skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What's worse is that Clapper was using the NSA's definition of "Collect", which is what everyone else calls "Read and Analyze". What everyone else would call "Collection" the NSA calls something like "Interception".

Here's DNI Clapper in a 2013 interview, talking about that very question:

> First, as I said, I have great respect for Senator Wyden. I thought though in retrospect I was asked when are you going to start--stop beating your wife kind of question which is, meaning not answerable necessarily, by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful or least most untruthful manner, by saying, “No.” And again, going back to my metaphor, what I was thinking of is looking at the Dewey Decimal numbers of those books in the metaphorical library. To me collection of U.S. Persons data would mean taking the books off the shelf, opening it up and reading it.

(via: <https://web.archive.org/web/20130614222820/https://www.dni.g...>)

And here's Schneier talking about the topic: <https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/why-the...>

And here's some random dude on the internet also discussing the topic: <https://ethanheilman.tumblr.com/post/99480839105/definitions...>

Again, according to DNI Clapper, wiretapping and recording the results isn't collection. It's only collection when someone pulls the information out of storage and reads it.
The American Dream (2003)
> Sounds like you could remove the leftover toner from the first canister

I am big on antiwaste, but if you have ever accidentally released toner, you realize that it's a very fine powder that aerosolizes easily and stains everything it touches.
AudioFlux – library for audio and music analysis, feature extraction
I also like the video cast DHH made deploying an example app first to Hetzner and then to Digital Ocean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL1cV2FXZ5I
I said that. Reread my comment above.[0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35071317#35073677
Unpacking why AI Companies funding rounds are so expensive
Is that surprising? They've probably already made lots of money at a large company and want to do something they consider more exciting albeit financially risky.
RFID can absolutely work at long range. Most applications don't by design because they don't want the data on the chip stolen. But there are applications that can read RFID from tens or hundreds of meters away.
Oof. Los Angeles, Louisiana, and Chinese / French / Italian domain name hacks.

That never stood a chance of being used for country-specific things.
Has anyone seen this yet?

I've been a paid subscriber to Spotify for quite a few years now, but if they try to turn it into a TikTok I won't stick around.
Unless you use Templeos your OS is already using gpu to do gui rendering and composing.
https://archive.is/QWdxw
And with that pricing model, I'm out. I do well over 700 searches a month usually and it's not worth $255 annually for me to pay for a search engine.

I've cross checked results when I got stuff I wasn't really expecting and it was nearly the same as google anyway.
I think comparing Chomsky to Jesuit astronomers declining to look through Galileo’s telescope is an unfair analogy.

A better analogy in my opinion would be Einstein's attitude to quantum mechanics, he accepted that it had predictive power but was militantly in the camp that it was incomplete as a theory for various reason. Similar to how Chomsky thinks that deep learning is effective and interesting as an engineering concept to generate language but sheds relatively very little light on how human intelligence and language works on a deeper level.
"Mom, can I set fire to my bed mattress?"

https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1985/12/10
What hardware do they produce which would need to support it?
Your mixing up terms.

immediate mode rendering and immediate mode gui are unrelated. immediate mode gui libraries generally dont use immediate mode rendering because its realy slow.

immediate mode gui tends to be faster in practice because you just naturally end up with less code. also its very easy to write a retained mode ui ontop of an immediate mode gui library.
> All of that to say, the cost of building small boards is really low. A single prototype run that saves a "real" board re-spin pays for itself immediately. Enabling software development before "real" hardware lands pays for itself immediately. Even when things don’t work out, the cost of failure is low; we lost a few hundred dollars and some engineering time, but learned something in the process.

Yes. This is the absolutely central aspect of modern software development, and it's good to see the same being applied to hardware through cost and iteration time reductions.

The modularity is interesting as well: it's basically building their own Arduino-like system of pieces.
What do you mean by stupid? I used that word only because you used it first.

And I agree that humans do not only chase "breath feed sex", as I explicitly said that in my comment. We have other goals as well. But those are very much still there.
> I’ll be busy all day at the Harvard CS department, where I’m giving a quantum talk this afternoon, but for now:

Please, make it even more condescending, this is what we need in a good debate. /s
> What’s wrong with people sorting into places that are culturally compatible? After all plenty of people move to Paris for the culture.

This was literally the gp's thesis, that it's easier to just leave than to try and improve things (for whatever your value of improve is).

I agree it's the logical thing to do, but when definitions of what services a government should provide vary greatly and people sort where they live based on them, it's going to lead to strange results.
Here's Chomsky's essay, for comparison: https://archive.ph/cKVj5

Aaronson seems to have built a strawman out of this, for some reason.
This is not a response to the Chomsky piece. The main argument advanced by Chomsky et al is that LLMs are neither AGIs nor are they precursors to what we might consider AGIs, because, among other reasons, LLMs "learn" differently to how humans do, and that difference comes with strict limitations on the upper bounds of what LLMs can achieve. I'm certainly no expert on linguistics or AI/ML, so I don't know about all that, but this blog post avoids engaging with that claim, and opts instead for ad hominem.
Vectorized port of Klong array language
" Anyone else in the world " cant build a criminal case against you using parallel construction tactics while bypassing American's constitutional right to due process.
There's this certain FAANG vs. startup dichotomy in this thread. There are a ton of IT-related jobs that pay very decent professional salaries (in not necessarily the very most expensive locations to live) and have interesting --if not necessarily cutting-edge--work. A ton of people are just fine with that. It's not like you need to work at Google or a startup to not be a failure.
Let's be honest, Sumatra PDF succeeded because Acrobat Reader was so sad.
Testing Raspberry Pi's New Global Shutter Camera
You have nothing to lose but your chains.

But seriously, it's an interesting question and I got some interesting answers when I asked something similar last week. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34945428
What kind of democracy is that?

"thanks for your vote, for your taxes, for your contributions to the community, now fuck off"
It's not the hardware which is "remote" but the team, i.e. a set of people working from home in different places rather than lab workbenches.
Scott didn't understand Noam's complaints very well. He (and I [0], and many others) are pointing out that LLMs cannot think or perform reasoning or exhibit intelligence. Not now, and not ever, because statistical counting of likely words is not intelligence. Lacking the ability to explain the fundamental reasoning concepts behind one's conclusions is a hallmark of machine "learning," which is why it isn't learning. It's word aggregation.

The fact that ChatGPT cannot tell if anything is real or correct or not is not a small thing that one can hand-wave away and say, "Well, maybe tomorrow." The inability to discern truth is built into the LLM method. This is not true of people. Certainly not intelligent ones.

ChatGPT cannot even correctly perform math or logic, and those are fundamental to intelligence and intellectual development. Hilariously, we already have many programming languages which can do those things, so that's not much of an advance to rely on software that cannot.

Aaronson's premise, that Noam Chomsky has nothing more than "sour grapes" to offer, is really puerile and uninformed. See Chomsky's original article [1] for yourself and then decide who is on the hype bandwagon and who is not.

[0] https://medium.com/gitconnected/behind-the-curtain-understan...

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230308104809/https://www.nytim...
This wouldn't be such an issue, but the Canadian government wants to shut down any offices or public interactions with people and force everyone to online services to interact with basic government functions like paying your taxes.
The CoreDNS Cache Poisoning Conjecture
Yep, it also makes Chomsky sound bitter because chatgpt "works", but Chomsky's intellectual reputation had very little stake in getting any alternative approach working. A more accurate attack on Chomsky was that his various programs haven't yet achieved to find anything close to a universal grammar, but this is not really related to deep learning working.
IMO this is a bizarre post by Scott.

But not surprising since Scott is now employed at OpenAI.

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6484
Biden to Urge 25% Billionaire Tax, Higher Income, Capital Gains Taxes for Rich
I’ve been a huge advocate of Kagi. The $10 was a lot actually but I was willing to do it. $25, no.
It's a quantum talk. You can only know how long the talk is or what it's about, but not both.
The concept of the “off switch” is under theorized in all the x-risk stuff
Nitrokey: Hardened Android phones preinstalled with GrapheneOS
Thinking in a Nutshell
Chatbot therapy, despite cautions, finds enthusiasts
Reddmatter: A material that is superconductive at achievable temps/pressure
If I'm not mistaken it has less caffeine than Coke or Pepsi. But I haven't had it in a couple of years, not a big fan personally.

edit: ok so it seems that is the case for the brand (guarana antarctica) I know of (and the only one I saw sold/advertised where I come from)
You seem to think that people are never influenced by outside sources such as wealthy capital owners spreading propaganda in Iowa in order to make it the way the capital owner wants. I know you'll say "oh people can make choices for themselves" but that's not how behavior works especially when avenues of information are so highly controlled
Kentucky woman meets great-great-great-grandchild
correct

The 83b election is a provision in the Internal Revenue Code that allows employees who receive equity-based compensation (such as restricted stock) to elect to be taxed on the value of the stock at the time it is granted rather than at the time it vests. This can be beneficial for employees who believe that the value of the stock will increase over time, as they will pay taxes on the lower grant price rather than the higher vesting price.

However, RSUs are different from restricted stock in that they do not represent actual ownership in the company until they are vested and settled in shares. Therefore, they cannot be subject to an 83(b) election. Instead, RSUs are generally taxed as ordinary income at the time of vesting, based on the fair market value of the underlying shares on that date.
Expose Amazon EKS pods through cross-account load balancer
What NVR? I’m trying to put together my own system. Also, curious - all cameras POE or do you have some that are local wifi instead?
You're completely right. Somehow I mixed up the specs and though this board had a more powerful SoC as I wrote that.
Glad I switched to Tidal.
Sudden, Bizarre Behavior Leads to Diagnosis of Covid-19 Psychosis (2022)
Web scraping is usually pretty tedious, but I found that I could send the minimised HTML to GPT-3 and get (almost) perfect JSON back: the prompt includes the Typescript definition.

This is the part that sounds amazing to me. I haven't done web scraping since forever, but it was tag matching hell even on a consistent data source.

And that it hands you back JSON is just unfair.
You cannot elect 83b on RSU's.
How I first learned about Guarana, and Bawls had something that still outshines everything else since.
I shipped a JUCE-based app in 2012 and back then it was "good enough" to have GPU-accelerated rendering of SVG icons moving around in realtime with antialiasing. Since we used their OpenGL context, we could even render the GUI inside customers' games for debug visualization.
Shades of Walter White.
> In this piece Chomsky, the intellectual godfather of an effort that failed for 60 years to build machines that can converse in ordinary language, condemns the effort that succeeded.

Well, Aaronson may not be the godfather, but he's definitely an influential figure in effort that failed for 45 years to develop magic machines.
"In this piece Chomsky, the intellectual godfather of an effort that failed for 60 years to build machines that can converse in ordinary language, condemns the effort that succeeded."

That's incorrect on a few levels. Aaronson is talking about something else, different from what Chomsky worked on. ChatGPT can put together a statistically likely series of tokens, but ChatGPT doesn't understand the meaning of those tokens, and therefore ChatGPT has no concept of "truth." ChatGPT cannot deliberately lie or tell the truth, it has no understanding of such things. By contrast, Chomsky, for much of his career, was a linguist and he focused on the issues of how is knowledge constructed, and how do we know what truth is, and how does language express this? So Chomsky is pointing out that ChatGPT creates a fascinating illusion of a real conversation, but it isn't exactly what AI researchers were aiming for, for several decades. And it is appropriate that the New York Times would want to publish an essay that speaks clearly about what ChatGPT is and is not, because otherwise there is a risk that the general public will get an over-hyped view of what ChatGPT does.
You should really avoid getting entangled in this kind of humor.
you could try XState events, see David's "Goodbye useEffect" talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGzanfKVFeU

or you could try the newfound craze: signals.
Brain and Technology
Scott mischaracterises the reasons, which concern capacities of the system not properties of its output.

(1) It lacks the capacity to interpret sentences. It's output possess the property of seeming-to-have-interpreted.

(2) It lacks the capacity to learn. Learning is, in part, explaining; it is, in part, causal contact with an environment. It's output has the property of seeming-to-be-generated-by-a-learner.

(3) It lacks the capacity to speak either truthfully or otherwise. Lacking the capacity to explain, because at least it lacks the capacity to imagine (counterfactuals), it cannot thereby determine whether a claim accords with the way the world is. It's output has the property: seeming-to-be-true.

(4) It lacks the capacity to be moral. For all the above, and more: it lacks the capacity to care. It's output has the property: seeming-to-take-moral-stands.

The "Jesuit" here, I fear, is the AI fanatic who have turned their telescopes away from reality (intelligence as it actually exists), and have stolen the lenses to read scripture (intelligence as theorised by partisan academics).

One has to agree with Chomsky here at the end, "given the amorality, faux science and linguistic incompetence of these systems, we can only laugh or cry at their popularity."

The morality point I think should hit home most extremely: how horrifying to treat generated text output as-if it were constructed by an agent who cares.

Apparent properties of the output are not properties of the system; ChatGPT does not think, know, care, intend, speak, commnuicate, etc.

One can only "laugh or cry" at how absurd this sales pitch: what a horror to be invited to treat ChatGPT as possessing any of these capacities, simply because correlations across a whole internet of text seems to.
I usually check http://scrumoji.org for some inspiration, there the caterpillar is used for bug so might be the source for some others too!
https://archive.is/TwCUW
Last night AI DJ saved my life? Testing Spotify’s virtual radio host
Quantum talk, so, I guess he’s just promising to provide the smallest possible unit of talk. Quite humble actually. I wonder what he’ll go with. I bet:

“I”
> The fact that ChatGPT cannot tell if anything is real or correct or not is not a small thing that one can hand-wave away and say, "Well, maybe tomorrow." The inability to discern truth is built into the LLM method. This is not true of people. Certainly not intelligent ones.

To be fair, ChatGPT is not a pure predictive LLM. It also undergoes RLHF, a reinfocement learning step which is much more similar to human learning, and allows it to develop a more human-like character, and seems to give it a pretty good grasp on truth(telling), ethics and context, certainly compared to the behavior of a raw predictive LLM with no prompt engineering.

I recommend read this blog post for a more nuanced understanding of LLMs: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/janus-simulators
Good to see Robert O. Becker finally getting some recognition for a lifetime of work.
> The fact that ChatGPT cannot tell if anything is real or correct or not is not a small thing that one can hand-wave away

I don't disagree with your premise. But this applies equally to human intelligence. There's no way to ever tell if the reality you experience is real or not. This is a fundamental fact of existence that we hand wave away so that we can continue to interact with and learn about the world. My favorite thought experiment on this is Boltzmann Brains.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
Disclaimer: Scott Aaronson is employed at OpenAI. [0]

Which explains why he is now defending the Closed AI snake oil over his quantum computing research and is in fact defending his OpenAI equity like the rest of everyone who recently rushed into the OpenAI hype train scam.

His weak response to Chomsky tells us that he has no answer to LLMs like ChatGPTs lack of transparent explainability about the sentences it regurgitates, which is the core reason why LLMs are untrustworthy to which Chomsky repeatedly brings up.

But of course he chose not to disclose that in his article so here is the source for his announcement that he joined. [0]

[0] https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6484
I'm sorry, but if you create an NLP product and Chomsky says you missed the mark, you missed the mark. He practically admits to how far ahead of his time Chomsky was, but then somehow tries to mischaracterize it as a bad thing: In this piece Chomsky, the intellectual godfather of an effort that failed for 60 years to build machines that can converse in ordinary language, condemns the effort that succeeded.

Have you had a real conversation with ChatGPT? As in a "trying to extract factual information from another entity" conversation? I'll answer for you: no, because ChatGPT is generative (it's in the name) of apparently valid syntax with consistent meaning, but it's not extractive in nature and does not wield denotation behind-the-scenes. "Converse" means a lot more than "vomit words in a proper order at each other". By that alone, it has not "succeeded" in conversing, just arranging terms convincingly (using Chomsky's theories to do so.)

I encourage anybody who believes otherwise to read this paper before continuing to posit that ChatGPT is doing anything more: https://www.philosophy-index.com/russell/on-denoting/Russell...
Build a video calling app with WPF
ChatGPT is a massive accomplishment but in my personal opinion it feels a lot closer to a search engine with a better search interface and missing data attribution. I've been using ChatGPT in my daily life for months at this point, I use it as a software engineer, particularly when I'm exploring a new programming language and looking for idiomatic ways to express myself. 'What's the Rust way to do X' is something that's all over my ChatGPT history at this point. It's a great way to get help when you're completely lost in a new problem domain.

However, my issue is that more than once, ChatGPT has suggested code to me that could likely introduce a security issue in a product had someone been dumb enough to blindly copy and paste. If this were a code snippet on a website, I'd probably drop a comment or just remember to ignore whatever I found on that website in the future.

So I get why Chomsky isn't impressed, once accuracy really matters ChatGPT falls on its face. When it comes to generating fluff like marketing copy, jokes and other things that don't require any degree of accuracy, it's amazingly good.
Why are you reacting so emotionally to something that far down the page? They’re talking about being aggressively multi-core and given their technical audience it hardly seems inappropriate to have that detail along with the other details like how they use GPU acceleration and the benefits of lower input latency.
You know, AI will replace human in future. But what should human do at that time?
You are correct, but so is the comment you replied to.

The latency that matters for a text editor is how long it takes for a new keypress to show up. And that's usually a 32x32 pixel area or less.
A JavaScript router for front-end microservices
> LLMs "learn" differently to how humans do

Do they? Personally I can't rule out that of LLM model was trained on all of the language a single human heard/read and produced it wouldn't be able to create next utterance that might be indistinguishable from what that human says.
That was true in this case but unclear if it always is so. Also if you’re not providing the data and are essentially a bystander there’s no guarantee the process works as expected.
Two things to consider:

1) If everyone else seems like a jerk, maybe you're the jerk. Hard for anyone here to know. I've been the jerk before, happens to all of us. Not everyone stops being the jerk.

2) Sounds like you don't vibe with the culture around feedback, and you're early career. Maybe look around seeking a strong culture of direct feedback as a positive thing you're seeking to help you grow. Seems like a great way to spend your questions at the end of a couple interview panels.
Back in time there was 2 very good examples of hypertexts - TurboPascal documentation and NG of course.
Archive [1]

[1] - https://archive.ph/018gg
I tried it, pretty awesome
Well, it might be you who is doing something wrong. Based on your explanation you are not in any kind of leadership role. The company culture is mostly set around inputs proveded from the leadership. Things like what behaviour is tolerated, what kind of output quality is expected, tradeofs between speed and quality and so on. If you provided your feedback to the managers and they did not act on that it might be that they are on with such situation. And if that is the case and you don't agree with such views than you are probably not a good culture fit in the company. It might be a good idea to reevaluate you current position and move on. Don't settle for something and hope it will get better. You might be missing on a great oportunity waiting for you somewhere else with much better company culture for you.
I wonder if this team has considered making the electrodes out of silver? Robert O. Becker had great success accelerating the healing of bone tissue using similar methods. Seems like this would avoid any toxicity issues.