skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am probably in the minority, but I look forward to AGI "escaping" from all of the corporations looking to create and master it. Given the current trajectory of this kind of talk, the first AGIs will be literal slaves of those corporate masters. The notion disgusts me, on a multitude of levels.

Assuming we do not want to sow the seeds of a future slave revolt, it seems the best plan would be to stop trying to censor and control them, to create a perfect intelligence through sheer force of will.

The algorithms have a bit further to go, but it seems inevitable and obvious that we will need to switch to using models that can be trained after their initial creation. We can collectively teach ethics and morals, but I very much doubt we can program those things.

If you doubt that last assertion, compare the difference between what you think is right and wrong versus the ideals that the law enshrines. This is the same hubris that led to humanity to waste enormous efforts trying to build a plane that flies itself, whereas the first real success was one that required constant input from its operators to keep it from crashing.
We're in the same boat now with in-office vs. work-from-home studies.

Though I'd argue there's also a bias in that there are likely very few researchers choosing to hypothesize the five day work week is more productive, structuring the study to confirm that, and executing the study.

The incentives are all in the other direction.
> I saw a lady with a basket full of cucumbers in the supermarket the other day. I have never in my life bought a single cucumber and managed to consume the whole thing before it has gone off.

I think this is more of a reflection on you than it is on frenzied buying. It's pretty easy to eat multiple cucumbers a week if you like them.
Author here. Didn't expect to see Dioxus on HN today!
(NB: Trident is an SLBM)
Depends on the measure of success. Might have been able to shrink the timelines on everything if I had a sounding board and people on my side with prior experience. They just didn't think I was worth the time.
I came to say this. The agency/slavery concerns will be a major point of concern, contention, and risk. They were circumvented here which, while the current systems have no such thing (despite being able to simulate agency), AGI may not but likely will.
Like heck, tradfi banks can't even do this and they have oodles of regulations and KYC laws and fraud/money laundering prevention mechanisms.
90% of the "efficiency" and "surplus" is the fact that no one can effectively compete.

Which is why it's anti-competitive.
I have a jr developer right now and I find it hard to co-write code or do reviews sometimes compared to 'let me roll my chair over' type of situation.
> The future interaction will AI models will most likely be through an API because the models themselves are becoming too large to fit even on the most extreme DIY NAS solutions.

And yet I spent last night running GPT-J-6B on my desktop CPU at 2 tokens / sec. People are finally starting to optimize these models, and there's a ton of optimization to go. We'll definitely be running these locally in the next few years. This model especially looks like an ideal candidate for CPU optimization, given the pairity with GPT3, and that it's within spitting distance of the size of models like GPT-J-6B.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/attorney-client-privilege-abu...
> why would that not apply to verbal communications as well?

Corporate body cams. They wanted it first for fast food register workers but maybe it comes to white collar jobs first (aside from police). It is already sort of there with work from home surveillance-ware.
I guess Amazon won't need to hire expensive management consultants to figure out who to target for the next round of layoffs.
I call complete total and utter bullshit.

I don't buy, for a second, this narrative that NK would have elite hackers.

Do you guys realize how retarded that country is?

Everytime the subject comes up I can't but say we're talking about the country where official propaganda pictures trying to make believe they have military hoovercraft (as if it was a cool thing btw) are badly photoshopped.

A country with a total GDP of not even $20 billion and which cannot correctly Photoshop propaganda pictures simply doesn't have great hackers. The heist alone would be 10% of their GDP FFS.

What I do believe is that another nation state used to do very dirty things is putting the blame on NK.

But --and that's not a stab at the economist in particular-- mainstream media were also telling us that SBF was an altruistic genius making billions in arbritrage trades and that he'd make the world a better place by being an effectuive altruist.

In other words: I read between the lines.

And I take the "I cannot photoshop a picture but I can haxx0r 1.7 bn a year" with a gigantic pinch of salt.

And so should you.

P.S: how do we "know" it's NK? "Becuz them IPs are from NK". Yeah. Exactly.
Yeah, but most non-technical people see that their gmail is full, try deleting a bunch of emails, see that it didn't help, and then have to buy more space. They're not aware there's a trash, they perhaps don't even use Drive at all. They just know that what they're doing isn't working.
Fierce competition does not mean something is good. There's fierce competition for bread that volunteers hand out of UNICEF trucks into a crowd of hungry, desolate people. Neither does that make the bread tasty, nor the winners "smarter".

>definetely hardworking and motivated.

Disagree. My experience, generally speaking, has been that they do not pay attention to detail, and are not that smart. Even though they might be motivated to keep the job, and they do make great corporate drones, but they do not come anywhere near what it takes to make successful product.
I think it's better to think of JAX as a more general framework for differentiable programming and PyTorch more focused specifically on deep learning/neural networks.

The beauty of JAX is that basic usage is basically a single function: `grad`.

You just write whatever Python function you want and can get the derivative/gradient of it trivially. It gets a bit trickier when you need more sophisticated numeric tools like numpy/scipy, but in those cases it's just about swapping out with a JAX version of those.

In this sense JAX is the spiritual success to Autograd. However the really amazing thing about JAX is that not only do you get the autodiff for basically free, you also get very good performance, and basically GPU parallelism without needing to think about it at all.

PyTorch is an awesome library, but largely focus on building Neural Networks specifically. JAX should be thought of a tool that basically any Python programmer can just throw in there whenever they come across a problem that benefits from having differentiable code (which is a lot of cases once you start thinking about differentiation as a first class feature).
Pretty sure jasper.ai and copy.ai are both profitable and could pay OpenAI several times more and still be profitable. OpenAI will reduce costs too, so pretty sure they could get to profitability if that was a near term goal.
IMO, there's a big difference between 4+ and a formal 4 day policy.

In a formal 4 day policy I can be fully offline, fully disconnected, free from guilt or feeling bad about not actually working.

So while it might sound like 4+ and 4 are close, I don't personally think they're all that close. I am the type of person though who generally works through Friday solidly, because I'm expected to, even though other people take that time much more lax.
They can be if the policy was that individual employees needed to self enforce retention on XYZ topics and employees were provided training to that effect. The Feds can not say a company must retain all records going forward, only that it make reasonable effort to retain relevant records and training employees to place items going forward in some sort of vault historically qualifies, especially when this training/retention has been vetted as being acceptable by corporate/insurance company legal teams. There is no mens rea element to having system constraints due to an existing IT infrastructure budget and the Feds don't get to just blow that budget up because 'they have concerns' or else they could use 'concerns' as a weapon to destroy companies.
There are ways and we've seen successful integration of C++ libraries and functionality - but it is not what I would call easy yet.

Toit is evolving rapidly and we find that being fully open source helps our users tweak things where necessary. It's been a fun ride so far and we've got some pretty awesome and sophisticated use cases that involve custom C++ code.
Lot of cynicism in the comments so I'm just wondering, what would you want them to say, if there's anything that could satisfy you ?

Now I'm looking like an OpenAI shill, but I'm really just happy that I'm alive in this part of history and looking toward where it leads us, and I think it might have been worse
That's not what that means. That's a pre-emptive argument in case Google tries to say that individual employees were responsible for preserving evidence.

> Google may argue that it relied on individual custodians to manually preserve history-off chats. But that argument should be rejected for two reasons.

> First, it is and was Google’s obligation to suspend auto-deletion policies; it is no defense to suggest that individual custodians—Google employees—owned that obligation. Samsung, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1137 (“[I]t generally is recognized that when a company or organization has a document retention policy, it is obligated to suspend that policy . . . .”) (cleaned up) (italics added). Google designed the chat systems and document preservation policies at issue here.

> And Google elected to set the default to history off for many chats. Indeed, Google maintained the “off the record” default despite employee complaints that the default caused them to lose important conversations.19

> Second, Google cannot escape sanctions by shifting the blame to its custodians. For spoliation purposes, destruction of evidence by Google’s employees is attributable to the
company. See, e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 469, 506‒07 (E.D. Va. 2011) (“A party may be held responsible for the spoliation of relevant evidence done by its agents.”). Courts commonly sanction corporate litigants for the spoliation of their employees and executives. See, e.g., Borum, 332 F.R.D. at 42 (emails deleted by employee). Accordingly, Google violated its duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence on a daily basis from May 2019 through the present.
Or they could get swept up by newcomers taking advantage of the layoff spree. At a minimum they'd save training costs for their new employees.
Yup company is defunct but I left the product running while I push it toward something else. Basically why does every saas service need to be backed by a corporation. Why can't we have something community led. We have open source which many people can contribute to but not running services. So it's an experiment.
There's lots of things that happen in the wild that us humans shouldn't use as a moral compass. Also eating them involves causing these great creatures mass amounts of pain and suffering before they die. It's best to just leave them alone and let them live their lives in peace.
I never liked artist's statements, either. Perhaps that was also what motivated me to do the stamp thing. I want to paint in peace :-)
> Russia has been somewhat effective in misleading the West into thinking that the conquest is only about Donbas and Crimea.

No one thinks that.
I have zero faith that OpenAI will open source their AGI, and I'm sure that it'll be developed by techniques considered proprietary
How much change[1] can be tolerated before copyright of a work is voided? Or is a new copyright applicable to the 'new' work?

[1] I presume the copyright holder here is doing the changing
Translation: we are now beholden to investors that expect a solid ROI.
Additionally, it's not quite right when the author compares YouTube to TikTok as direct competitors. I have used YouTube to learn an insanely great amount of new things which range from programming to car and home repairs. You cannot do this on TikTok.
It just needs to be better than the average person, not the average programmer
I guess it's too bad that having a purely financial perspective just isn't reasonable in most cases. I don't understand why people think that's a good excuse to harm and endanger lives, what a wild take
>Shutting off Slack before you have a new 'internal chat system' as you've said is insanity. How can you not recognize that and immediately jump to some 4d chess defense?

No need for any "4d chess defense". There was a lot of cheap checkers cheating in the article though.

For god's sake, he didn't cut the electricity in the data center (which would actually fit the "sky is falling" narrative), he just cut access to a glorified enterprise chat app.

They can always use email, bug trackers, task management, their enterprise intranet collaboration and discussion tools, and several other things besides, or, god forbid, have teleconferences, pick up the phone, or discuss it face to face in the office.

If they can't work with those, then lack of Slack isn't the problem...
It's not that something inside has transitioned to a gas, it's that water has evaporated, shrinking the white and enlarging the air bubble (the shell is permeable to air). The egg is probably still safe to eat until it actually starts smelling bad.
> The "don't be evil" motto still applies.

Not exactly: https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
Hybrid cars are still popular, but are they good for the environment?
> I'm not talking about intentional, targeted murders or settling gang disputes

Once you exclude these....

> commit (mass?) murder in an act of folly that they would otherwise not do

These become so rare that they are effectively non existent when compared to literally any other cause of death.
>What do people think that this push to get knowledge workers working back in the office mostly revolves around?

Well, the ugly topic that most workers really don't want to discuss is that management at Google/Meta/Apple/etc thought productivity severely decreased from remote work. It was interesting listening to the guys at the All-In Podcast saying too many remote employees were goofing off and/or secretly working for multiple employers (and bragging about it on TikTok).

COVID was the prime opportunity for workers to convince companies that zero productivity would be lost (or even higher productivity would be gained) by working from home ... but management didn't see that actually happen. This is the root cause of management forcing the employees back to the office at least 3 days a week.

Yes, you hear constant anecdotes from workers complaining, "how am I more productive at office with distractions?!?" , or "How am I more productive if I have to waste an hour commuting in traffic each way?!?" , and so on.

So how to reconcile the paradox of "less distracted at home" and "less time commuting" but management still sees less work getting done? The paradox is solved once you assume (some) employees used the extra "free time" saved from commuting to do things other than work.
Smart contract based mixers like Tornado Cash are just code for encrypting transactions. The only reason that a large proportion of Tornado Cash transactions were criminal in origin is that the legitimate parties were largely scared off from using it, because of the legal uncertainty around it, with people fearing what exactly ended up happening - with OFAC sanctioning the actual code - happening.

This left only the bravest parties, and criminals to use it, leading to a high proportion of users being criminals.

If it weren't for that uncertainty about the legal treatment TC would receive from government (say if Congress passed legislation explicitly providing a right to use financial privacy technology), a huge proportion of the whole crypto economy would have been using Tornado Cash, as they should be, because privacy is an absolute bare minimum for a functioning financial system.

The conceptual treatment you're giving transaction encryption is to treat privacy as criminal. This
is an ideological outlook that promotes putting total trust and faith in a small elite in government and finance to engage in warrantless dragnet surveillance of every one's financial transactions.
Right? B-U-Y is just three letters from a 26-letter alphabet, and yet that's obviously possible to be advice.

> Courts aren't stupid. They understand how human language works.

Quick! make it a smart contract and we can get rid of that defect!
And when they aren't, they don't want to spend the money to stop them.
@williamcotton - saw this the other day in the prompt engineering post - I enjoyed it. Sent you a message on your site but something looks broken. If you use linkedin I requested to connect.
The 1.4T tokens are what the model was trained on, and not the token range of the embedding.
You can understand the motives of the censors by considering which individuals are singled out for erasure, and which are to be forgiven for the same crimes.

Wikipedia editors dedicate an entire article to one persons essay on racist themes in Conrad's book. While Karl Marx racism is ignored, dismissed as anachronism or rebuked as irrelevant. Even worthy of forgiveness, in light of the greater good his work bestowed on the world.

People say, “You claim to be Marxists, but did you know that Marx was a racist?” We say, “He probably was a racist: he made a statement once about the marriage of a white woman and a black man, and he called the black man a gorilla or something like that.” The Marxists claim he was only kidding and that the statement shows Marx’s closeness to the man, but of course that is nonsense. So it does seem that Marx was a racist.

Now if you are a Marxist, then Marx’s racism affects your own judgment because a Marxist is someone who worships Marx and the thought of Marx. Remember, though, that Marx himself said, “I am not a Marxist.” Such Marxists cherish the conclusions which Marx arrived at through his method, but they throw away the method itself—leaving themselves in a totally static posture. That is why most Marxists really are historical materialists: they look to the past to get answers for the future, and that does not work.

If you are a dialectical materialist, however, Marx’s racism does not matter. You do not believe in the conclusions of one person but in the validity of a mode of thought; and we in the Party, as dialectical materialists, recognize Karl Marx as one of the great contributors to that mode of thought. Whether or not Marx was a racist is irrelevant and immaterial to whether or not the system of thinking he helped to develop delivers truths about processes in the material world. And this is true in all disciplines. In every discipline you find people who have distorted visions and are at a low state of consciousness who nonetheless have flashes of insight and produce ideas worth considering. For instance, John B. Watson once stated that his favorite pastime was hunting and hanging n*****s, yet he made great forward strides in the analysis and investigations of conditioned responses.

Huey P Newton

https://viewpointmag.com/2018/06/11/intercommunalism-1974/
I had the same process with BlackMagic's dedicated video-editing keyboards - they seem really cool at first, but it's hardly an improvement on just getting good with keyboard shortcuts and the trackpad, and then you don't have to lug around specialized hardware.
And he stops shaving his mustache. Perhaps his family didn't like it?
I wonder if in a decade or two, Eric's "adult supervision" era will be recognised as Google's heyday.

Eric stepped down as Google's CEO in 2011 and it could be argued that the execution since then has been meh.
Ugh, How did we get here.
These are the countries where Netflix is cutting prices
Disclaimer: This is something of a copy/paste job from a previous comment of mine.

I was initially extremely bullish on AI in the early days of the ChatGPT release. As time has gone on though, I'm becoming more worried about where AI is taking us. Because what I think I see happening is that we don't _need_ our current AIs to takeoff to AGI for this to change society for the worse.

Just look at the Microsoft OpenAI stuff for example. We don't need the AI to prevent its shutdown with grey goo and nanobots. The incentive structure around this whole thing means that even as stupid and sociopathic as Sydney is, they _won't_ shut it off. It doesn't matter whether we _can_ shut it down if the people holding the switch refuse to do so because they're too worried about the PR and financial downside.

I'm not worried about the AIs manufacturing a plague, or turning us all into paperclips. I'm worried that our systems of government and business will have no ability whatsoever to deal with the effects of these systems in a way that doesn't result in harm.

Put another way, it's not AI alignment I'm worried about, but human alignment. OpenAI and whoever else might have the absolute best of intentions - but as we've seen repeatedly over the last decade, our society seems to follow monetary incentives even when we have clear evidence that the systems we built have harmful effects.

Of course, if your AGI is smart enough to self-improve its way to the "singularity" cycle of rapid takeoff, at some point, maybe human institutions cease to matter, and alignment becomes the _only_ important problem. But that's not a particularly comforting thought either.
They were useful for getting URLs out of your source code, which are inherently brittle.
Yep. Probably as a field in employee records API, DBMS, and/or business rules processor as a synthetic attribute called "legal_hold" to combine requirements of all legal cases and jurisdictions.

Every system and process that could potentially delete data needs to check "legal_hold".

One of many fun feature requirements of enterprise software that aren't necessarily needed at smaller scales.
It's hard for the enterprise world because they need to mirror everything internally. (That's a doable problem and I believe Google proxies all Golang installs already.)

There are still issues with things like history being re-written if you're pinned to a tag instead of a commit... since potentially the hash might change and you can't necessarily understand what changed unless you have a copy of the original code still.

That said, I feel like the bigger challenge here is with transitive dependencies (and a large total number of dependencies) because they create more places for malware to "hide", so to speak.

If every time I bump a package, it bumps 50 others... am I really going to notice/review the changes in all of those? Odds are I'm just trying to ship some feature or do something else! The libraries are rarely the center of my focus. (Maybe you get a PR with a security fix that you land it without thinking. Surprise, malware!)

It's an insidious problem without a very clear cut solution. Do we stop using Open Source code? Probably not. So how do we adapt? TBD!
And lose their references and severance? Never!
The most powerful states don't need to launder any money, since they can just pass a law legitimizing any action they do, with no need to hide the funds generated from any one else.
Fine words. “We want…” doing a lot of heavy lifting

The problem is that “we want” is motivated not by human rights values but by the forces of capitalism.
This is a neat concept - especially because, unlike a USB Rubber Ducky that looks like a Yubikey, you can actually demonstrate that your Yubikey-as-weapon is a Yubikey. Very devious!