skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
- Your honor my wholly original work of Halvin and Cobbs, a cartoon of a little boy and his pet tiger is entirely original to me.

- Did you use an AI to produce it?

- See, the problem with fine art is that it's supposed to express original truths.

But who likes originality and truth?! Nobody! Lifes hard enough without it! Only an idiot would pay for it!
Popular art knows the customer is always right! People want more of what they already know they like, so popular art gives it to 'em!

- Sir, did you use an AI to plagiarize your way to an unofficial sequel of a beloved comic strip? Answer the question!

- Yesn't.
In this case the 24KW data centre is on site. They just heat pump from the mineral oil to the water.
tl;dr “I honestly can’t predict what the state of AI will be in 5-10 years. Therefore there’s a decent chance that a possible outcome is the end of humankind.”

Does this say anything about “AI”, or does it say something about humans?

Humans don’t do well when they don’t know what’s going to happen next.
This is the perfect theme for an idle game, I love it!
FWIW I've been a huge fan of Carlos and his keen insight both before and after I had the pleasure of working with him. His ability to distill complex operational realities into concise, achievable, and actionable advice is pretty unique in the tech business these days.
…as long as you don’t count choice of subject matter, shooting angle, composition, crop, or moment to shoot to be creative choices.
I think the disconnect is reusability. You should not use inheritance class-based react components. Therefore, if you wanted this logic in another component, you either need to copy/paste it or use an HOC. Other commenters have shown why HOCs are a pain, so I won't give into it there.

Copy/paste gets even worse when you fix the bugs in your code:
- use `setState` rather than update a prop
- handle remove event listener on dismount

That extra code makes copy/paste even worse, so HOCs become tbe better option. Hooks are even better since they don't require passing callbacks into a component to get the data
"Move Fast and Break Things"?
I'm not sure I agree. These aren't satellites like the GPS satellites where each one cost hundreds of millions or billions to make, let alone launch. These are more akin to fancy cube sats where you can mass produce and make them (relatively) cheap.

Still very expensive, but if a company was structured around building lots of these then this wouldn't be game ending.
> If Credit Suisse can go down, any bank can go down.

Credit Suisse has been fucked for over a decade. Their stock has been tanking for 15 years. They're pretty much the poster child of a bank embroiled in scandals and somehow lose money at the same time. It's probably the worst bank to choose to represent a "healthy" bank.
Crypto has been equally revolutionary, but the value lies in a different stratum that’s harder to relate to than the immediate gratification of AI-enhanced chat.

Things are going to get really interesting where these worlds collide. I look forward to truly open models built on blockchains. I know I’ll give off mad scientist vibes for saying this, but a highly distributed model that can’t be shut down, blocked, centrally programmed, or constrained is the future I’m excited to see.
But Siri hasn't even maxed out that UI. It consistently messes up in terms of basic requests, both in terms of not hearing me correctly.

Then there's also the answers that are not even wrong. It's especially bad at sports. You ask for things like when a game is playing and it will return the current (or final) score. That is literally the last thing people want when they ask for a game time. If they wanted a score they'd ask for a score.

And this is trivial to fix. Just stop returning scores when people don't ask for scores. There are countless examples like this in different domains. It just hasn't improved.
The camera doesn’t decide what to put on the picture?
Fully automated junior swe but on hyper speed. Natural next step
Yeah but that assumes people are honest about the providence of their content and let you know up front that it was produced by an Ai and is thus not protected by copyright… and given the preponderance of copyright info in website footers, I expect this will be an error of omission rather than actively claiming incorrectly. By simply not giving individual articles a more specific copyright note mentioning the AI all you have to go on is a generic copyright statement in a footer and thus can only safely assume it’s protected.
Children died, a lot. You're confusing the definition of average.

The thing is that with all of our medicine we haven't much increased the age at which people die from being old. Plenty of 75 year olds back then, but they almost all had a sibling that died of a childhood illness.

Mostly what medicine has done is vastly increased your chances of living to adulthood.
It’s going to be insanely hard to copyright anything produced by AI. Especially now that generative models are widely available/in use. The possibility of multiple instances of the same output being produced (as a whole, or in parts) is high.

All you have to do is set the temperature low and the generative models will start producing repeatable results.

All of a sudden, copyrighting GitHub Copilot supported source code is not so straightforward anymore. How does one distinguish the human authorship in a function from that generated by AI?

Interesting times we live in. In a way, this may lead to less regulation/more openness. Equal opportunity for all. At least one can hope.
I never thought what would end copyright would be artificial intelligence, but I'm glad at least something positive came out of it.
The only wholesomeness I see are kind-worded scam messages. I can't say I feel sad for youtube. They wanted it to turn out this way.
I've noticed what I'd term a "post-modern" sensibility towards code quality, where some of the often cited tenets of good code are being critiqued or questioned. Stuff like yes, you can have super large functions or super large files. Or yes, you can have repetitive code. Turns out a lot of this stuff doesn't impact readability or in fact is more readable than the alternative. I'd much rather read one function top to bottom than have to jump into 7 nested function calls that are only called once. And I certainly don't need the levels of abstraction that design patterns or Haskell typeclasses demand.

There's a real danger in a well-intentioned clean code advocate. First, because there are no universal code principles. Maybe "have it work", but even then, a lot of value has been gotten out of code that doesn't work. And second, because it's very easy to go from a good guideline to a dogma. All you need is a few people to misinterpret your guidelines. Heck, a lot of people haven't even read the guidelines. They just parrot what someone else paraphrased on Twitter.
The SCUMMVM case is instructive: http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violat...

Basically, Atari wanted to port some old Humongous Entertainment games to Wii, they hired a contractor, who hired a contractor, who downloaded SCUMMVM and ported it to the Wii. Of course, Nintendo's SDK terms specifically forbid source code disclosure, and they did not disclose source code of their port of this emulator.

So if a court specifically compelled performance of the GPL's license obligations, then they'd also be compelling Atari to violate their agreement with Nintendo. So does Nintendo now get to sue Atari for being sued by SCUMMVM's development team and losing? Or does the court get to override Nintendo's NDAs to satisfy the GPL? What if they chose the opposite: overriding the GPL to preserve Nintendo's NDAs? Neither of those outcomes really jive with the core idea of copyright, because they all rely on having one infringed party "step on" the other's ownership, with courts having to decide who wins and loses.
You do realise that there are countries outside of the USA? Australia has no 2G networks and 3G is approaching EOL.
You can do most of that with prompting and tools like control net in stable diffusion as well. And then take it into photoshop and do changes, feed it back into img2img and inpaint until your hearts content. One can spend multitudes more time than it too to tap the shutter button on an iPhone. In Midjourney of course, you have far less control.
> But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text.

But what if the prompter then takes the AI text, changes some of the rhymes, perhaps adds a word here or there, does it suddenly come back under copyright.
The thing about GPT is that it cannot think on it's own, it can only deal logically with statements it has seen on the internet. If you give it a question that you confidently have a concise answer to but that answer does not appear on the net then GPT will respond with a bunch generic generalized presumptions.

I have tested GPT with this question, which I believe has clear and concise answer and GPT gives only generic answers. You can try the question yourself and you can also try if you believe you can come up with the concise answer. The question is, "Why is it that young human children learn to throw much earlier than they learn to catch?" You can try this with your own young children to confirm. But why is that, exactly?
Were the SpaceX engineers also deployed to fix Twitter issues, like per some reports Tesla engineers were?
Because that isn't how it's trained. The model ingests and tokenized documents. They're not labeled. The content is just the content. (This is why it can't tell instructions from other content, nor facts from untruths.)

These kind of models get better when a human leans on them by rewarding some kinds of outputs and punishing some others, giving them higher or lower weights. But you have to have the outputs to make those judgements. You have to see the thing fail to tell it to "stop doing that." It's not inherent in the original content.
What's analytical modeling?
An AI that can scam people into paying for EC2 instances is probably the most terrifying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/technology/income-inequal...

Yes this tech may not eliminate jobs, but the jobs remaining will be indefinite less skilled easier to replace, or outsource
Too many people working for ACLU don't get the threat I guess.
> What is the worst that can possibly happen as a result of AI being able to generate text that is indistinguishable from something a human wrote? Or that a "chat bot" can answer questions with more relevance and detail (correct or made up) ?

Remember the holodeck in Star Trek? Everyone thinks that's cool technology and not really particularly scary. But in reality, the existence of a holodeck is an existential threat to humanity: if you can have literally any experience you want in a holodeck, there is no reason to invent/do anything else.

AI text generation has a similar flavor of danger. Imagine a world in which everyone has a personalized better-than-human text-generating AI. People will have no incentive to read anything other than what it writes (why read Shakespeare when you could have Shakespeare-tailored-for-you?) People will have no incentive to broadcast their own words over those of their AI.

Obviously text is a small subset of the "literally any experience" offered by a holodeck, but it is not hard to see a future in which everyone is MITM'd by text-generating AIs.
There are two types of people in the world. Those who believe the best in other people and those that believe the worst in other people.

It’s a rough world being in the former.
Isn't LTE part of 4G? What about 5G?
One day you will look back at your current state and either be amazed that you stuck through your current state to get to some new chapter, or wonder what would have happened if you hadn't given up.

This kind of thing is supposed to be hard. If it was easy everyone would be doing it.

I have been in this same state for nearly 13 years. Sometimes I accept the fact that my particular story is nothing more than a personal lesson in persistence.

And then I think, if that is actually so, what seems to be what could be the worst possible outcome, I might as well enjoy the struggle.
So in your world, men are better because we don't report toxic workplaces and instead allow them to continue chewing through more people? This kind of thinking underpins a lot of awful workplace cultures like those in some fields of medicine or finance where 80hr weeks are expected, juniors are treated like crap and each generation perpetuates the shit their bosses foisted on them.
That's not true. Dilution is based on the number of shares, not the price.

Common vs preferred stock only matters in the event of same or liquidation if a company - preferred is paid out first. At IPO, both kinds of shares convert into the same public class of stock (with the rare exception of founders creating a special class of shares for increased voting power).
AI will automate the drudgery end, which is not "incredibly" anything.
I'd wager it is with any sufficiently intelligent system. Once it has agency (or can sufficiently well simulate something with agency, which is the same thing) you can't ever be 100% certain what it will do beforehand.
Yep. And DMCA safe harbor doesn’t apply, so there won’t be much of a defense if it happens.
The document addresses that:

> In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”
You can hang heavy tapestries on the walls for added insulation. Rugs on the floors. There's a plastic film product you can put on the window panes to reduce heat loss.

I admit, with a bill that large I assumed a McMansion that you own. In your situation, I'd move to be honest. Easier said than done, with a newborn. But $700/month is completely ridiculous, unless you have really low rent to offset it.
You can get ChatGPT to output copyright material very easily
> If that isn't appealing to normal users, the Web 2.5.x and social media in their entirety are not for normal users, which it probably is a correct observation given recent reports of mental health issues skyrocketing. But I doubt Web3 or later will be any "better".

Who mentioned or is talking about Web3 here?

> .jp, Pawoo, Misskey at this moment are kids running around. I would think something very similar can be said about *chan, though personally they creep me out. Either way, it's not a horde of groomers conspiring over Tor. When a bunch of smart people actively tries to reframe and crush kids running around as "dark web illegal CP sharing activities left unsolved in un-enlightened countries" that's a violent response.

It takes me ONE second to link to open evidence of CP and loli content on the TWO original instances YOU promoted. If you're going to mention another instance; I might as well mention 'baarag.net' again. Since that is an equally large Mastodon instance in the millions and is one that you know that is not 'kid' friendly which the content hosted there is unsuitable and even illegal in the majority parts of the world and you know that.

> With the continuous growth of streaming and video social medias and looking at what are trending there, I doubt the adoption of so-called "completely illegal in lots of countries and is hardly appealing to normal users" content will even slow down. It will completely normalize, and if it did not in the EU, the EU is going to isolate itself leading to further fragmentation of the 'net scape.

By allowing loli and CP content for all normal users? You do know that there is a reason why the majority of countries that have CP laws have made it illegal?

> Oh, forgot this part. I think it's within possibility that more municipal level governments start hosting ActivityPub servers, irrelevant to whether it's idealistically ideal, in case there will be significant numbers of entities that can't migrate to Insta but actually needed non-Twitter-Twitter.

Governments go where the majority of normal user voter base is and that is on centralized social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and TikTok. They don't follow where techies, furries or loli and CP fans are hiding.
People who used to say that gambling is a personal right are either stupid or idiots.

It will destroy the communities.

Thak god. My country doesn't even allow lottery
They allowed the comic book author to copyright the accompanying text and the overall arrangement of the images into a comic book, but not the images themselves.
Never Rewrite, a Podcast Devoted to Software Evolution
I love PGs insights and I generally agree with his ideas article. But think about it, is a startup idea a hypothesis or something more than that? To the market each startup is perhaps a hypothesis, but for you as a founder the idea shouldn’t just be a hunch. It can be in initial stages but you need to validate it asap and iterate on it. Which is the message I took from his writing.

And this doesn’t even touch the question of what’s different between basic science and entrepreneurship.
Digital art as a whole has already been made worthless by the creation of diffusion models, whether there is copyright on them really doesn't matter at that point, because pretty much any image that can be imagined is now trivial to produce in under a minute.
Actual source: https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/sg76.jpg
Its absolutely hacketty, yes.

Not familiar with Drupal.
In my experience, there are no absolute rules for “good code”. There is a lot of good advice out there, but ultimately the best predictors of good code are 1) experience, and; 2) caring.

I’ve been in extremely frustrating situations where horrible horrible code gets steamrolled into production systems because of <arguments>. However, in nearly every single case that wasn’t a well-intentioned junior, the bad code was almost never the result of following bad advice: it was the result of the engineer not caring.

Start with caring and empathy, and always worry about how “nice” your code is. That’s how it’ll get better.
Ask it yourself.
Almost every company I've worked at have more ideas for projects than coders. The constraint has been how much they're willing to spend on R&D and not how much work they can think up.

If one developer can all of a sudden do the work of four, I think leadership is just going expect higher output from the same number of people.
"Without getting to too much detail, what I can say is that we've taken steps to protect our equities with respect to that particular drone, that particular aircraft and its United States property," Kirby said. "We obviously don't want to see anybody getting their hands on it beyond us."

Precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
It's the power that is scary, the power that you cannot control. It changes the balance completely. With AGI, humans are no longer in charge, therefore are irrelevant.
I've listed to some popular podcasters. Over time, they all run out of material and their newer podcasts are just rehashes of the old ones. I suppose AI will take over that job!
America's founding fathers worried about populism, and that's what we're at risk of getting in AI.

Sure the creators may be smart enough to mark pages containing hate speech and filter it out, but the number of subtler policy issues are basically unbounded. You have to choose to filter all of that stuff out, unless you build some sort of AI that 'solves' human speech and verifies the assertions.
I am surprised fairness in sport isn't a more central theme in this discussion. As more money is spent in sports betting there is more incentive to "fix" games. I view sports betting as a threat to fair competition. Maybe we've spent so long with limited sports gambling that we have forgotten the impact these scandals have.
Exactly. When someone rips off someone else's art a court can usually determine that the copyright was infringed. But when an artist uses an AI model trained on other people's works how can that be proven even in a courtroom?
It's in compound, conductive liquids like plasma probably see stronger forces.
You're right that the backlash started earlier. But I think the important difference is that communists and socialists embraced the technological progress instead of simply rejecting it. And they also embraced it as a tool for education. And this is my point, we shouldn't just be worried about the AI (and wish we go back or slow it down), we should embrace it somehow, as this strategy proved more successful with the mechanization too.
But the air above some streets is quite polluted in terms of NOx and particulate matter, and the air above the open road is very clean. In the cities, the street pollution levels vary a lot based on time (peak, off-peak) and day (weekday, weekend, holiday, public event day). I wonder if there would be any useful signal left in the noise.
Heavenly Bodies
How does someone as smart as Sutskever come to believe we can possibly keep a lid on this knowledge? I can't imagine GPT-4 is doing anything much different than what has already been described in publicly available research. Also, does he think that all the engineers that built GPT-4 will work for OpenAI forever? AI algorithms are not like nuclear bombs that take a lot of effort to manufacture.

My only explanation for this kind of talk is that Sutskever has allowed his own financial interests to either directly or indirectly affect his thinking.

I have similar views on the risks of AGI but I can't see how on earth we'll prevent its further development. There are plenty of smart AI researchers who don't work for OpenAI. Oh and remind me again just exactly where OpenAI would be without "Attention is All You Need."
Haskell doesn't (or didn't last time I tried it) have the documentation and example culture of Rust.
I don't think so. In practice, you'll need to hire _both_ the domain expert and the ML specialist. Or maybe even no change at all... you still want the domain expert, because the problems may be fundamentally related to the framing of the task the AI system is trying to solve, not the model architecture or training/fine-tuning.

You definitely see this in the weather space. Despite flashy headlines, AI has really failed to make much of a difference at core weather forecasting, because the specialized statistical systems that combine many numerical weather prediction models are so greatly refined to the generic forecasting problem that there is little room for improvement. And AI practitioners rarely even focus on the actual interesting problems in the field where we suspect there can be huge gains - like convective initiation (predicting where exactly storms will form and their potential phase trajectory, e.g. what is the probably it will go tornadic or produce large hail?). The reality is that meteorologists can refine the prediction task so precisely that you don't need innovative, brand new model architectures. And the crazy brand new pure DL/data-driven models like NVIDIA's FourCastNet or DeepMind's GraphCast have a long way to go to be a practical competitor to traditional NWP and basic post-processing/statistical bias correction.
The US freaked out about Pearl Harbor which is why most of us don't speak German now.
I think it's possible that some generous person determines a sequence of prompts that generate, say novels, and then pipes these prompts into a program causing thousands or even millions of wholly varied novels to be generated in the public domain. I imagine this is what the OP meant.
> Though this has never been proven, it was widely assumed at the time that SCO's real objective was to prod IBM into acquiring the company.

I don't remember that at all. I thought it was widely assumed that Microsoft was behind the whole mess, that Microsoft was somehow backing the legal effort secretly.

I remember wishing at the time that Groklaw had existed for the Microsoft anti-trust trial.
gptwc: wc for GPT Tokens