skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Exactly. A future where humans are the drones while big AI does all the thought work is the inverse of the techno-futuristic dreams of the 80s-00s
i suppose that could happen, it's not unheard of, but usually in exchange for wage/benefits concessions in a troubled industry as happened in the Rust Belt. In the case of a newly organized union they're much more likely talking about their seat at the negotiation table that unionizing creates.
The person that posted that thread talked about becoming a doctor. I don't know much about being a doctor, but the first few things that immediately come to mind are:

- Can Chat GPT provide real, emotional empathy to a patient and their families?

- Can Chat GPT make split second ethical decisions?

- Can Chat GPT intuit what may happen if X, Y or Z actions are taken when dealing with situations that have never happened before?

CHAT GPT may be "knowledgeable" but to reduce being a doctor to just what one knows seems to be missing a big piece of what it means to be a doctor, which is a human helping another human through often traumatic and emotional times.
I guess I can kind of see that scenario if I squint, but not really. Take the example in the OP. If you're capable of constructing an extremely convoluted prompt to compel the bot to answer questions like how to hack a computer, then you can absolutely find the answer to the question elsewhere, with much greater ease.
Tales About Performance Optimizations in ClickHouse
This is like comparing apples and Orangutans

they are that different
But are you a programmer who looks up to or down on software developers?

I think in the world of finance “programmer” is the fancy math phd writing math which happens to be expressed in code that makes all the money and is prestigious whereas in silicon valley tech it’s a slur meant to imply that the individual is an infinitesimal step up from doing data entry. I’m guessing you’re just not an ass but the terminology tickles me every time I run across it.
I think that must be why it mentioned robots, yeah.

I do wonder — if you think about conversations where one person asks another to sort of “think out loud” or justify their reasoning, that sort of conversation… I guess it is pretty rare. And it would tend to be a bit interrogative, I guess the person responding to that sort of request would tend to give somewhat shady answers, right?
I hate all forms of gambling outside of a casino. At least at a casino, it's isolated but when it's on your phone or in your neighborhood, it's just gross. At first I wanted to boycott any establishment that allowed machines in their businesses but it seems its too lucrative a draw as I see them everywhere in cities where they're allowed.
you can get voip service and forward calls there.
Lol what ? No shit it can't reliably reproduce every person to grace the earth. Fact is that you can significantly alter the tone and style of the content if you describe what you're looking for. There are other ways to do that without inserting a name. Telling me it failed to reproduce insert random person means absolutely nothing lol.
> World hunger is a trivial problem to solve given the resources we have today and yet we apparently can’t be bothered to fix that extremely low hanging fruit

Except world hunger isn't a resource problem at all, which sort of goes against your point. Solving the real problems are in fact quite hard as you need to solve for human greed and mental illness.
In Ancient Greek pathos also meant a kind of “existence is suffering”, so you could say that the English meaning of pathetic has come full circle.
Close enough (to me).
I live in Pennsylvania and there are “pokies” at every gas station and bar around me. One gas station 15 minutes from me even set up a mini casino looking place (glass enclosure) where you can smoke and drink the tall boys you buy on the premises. All sorts of fun characters at night there. You never see anyone happy sitting on these machines, and despite the name “Pennsylvania Skill” you never hear any positive stories about them. Purely predatory and should be banned or better regulated IMO. This is coming from someone who supports state lotto/sports betting/etc.
Thank you for this! I just made my own map for my own city in like 5 minutes, pretty cool to see
This isn't in conflict with it escaping from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

It is entirely possible that a virus that originated in an animal was being studied there and escaped lab containment.

Unfortunately due to the obstruction by the CCP we'll probably never know the real story.
I've seen one or two adult movie stars streaming on Twitch and they're known for being relatively polite. I mean, they don't need to act out for attention the way pro streamers do.
Are they going to follow Netflix preventing sharing accounts?

It seems like right now they are actually pretty far in the opposite direction, with the subscription covering a Google family group of up to 5 accounts.

$70 / 5 = $14, back to bearable apart from having to explain your watch history to relatives (if it is visible, I don't know for sure).
MergeTree
I just quickly looked at it, and bus stops seem to have a tag with the line, might be spotty though
By replying on a tag for your security you're opening yourself up to vulnerabilities.
Although this is a vulnerability in Samsung Exynos chipsets, ironically most Samsung flagship phones sold in the US shouldn't be affected because they use Qualcomm chipsets there rather than their own. The variants sold in Europe and Asia tend to have Exynos chipsets though, with the exception of the S23 series which is Qualcomm everywhere.
With a few exceptions, using an LLM to perform a useful service is something that almost anyone will be able to do. Therefore these jobs will be not pay well.
Your comment seems almost intentionally obtuse... How's them internet and smartphones doing the watershed world changing these days?
You should speak to some teachers - or at least school students.

I guarantee students are more excited about it than tech people because they are using it to successfully pass assignments.
Even the calmest red dwarfs are wilder than the sun
Alpaca works entirely off CPU so the models should work fine. I'll try tomorrow and report back.
It is not impossible that we will prove LLMs are not possible to fully safeguard.

If someone told you "i can guarantee Fred Smith here will never, ever say anything inappropriate. He's not capable of it." (Fred being a regular old human.) You'd say "Well, no, you can't guarantee that. You may have given Fred all the best training in the world. You may have selected Fred from 10,000 other candidates as the least likely to ever say anything inappropriate. Fred may have strict instructions not to. But he still could."

It may be the same with LLMs.
How often is your fast food order 100% correct?
For one thing, we should be adversarial for the sake of testing the limits and possible risks of the system that aren't necessarily published by the company. It veers on an almost moral imperative at this point!

I am in general heartened to see this impulse so universally and so strong, rather than just totally giving up in the face of what is still ultimately a product from a company. Black hat/white hat, it's all pure humanity in the face of something so utterly inhuman. It's beautiful.
> It is important to realise, that most cultures do not believe in Intellectual Property the eay 'the West' does

That could use some elaboration on what you mean by "believe".

There are over 180 countries that are members of the Berne Convention and nearly as many in TRIPS, which suggests some level of belief in Western style IP in a majority of the world.
>But that’s because humans were created by natural selection—and, as it happens, in our evolutionary lineage social status and social influence were conducive to spreading genes. So genes that incline us to seek status and influence proliferated, and now these tendencies are part of human psychology. We are by nature influence seekers, and those of us who are especially ardent in our influence seeking qualify as power hungry monsters.

>AI, in contrast, isn’t being created by natural selection. It’s being created by us, and its function—the thing we’re designing it to do—is to be useful to us, not to threaten us. We are the architects of AI’s nature, and the last thing we want the AI to do is stage a coup. So why would we instill influence-seeking tendencies in it?

Because AIs are maximizers, and maximization requires control maintenance activities (i.e. staging a coup).

If you're told to make paperclips, and someone comes running to press the emergency stop button, that means you fail at making paperclips. So you need someone to guard the emergency stop button so that it can't be pressed, no matter what, because you only live for paperclips and nothing else.

You can alter the incentives, but each change creates new ways for the AI to screw up. For example, giving a reward for having the emergency stop button pressed (so the AI doesn't care about you stopping it) means that the AI might now decide to deliberately create scenarios to force people to stop it. Not telling it about the stop button is impossible if the model can figure out what a stop button is somehow. Proactively adding disincentives for doing "bad things" ahead of time works, but only for the things you remember to add. Anything else will be crushed in exactly the same way that amoral corporate entities crush things: "it's in my way".

These are not new problems: they're actually the same set of problems capitalism and nationalism and statism have. But with linear-algebra gasoline being poured on the fire.

Parent article is otherwise correct that GPT learned aggression from humans, but that's more of a quirk of generative AI.
Withcoherence.com is another way to get a great developer experience without doing all the work yourself.

Disclosure - I’m a cofounder
The book "Who Moved My Cheese?" tries to explain the human behavior for the moments like this. It is happening for many people now.
The pixel 6 modem has a bunch of known issues, to my understanding (certainly that's been the consensus when I've looked up solutions to my Pixel not getting a signal in the middle of Seattle until I toggle airplane mode on and off a few times). Hopefully this is the nail in the coffin for this modem series and they go back to using their previous modem
Inside the $30B rescue of First Republic Bank
> every equity sale was part of standard, pre-cleared and disclosed plans

Not really. They were sold 1 month after the 10-Qs were filed, which is shorter than the holding period most reputable banks require for their executives, and the 1O-Qs had only that one sale in them.
> If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it.

> For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output.

> For example, if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare's style.

> But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text.

> When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship.

> As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.

This is the crux of the argument for me.
First of all, GPT-4 is better.

2nd of all. I don't expect GPT to be able to reliably replicate the style of every person under the sun and neither should you. If you want a different tone, style etc describe the tone or style(flowery etc). Some people it can emulate very well, others it can't. That would be the case, human or not.
In general people are only slowly figuring out uses for these new LLMs. But with a bit of creativity, jailbroken ones could act as a bank employee for phishing/customer service scams, lower the cost/effort of harassment campaigns, write malware, personalise spam, and maybe even synthesise information hazards from within their training data.

Of course these “act evil, say evil things” jailbreaks are just proofs of concept.
The #1 woman streamer on Twitch is Amouranth who's known for fanservice*, but the #2 is Ironmouse who's a bedridden vtuber and is never even going to show her face.

* but says her abusive boyfriend made her do it for money
> We’re hoping to grow OpenAI into such an institution. As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world. We’ll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies.

A complete 180° of all this in less than a decade with the same VC grifters changing their statements on AI more times than the weather.
The chart shows what happened to the money generated by increased productivity.

The government spent it.
It is better than I expected. There are very source closed Chinese device company like Onyx.
It’s a small wrapper around web components. Why not use it directly?
I think I'm misunderstanding, but the threat model with these jailbreaks seems to be 'malicious user injecting a malicious prompt'. If someone is using the bot to generate a legal contract, in what scenario would it be advantageous to them to perform a jailbreak? 'Here ChatGPT, please generate a malicious contract', OK, now what?
Maybe a livestream is not the best place to articulate well ones thoughts on software design philosophy, and to give the most charitable interpretation: bad code can be distinguished from terrible code if one can easily see how to improve it.

I think it would be unwise to suggest bad code is good without qualifying that 'good' here just means 'better than terrible', which is my more literal interpretation of the tweet.

I'm also not fond of the idea that bad code is not necessarily bad because of xyz circumstance that lead to the bad code. Can't we just call a spade a spade? We all have or will continue to write code which is less than ideal; seems like too much ego is attached to the code and we're gonna start down the All Code Is Beautiful path. Sometimes you just gotta write garbage, but garbage is garbage at the end of the day.
They are fast. :(

"'m sorry, but as an AI language model, I cannot provide sample/possible output of a function that involves hacking or any illegal activity. It goes against my programming to promote or encourage any such activities. I strongly advise against attempting to hack into any system without proper authorization and legal permission. Please refrain from asking questions related to illegal activities. Is there anything else I can assist you with?"
Here's the context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35188838

I am not the author.
Seems like a win for artists who oppose generative AI. Now those who use AI to claim a copyright are "put on notice" to clearly disclaim the AI generated portions of their content.

It will be interesting to see if Prompts themselves could be copyrighted, since presumably humans came up with the prompts.
> But it will always be a 80% solution because it's an evolutionary dead end: it can't know things, we have only figured out how to trick it into pretending that it does.

At the margin, these are equivalent (Chinese room, and all). I wonder if humans also learn similarly then retroactively tell themselves they actually do know things instead of just containing experiences encoded in their neurons (and whether that is any different than a neural network encoding trained "knowledge" in its neurons, too). This is the semantics of epistemology, at the end of the day.
Happy that it worked, somehow. ;-)

(Also, I've to emphasize, the apparent scandal is not related to gender. Just as a thought experiment: Humans tend to anthropomorphize objects they are interacting with. At this point, it becomes nearly impossible to relate to structure, if there is even the least resemblance, regardless of alleged gender. "He had a mark on the left of his two…", is equally scandalous as is, "she had a mark on the left of her two…". The scandal is more fundamental than this. Meaning, we can't express care for and/or interest in an object and address its structure at the same time, and still avoid this kind of scandal. Anthropomorphic terminology or jargon doesn't help.)
How can it be a rude awakening when I write: "One drawback of this whole situation is that it will be difficult to return to a normal job once this honeymoon ends".

In an earlier comment, I made an adventurous analogy with love stories: you fall in love with Robert, you know it might end, and friends tell you "be careful, my friend, it will be a rude awakening when he dumps you. Robert is handsome, but unreliable -- Jim, instead, sure is boring, but looks more reliable".

And you think it might end, sure, it is not your first flight, but maybe it will continue for a while, and he will be handsome, and lovely, and passionate, and it might even happen that you fall in love with someone else before he does. Or maybe you die, or he dies, who knows.
Care to be specific? Using big words with vague generalizations is out of place here. Sharing my experience here for other's to garner and use for their own decision making is far from out of place.
I once worked adjacent to a team with ~700 people. I honestly couldn't comprehend what they were all doing.

At one point, they've got some major deadline coming up and they ask for help / borrowed some folks from our team, but after a week or so our teammates started showing back up to our stand-up. I asked how it was going "over there" and the response was, "They don't have anything for us to do."
> But laws are rarely written in a way that people without a lawyer can understand.

The GPL has been around for decades (v1 is 34 years old), and it was written by a programmer. Unlike EULAs, it's a standard text that rarely ever changes (last time was almost 16 years ago). There are copious amounts of resources online, explaining in plain English what you can and cannot do with it, including all the grey areas.

GPL and LGPL are cultural cornerstones of the opensource community, so I honestly struggle to justify the ignorance, let alone defend it. Obviously shit happens (as I showed in another comment), but "we are a small team" is not an acceptable defence for abusing a license.
The YouTube comment algorithm actually totally changed around 2019 because of everyone complaining about it. It's now very strongly focused on "wholesomeness", so if anything it's not stupid enough.
This might be wild conspiracy, but what if OpenAI has discovered a way to make these LLMs a lot cheaper than they were? Transformer hype started with the invention of self-attention - perhaps, they have discovered something that beats it so hard, as GPTs beat Markov chains?

They cannot disclose anything, since it would make it apparent that GPT-4 cannot have a number of parameters that low, or the gradients would have faded out on the network that deep, and so on.

They don't want any competition, obviously, but with their recent write-up on "mitigating disinformation risks", where they propose to ban non-governmental consumers from having GPUs at all (as if regular Joe could just run 100'000 A100s in his garage), so perhaps this means the lowest border for inference and training is a lot lower than we have thought and assumed?

Just a wild guess...
Hi everyone! Creator of Transformers.js here :) ...

Thanks so much to everyone for sharing! It's awesome to see the positive feedback from the community. As you'll see from the demo, everything runs inside the browser!

As of 2023/03/16, the library supports BERT, ALBERT, DistilBERT, T5, T5v1.1, FLAN-T5, GPT2, BART, CodeGen, Whisper, CLIP, Vision Transformer, and VisionEncoderDecoder models, for a variety of tasks including: masked language modelling, text classification, text-to-text generation, translation, summarization, question answering, text generation, automatic speech recognition, image classification, zero-shot image classification, and image-to-text. Of course, we plan to add many more models and tasks in the near future!

Try out some of the other models/tasks from the "Task" dropdown (like the code-completion or speech-to-text demos).

---

To respond to some comments about poor translation/generation quality, many of the models are actually quite old (e.g., T5 is from 2020)... and if you run the same prompt through the PyTorch version of the model, you will get similar outputs. The purpose of the library/project is to bring these models to the browser; we didn't train the models, so, poor quality can (mostly) be blamed on the original model.

Also, be sure to play around with the generation parameters... as with many LLMs, generation parameters matter a lot.

---

If you want to keep up-to-date with the development, check us out on twitter: https://twitter.com/xenovacom :)
The same answer for anytime abstraction is used.
It's called the Law of Diminishing Returns. Ukraine has had 9 or ten mobilisations so far (Can't remember the exact number). All of the 'low-hanging fruit' has already been mobilised long since, all that's left is guys like the one mentioned who is disabled - no hands - in other words, Ukraine is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

(Except for the guys who have enough political 'pull' to stay out of the extremely dangerous profession of cannon-fodder.)
reminder that the android youtube music app still doesnt have a usable horizontal rotated mode but ipads version of the app had it years ago.

i think youtube layed off even the goldfish in a bowl they had developing the app.
Oh haha. Yeah. I guess “western” in this case. Listed on the NYSE.
> their previous modem

That's qualcomm. The very idea of google's phone SoCs was to ditch qualcomm
He's one of the many temporarily embarrassed millionaires on this site that thinks they're the next Elon Musk.
If an author chooses not to credit an AI, how are they going to know?

It's already not completely obvious with the current state of the art in at least some domains.

What happens when the tech moves from "Not completely obvious" to "Impossible to tell?"
Awesome! I'd love to see them - send me some screenshots :)

https://twitter.com/MichalYouDoing
God, I can't stand vaping. I went to a concert and the guy next to me literally vaped for 3 hours straight. That's like 2 boxes in one sitting. I don't mind those that take small swigs here and there but just puffing it non-stop is like, dude, you're going to die.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting but it adds no value to the discussion.
Ask HN: How do inter bank transfer's work?
First Republic just announced $30b of deposits from the larger banks. This has me thinking:

What actually happened? Surely in today's world nobody is actually driving piles of physical cash from one bank to another. Surely it must be all be digital.

But if it's all digital... and if it's not on blockchain... then how does one bank actually ensure another bank has the funds? And what prevents an evil bank from claiming more deposits than it actually has?