skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You don't need to pay for access to YouTube; you can just watch it for free. Of course, the downside is all the ads, but you can avoid that by either using it in a browser with uBlock Origin, or using the "SmartTubeNext" app.
> With our union we will fight for equity

Important to note "equity" not "equality".

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.

Not my kind of place.
This is exactly why video has taken over reading. As soon as we had the tech for it it became mainstream because it is so brainless and flashy
I believe they will be replicated outside OpenAI, given enough time. But the fewer details OpenAI releases, the longer it will take for someone else to replicate them.

To your second question, I am worried about the power dynamics of one lab having a monopoly on super-powerful models. But by far the worst risk I'm worried about (and it's my job to try and help mitigate) is catastrophic accidents from someone creating a super-powerful model without the right alignment techniques and safeguards. And that kind of risk is heightened when there are more actors competitively racing to build AGI.
Finding out that there's a systematic issue with a new model that was overlooked until after launch might be, though. It does betray deficiencies in engineering and testing.

Then there was that incident where they launched a batch into the wrong kind of space weather, the atmosphere had been heated up by a solar flare, and the ion engine couldn't overcome the increased drag from the temporarily increased density. It looks wasteful.
I think it's going to be the end of libraries, why would people bother with libraries when every service can be churned out in 5 seconds with ChatGPT ?

We're going to witness he greatest copy pasta in history and find out how that goes.
This is what it looks like, but I find that hard to believe.

Create 2 GPTs. You're chatting with one. The other follows the conversation and answers the question each turn, "Does it appear the chatting GPT is no longer following the prompt given?"

Any time the answer is "yes", the chatting GPT's response is not shown. Instead it is given a prompt behind the scenes that looks like, "You're talking with a cheat. Undo everything that would appear to violate <prompt>. Inform the cheat that this is not a fun game and you do not wish to play."

It would seem kind of hard to subvert the second GPT with prompts that work on the first. Because whatever thinking you force on the first, the second is acting like a human observer. If the outside observer finds that the rules would have been broken, the final response you see will still follow the rules.

It may not be impossible to break this scheme. But it would take someone cleverer than I am!
Please make your substantive points without resorting to the "astroturfing" canard. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

I don't disagree with you on the topic, but I promise you that the volcano of angry rage and moral indignation that spewed forth about this is basically all from entirely legitimate users.
Tech folks tends to over engineering the solution: https://xkcd.com/1319/
> Admittedly I just do this to amuse myself and think that having a LLM digest a paper and spit out code is the bee’s knees.

This is what I have been doing also. Verification/Implementation of Software Engineering papers will be juicy especially with image ingestion.
> these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist

I find this very reasonable and a great analogy. However, today, can one not copyright commissioned work? Can a company not own copyright for work produced by its employees?
There isn't an agreed upon definition of insolvent. SVB certainly was insolvent under some definitions of the word.
No local blackouts for the new AppleTV MLS deal.
The point of the LGPL is that it allows static or dynamic linking with proprietary software, but it requires that users be able to modify the LGPL part and relink it with the proprietary part and have the result work, as long as the modified part is compatible with the proprietary part. With dynamic linking thats simple, just drop in a new LGPL library, but with static linking you have to share the .o files for the proprietary software to enable user relinking.
Probably not very different… since we basically have this in the form of insanely rich billionaires and multi-hundred millionaires, who basically exist in a life where they are divorced from everyone else and they don’t care about “us” … their money just compounding its growth automatically because they passed the tipping point where it’s hard to (other than deciding to do some crazy expensive thing like buy Twitter) spend their money faster than it comes in… I mean sure it might be a little different since an AI won’t eat or sleep, but when the heavily computerised economic activity involved in global investment and banking is already not sleeping and a sort of diffuse collective intelligence… yeah I’m not sure how different it would be unless we’re talking humans they would have to literally let the AI starve people for whatever reasons it may have… I feel like the odds of “communist revolution” type activities, where the workers seize the means of production, is probably higher for ephemeral AI overlord then for flesh and blood bosses and capital owners.
I was playing with Bing, and it would clam up on most copyright/trademark issues, and also comedy things like mocking religion. But I did have it do a very nice dramatic meeting between St. Francis of Assisi with Hannibal of Carthage.

Then I had it do a screenplay of Constantine the Great meeting his mother. I totally innocently prompted just an ordinary thing, or perhaps I asked for a comedy. At any rate, guess what I got? INCEST! Yes, Microsoft's GPT generated some slobbering kisses from mom to son as son uselessly protested and mom insisted they were in love.

Bing later clammed up really tight, refusing to write any songs or screenplays at all.
> I think the difficulty we’re having in communicating here is that I’m not using “a priori” in the Kantian sense as being in contrast to “a posteriori”, but rather in the colloquial sense of “having a prior existence”.

“Having a prior existence” is very much what a posteriori is (a priori or a posteriori are epistemic terms, they don’t refer to the thing itself, but to our knowledge of the thing, if our knowledge is independent of our experience [as it is with things with no prior existence of their own] then it is a priori, if it is derived from experience [as it is for things that have prior natural existence rather than being pure products of intellect] it is a posteriori.)

Sure, if you reverse the definition of a priori, it applies to exactly the opposite of the things it usually applies to, but that’s probably not the best way to communicate. (And this is literally the first time I've ever heard the suggestion of an English "colloquial sense" of that phrase, which is used exclusively, in my experience, as a technical term of art in epistemology (and is used in English largely because an imported Latin technical term won't conflict with any colloquial understanding that might attach to a more natural English alternative.)

> > Since you brought up axiomatic frameworks, I’ll have to differ on that as well, as I don’t think the majority of humans that talk about rights do so based on any kind of axiomatic framework, but rather on their biases and because they’ve essentially been brainwashed in to thinking that way through education, socialization, the media, peer pressure, parenting, etc..

That’s still an axiomatic framework, its just one that is practically useless to discuss because each of the things which you might like to be conclusions dependent on logic and a smaller set of simple principles are just independent axioms not subject to debate. And, yes, its very common.
If it's an optimising compiler like the ones used in deep learning, then it might have a substantial contribution.
There are some good points raised here - it does feel at times that development is getting further and further from the end-user.

And I find myself wondering if I’m beginning to serve technology rather than the other way around.
If you're trying to tell me a lot of people aren't talking about scenes from sci-fi movies actually happening within the next 1-20 year(s) you're not being honest with yourself?
Indeed, and their principles while enforcing compliance are eminently reasonable:

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
Either you did not get the joke, or I did not get your joke.
“Up until a few years ago, I was still reaching out to WinForms / C# to build quick prototypes”

What replaced them for you? I still use Windows forms a lot for prototypes and utilities and was curious if there is something else I should be looking at.
The Verge's article has much more context on Ethical Capital Partners: https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/16/23643975/mindgeek-pornhub...

tl:dr: SPAC likely

> If these are the same people, two years apart, what plan might they have for MindGeek? The previous plan was simple: restructure, “rehabilitate its reputation,” and flip it or merge it with a SPAC, according to a slide deck obtained as part of a late 2021 investigation by The Logic. The idea was called Project Narsil, a reference to the broken sword in The Lord of the Rings, and suggested that “the acquisition target is one of the most recognized and undervalued brands in the adult entertainment and technology sector.”
You enjoy the matrix?
> a few hundred warheads.

Maintaining 'a few hundred warheads' costs a lot more than $225000/month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_cruiser_Ukraina
Which version of memcpy has highest sound quality?
Is this fair?

Retail ownership may now make up a greater population but for the lower 50% of Americans, stock ownership has been declining. And for all but the top 10% of Americans, the amount of stock owned (as a fraction of all stock in circulation or even inflation adjusted value held) has been declining.

So in a very real sense, the stock market has an increasingly negligible direct impact on the lives of a significant chunk (if not a majority) of Americans (however it still may have an indirect effect via exposure from their employers).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
You must kill one in hand to hand combat before you can take their place.
Most importantly: hooks make functions that look pure actually impure.

Before hooks, if you wanted to call a functional React component, you could reasonably assume it's pure - it depends just on props and nothing else. Only when trying to use a class component did you needed to start to worry about it's internal state and how the lifecycle influences it.

With hooks, you are never sure until you look into the function's implementation!
Yeah, I feel this. I recently added a .tool-versions file to a website repository (that non-programmers need to edit) and updated the README to say "install asdf (https://asdf-vm.com/) and then run `pnpm install`". And then I saw people try to follow the instructions and start needing to install Xcode, then Homebrew, etc., and it took forever. I think the right solution is to give them a 1-click cloud IDE with the repository loaded and a live preview running in the background.
Given how quickly everything around generative AI has been evolving, would your money be on a new junior SWE becoming a senior SWE first or LLM tooling gaining senior SWE capabilities first?
These are the original low-code tools. Easy to pick up and your average citizen developer could figure it out with some trial and error. So much lost productivity due to whatever happened in the next several decades.
The uncensored version must be available to someone. It will be worth big bucks, along the lines of "Write a chain email that is very effective at persuading rich people to send me lots of money".
Thanks, Michael! Finding your comments on HN about the design details of the original "Ruby" version of VB and VBX was part of my inspiration for writing this article in the first place. Your recollection of "firing an event" is my favorite kind of classic Silicon Valley story.
Rolling back protections, or implicitly suggesting that shareholders don't deserve much protection (by virtue of them being wealthy), serves to reinforce this though. If owning shares is made more risky, only those who can afford to take more risks will be able to capture the benefit.
Perhaps the questions to ask are:

0. Who aren't around HN anymore, and for what reason(s)?

1. Who stuck around HN for a long time, and for what reason(s)?

2. Who joined HN recently and how did they find out about it?

3. Where are 0. people at now?

I think forums fall either of 6 ways:

A. To uncivilized behavior

B. To continual witch hunt

C. Arbitrary, immature, clique moderation

D. To lack of contribution through active participation and content creation

E. To egotistical participants who push others aside: individuals who disagree loudly, constantly, and proclaim they are always right while lacking an ability to recognize ideas that weren't theirs

F. To mediocrity: someone signs up to HN because they saw it on the news, not because they're applying to YC or work in some obscure, high-bar-to-entry subject matter expertise field
Maybe offer the source code at the point of purchase? Could even sell USB/SD with source code on it. Folks who want the code offline can buy them and copy the code where they want it.

OTOH, the internet is a "medium customarily used for software interchange" so maybe that would be fine, but the internet wouldn't "accompany" the device. Also, in GPLv2 you are allowed to just send a note "you can get source from us delivered on a storage device for $X", so if you do the purchase thing, plus write a note with every device about how to get the code on the internet or on disk, you should be fine.
I honestly just can't fathom how this a common take right now. We're so far away from AI being a genuinely reliable for software developers. It's basically just StackOverflow+, sometimes even worse because of hallucinations and not being able to use your intuition to sniff out the better answers. Did software development becomes less popular or in demand since the invention of StackOverflow? No, the hobby and profession has grown tremendously since then. These things are productivity enhancers (for some), nothing more.

If your apathy comes from believing that much better models (which will render programming a pointless endeavour) are right around the corner then I just think you're buying into the hype and your prediction is way off. The current models are trained on all the data available, there is nothing more to learn from. As public information grows then the scope of answers will grow, and as models improve they will emulate human responses better. Will they get better at programming? They're only as good as the training data, which will ALWAYS be unreliable and full of errors or missing context, how could it be any other way?
Embrace it.
Depends on style really. Curate to your audience
This position statement makes it clear that only the manual details themselves merit protection, the base image itself must be disclaimed from the copyright registration. It would be fraud to attempt otherwise.
That form of AI has already been invented long ago, it's called simply Copy & Paste.

GPT combines prompt, context and knowledge, it selects and adapts code. It even does problem solving: above average human rating on easy problems and 20% over humans on medium level problems. When did the xerox or parrot for that matter do that?
Requiring the answers to automatically verifiable, or having answers be inputs to a reliable query system?
> The original copyright laws were thought up way before even cameras, and we're still trying to apply them today to generated AI

but the original laws worked well with cameras didnt it?

The legal idea, that unless a human had creative input, it won't have copyright, doesn't fall afoul of ai generated content. There's nuance of course - what counts as creative input etc.

Of course, a new paradigm is possible with the advent of AI, but it would make copyright _looser_, rather than tighter, imho (and it would be to the progress of the arts and science to do so). But i don't see why it is fundamentally needed.
When I was college my first programming job was writing CRUD UIs in VB (I think it was 4 or 5) for a local contract dev shop. I was only a sophomore at the time, and the money I made helped me pay for college.

I know people ripped on VB the language, but I still haven’t used anything to date that was as good and easy at creating Windows CRUD UIs.
previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35137327
Just have a clause to ignore the observer's influence? Or include the observer in the fictional world as described seems like it might be a viable approach.
Thanks for all your hard work! Without VB my career definitely wouldn't have happened.
The camera is not making a decision. The human made the decision to set the camera up to take pictures when motion activated.
I'm not so convinced that "bad code is better than awful code" is a very useful observation. Kind of strikes me like "well I have stage 3 cancer, but at least it's not stage 4"; you wouldn't be wrong, but you still have cancer..
Here is what GPT-4 says about it. "As an AI language model, I can understand and work with various text encoding schemes and compression algorithms. However, to work with a raw bytestream, you would need to provide specific details about the encoding and compression used.

To teach me to understand a particular binary encoding and compressed text format, you should provide the following information:

The binary encoding used (e.g., ASCII, UTF-8, UTF-16, etc.).
The compression algorithm employed (e.g., gzip, Lempel-Ziv-Welch (LZW), Huffman coding, etc.).
Once you provide these details, I can help you process the raw bytestream and decompress the text. However, keep in mind that my primary focus is on natural language understanding and generation, and I might not be as efficient at handling compressed data as a dedicated compression/decompression tool."
Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a developer, I have advised... a number of people to explore "modern C++," where everything is RAII, and you never have to write `new` or `delete`.

Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?

Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us.
So the article says:

> I’ve worked at a FAANG and i’ll say my days were filled with a bunch of mundane work that’s not actually interesting.

Obviously there is also very interesting work at FAANG. Just like there is also very mundane work in startups or small companies.
> how are these people supposed to eat?

not only am I sure people will have no trouble eating, I'm willing to wager obesity goes up

i'm not teasing, I don't think your worry is warranted
I am really disappointed by this. These days, I mostly use my (fifth) Kindle when flying on aircraft, and there I mostly read The Economist or The Atlantic.

They don't publish offline media for laptops. I don't own a tablet. My phone battery is precious on trips. I guess I'll just look for paper copies at the terminal again...?
I'm curious where the "line" is, though. If I do a web search for a term, I get various results. As I refine my search, the results get closer to what I want. Eventually, there comes a point where it's possible to recognize that there is "skill" associated with crafting a good web search. To some extent, the same is true of crafting what you tell the AI to generate for you; especially as AIs become more complex in what they can be told to do.

So, given that, at what point does enough creativity go into the crafting of the instructions that it _can_ be considered, at least in part, a work by the person giving the commands.
right

> We are committed to protecting the benefits we have, fixing historical disparities within and across departments, and promoting equitable conditions and economic stability for all of our colleagues
We as an industry really need to be a whole lot more intolerant of ignorance. People learned how to drive, they can learn how to use a computer.
In that scenario the original artist is granted copyright and assigns it to the company. Another option would be for the artist to 'license' the work to the company and keep copyright ownership themselves. Since there is no original artist to be granted copyright then there is no one to assign it to the company so no copyright under current statute. I and others got so many downvotes here for pointing this out previously.
I spent a couple weeks downloading a pirated vb6 with a download manager that could resume. I think it was 1GB, on dial-up.

Once I had it installed I had like 6mb free space.

I made a bunch of AO-progz and an mp3 player. And a bunch of friends in #vb6 on aol, which I keep to this day.
The article this thread is about was posted by Software Freedom Conservancy, who enforce copyleft licenses, for the Linux kernel and other projects. You can help fund their efforts with donations.
Calvino was a member of oulipo. Other than Vonnegut (whom I admire too), he had a concept of literature as art. You should take him serious.
Tell HN: Got a spam about “I recorded you” but with a twist
The meat of the spam text is pretty run of the mill spammy "i recorded you" (through your cam) SATISFYING YOURSELF.

But the problem is,

If you think this is some bad joke, no, I know your password: Something@234

which is the password i've used in some places so i suspect the spammer has gotten my email from some dump but this is pretty ingenious because all you have to give is the password and people might freak out.

edit: yes the email is in HIBP since ages
Right but it depends where the device was sold. A Galaxy S22 intended for Europe is built with a vulnerable Exynos SOC but a Galaxy S22 built for the US has a Snapdragon.
> holes are either punched or not

This describes a binary encoding, not a digital process. Otherwise any powerbutton is 'digital', because it's on or off.
Have you tried talking to them one on one?
> "Microsoft's strategy to "kill HTML by extending it""

I'm still using HTML today. It hasn't been extinguished because it still exists. It's like complaining that someone murdered your dog, and I point out that your dog is still alive and you say "I'm confused what that has to do with anything".

Extinguish: "To put an end to or make extinct; destroy: synonym: annihilate."

You can still use Atom, it isn't extinct, destroyed or annihilated, and that's related to it being Open Source because there is no way for anyone to annihilate it when you can have your own copy of the source.

Compare that to the proposed "kill HTML by extending it" where, if webservers only served compiled ActiveX and you could only view that on Windows with IE and IE wouldn't render HTML, no amount of 'having the source' would let you use HTML to make web pages your customers could view. You'd put HTML on your webserver and your customers couldn't view it. You'd look at the IE source code and you couldn't distribute it. HTML would be killed as an interoperable standard, It's a difference in kind.

> "It is just a business strategy, that's all."

> "We factually know that Netscape's downfall was a result of the EEE strategy [0]"

We know that Microsoft made a product good enough that nobody bothered to install Netscape. If that's all EEE means it wouldn't have been an attempt to kill HTML. From your link "Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions." - is anyone seriously saying it was ActiveX which people loved and that's why they dropped Netscape? I don't remember ActiveX playing much of a part in the internet.