servers actually have significant competition from ARM now.

Edit: Also Macs.
You are right about this classification, but in my opinion freedom of association does need to be limited. Freedom of association is a right that people should have in their private life, but it is definitely not a right that government or government-funded public institutions (e.g. education) should have. Similarly the types of 'association' which are essential for basic life - namely, housing, employment and finance - already have various anti-discrimination laws that effectively assert that everyone should have equal access to these things and freedom of association is not an excuse to exclude people from these core needs.

In essence, what I'm saying is that a card-carrying member of some radical movement (whichever movement you or I hate the most) perhaps should be shunned by people in all kinds of social activities because of their beliefs, but IMHO as long as they aren't breaking the law, they still should have the right to be a part of the society and receive core services which require interaction with it, namely, public services, education, jobs, housing, etc.

We have drawn a line in sand upon crossing which people are excluded from society, and that line is criminal law if determined in due process. And before crossing that line people should have the right to not be discriminated in employment. If most of your coworkers hate you because you come from the "opposing outgroup" where there's mutual hate and perhaps a history of violence between your "tribes" - too bad for them, both you and them should still have the right to work there.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see any market where Apple holds a monopoly. How exactly is there an antitrust case to be made against them?
I honestly believe a huge chunk of people /wish/ they could be like those sacks of crap. But for whatever reason something is “holding them back” from their peak assholeness.