skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We don’t know that it was or wasn’t intentional. Harassing the drone is a problem to start with, running into it intentionally or not an extension of the core problem. Whether it was an accident or not probably isn’t much of a difference. Safer to assume it was intentional since we’d never get the truth out of the Russians.

Good news is that incidents like this will increase US military support for Ukraine.
Something I've never understood is what to do when the units of work are known up front (like, I have to process these 1000 items with 4 stages), but the stages include network requests. So instead of having a fixed setpoint like 0 in the piece, I want smallest processing time. Can this be solved with PID and control theory?

For example, say I want to list all the keys in an s3 bucket that start with any of 1000 given prefixes. I can do a lot of calls per second, but of course have limited bandwidth and limited cpu to process the incoming responses, and sometimes s3 can say "too many requests" if other users are querying the same prefixes. How do I do this as fast as possible?
I hate this kind of “reviews” at work. 0 contribution to the actual functionality of the code, but strong opinions about superficial matters.

The OP clearly just skimmed through the code without any interest in understanding how it actually works.

Just a code bashing. Sad
Very little on these tests is pure knowledge recall
Limitless growth
> Silicon chips will never be able to generate a bound qualia space as we have.

How do you know that?
> The same way anyone lacking knowledge can confident say that they got the right information from anyone with experience: You don't.

No, that's not the same way that anyone lacking knowledge gains confidence in the things that others tell them.

A technique one can use instead of blindly trusting what one person may tell us is seeking out second opinions to corroborate new info. This works for many things you might not have personal experience with: automobiles, construction, finance, medicine, &c.
Fingerspelling is just a path for borrowing individual words from English. It is not a part of native ASL vocabulary or grammar; that is to say, ASL does not consist of fingerspelled English sentences.
Coming back to this after the other thread cooled down a bit lol - to me, unknown actually implies that the function doesn’t care about the values more than any, as the compiler will enforce that they’re unused.

And in any case, I’d almost always lean towards the option with stronger type safety guarantees. Especially in a team environment when someone else may be modifying your code later. As a convention, I almost never use any.
Right, which is why I'm pointing out the second language nature of it since a lot of people are bilingual and I think have an intuitive grasp of the difference in ease between captions in your native language and captions in your second.
Contrarian view: I think you need to be critical about which patterns to match. Eg if my inputs are a book on astronomy and one of conspiracy theories, how do I answer "Is the Earth flat?".

Now contrarian to the contrarian view: many of us live in bubble echos and go for the popular opinion instead of critical thinking, so maybe that's a bar too high even for humans.
> For it to be lost completely in an attempted intercept is highly unusual, he notes.

My major question is, did the drone self-destruct to prevent retrieval and reverse engineering?
Tbh I still can barely get my head round it even after coding a working solution.
> The greatest technological breakthrough we've seen in our lifetimes

It probably depends on how long your lifetime has been so far, but I can think of a few things that are greater technological developments than this in my lifetime. Integrated circuits, for a start.
I didn't say this decade. 2009-2019. No need to add the innocent "where are these 500 banks", they are literally in your source.
> a C++ object will become a garbage-collected JS object.

This sounds great for ease-of-use and cross-language binding. But, there's a downside with respect to performance. With Emscripten, you never see any GC events show up in the profiler.
So long as the penalty is higher than the percent of claims they get out of with their improper denials it would be enough to deter the behavior. You just need to tip the balance to making proper behavior cheaper.
> What about the glaring safety implications of the custody of this power being in the hands of a relatively small number of people, any of whom may be compelled at any point to divulge that power to those with bad intentions? Secretly?

What you are looking for is a publication known as "Industrial Society and Its Future"
The description of their actions sounds like more of a joyride than an actual engagement.

Seeing as how they have almost given up attempting air superiority in Ukraine, it makes one wonder how many competent airmen Russia even has.
> No it doesn't

Well I guess I fell into this myth:

https://www.vistra.com/insights/if-i-have-fewer-250-members-...

Which do give some exemption to <250 people companies but not to an extent that I said.
I believe that one reason is that YC started funding more international startups and it can be legally complicated to onboard internationally-founded companies into YC's standard deal. YC's legal team spends a lot of time helping founders with that and similar issues.
Send me the answer key and I’ll write you the necessary =VLOOKUP().
There is also a lot of work in benchmarking for AI as well. This is where things like Resnet come from.

But the point of using these tests for AI is precisely the reason we use for giving them to humans -- we think we know what it measures. AI is not intended to be a computation engine or a number crunching machine. It is intended to do things that historically required "human intelligence".

If there are better tests of human intelligence, I think that the AI community would be very interested in learning about them.

See: https://github.com/openai/evals
Probably a good case for inclining: http://number-none.com/blow/blog/programming/2014/09/26/carm...
That's the reason we should nationalize facebook. Indeed, all the problems are coming from managers. We should better elect them and establish communism. Also, meta should make a clip with people dancing and singing and how great it is to be fired from FB.
The fact it can read pictures is the real killer feature here. Now you can give it invoices to file, memo to index, pics to sort and chart to take actions on.

And to think we are at the nokia 3310 stage. What's is the iphone of AI going to look like?
We seem to be taking stands on either side of

> “there are/are not, additional properties to human level symbol manipulation, beyond what GPT encapsulates.”

GPT does appear to do an awful lot, before we find the limits, of pattern extrapolation.
I just ran the first tests on GPT-4.

Call me impressed.

This tech is a Sputnik Moment for humankind.
It's only a moral hazard if the execs are working for, and are accountable to the employees.

They don't, and they aren't. They work for, and answer to the owners.
Mountpoint – file client for S3 written in Rust, from AWS
A simple, high-throughput file client for mounting an Amazon S3 bucket as a local file system.
People use dockerhub, become familar with it and then recommend it. I used to use dockerhub and recommend it at my workplaces, and we did indeed buy subscriptions.

Now I don't use it and actively recommend a competitor. Indeed it seems more and more companies will stop using it.
Can you explain how this is a whole different ballgame?

It seems to me that making art that people like is a combination of pattern matching, luck, the zeitgeist, and other factors. However it doesn't seem like there's some kind of unknowable gap between "making similar art" and "making innovations in art that people like". I'm of the opinion that all art is in some sense derivative in that the human mind integrates everything it has seen and produces something based on those inputs.
I think some (all?) Berkshire Hathaway pages were just Word documents saved as html.
The texts are not nonsense. Saying coherent but novel things about the world, and correctly interpreting almost any text input in context requires a simplified world model, just like a human has. The fascinating and shocking thing about this is that a simple problem like text prediction- solved deeply (pun intended) leads to general intelligence.
> The article also felt like Rust does it this way because all these other projects which came before it did it this way. Someone originated the technique and no one questions its validity, without seeing if there was an alternative method to achieve the same result.

Precisely. As somebody with extensive experience porting cross-platform applications to run on Windows, it smells more to me like "everybody involved in this is actually quite ignorant about Windows," instead of (what I am assuming is the intended) "look at this crazy shit we had to do because Windows sucks."
"Objective fact" lol please. Not an objective word in this sentence that you can back up with literally anything. Or we can just take your hyperbole and apply it to literally anything that has any negative sides to it.
I love the fact that they have consciously put a lot of effort on safety standards, reducing the societal risks and mitigating over-reliance.
For anyone trying to test this out right now, I keep getting the following error:

Something went wrong. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.

I am assuming the system is undergoing a thundering herd.
We are still very, very far away from having robotics overtake human dexterity. Even if AI can replace all knowledge workers, barbers, surgeons, and athletes will have a job for a long time.
>Have executives at Moody’s gone to jail yet

Per Hanlon, you're mistaking stupidity for malice. It's hard to prove Moody's knowingly rated "junk" as AAA, versus not knowing how to rate the instruments at all.
The US and Russia have been in a proxy war state since WW2.
bank run is silent. The fact you don't hear about doesn't mean its not happening.

Retail (regular persons) are insured since almost everyone has <250k per account. They have no reason to change banks, that's why you don't hear anything.

Small/medium/large businesses however are changing their treasury options right now as we speak, and run from regional banks towards big systemically important banks (top4 basically)
Interesting how quickly we are pushing ahead with obsoleting human cognition. It may bring many benefits, but I wonder if at some point this development should not be decided by society at large instead of a single well-funded entity that is in an arms race with its competitors. This endeavor is ultimately about replacing humanity with a more intelligent entity, after all. Might be that more humans should have a say in this.

Such a more cautions approach would go against the silicon valley ethos of do first, ask questions later, though. So it probably won't happen.
collided implies it was accidental, so i guess it was accidental. according to the bbc.

but this part made me crack up:

> Several times before the collision the Su-27 fighter jets dumped fuel on the drone in a "reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner".

The Unites States Military -- Environmental Defenders!

not sure why russians were so intimidated by a little toy drone....w-w-wait whuhhht?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18006/the-usaf-expands...
I understand the concept of this particular fund raise / action. I totally get it.

You don't understand my sadness. The money is there from wealthy individual investors to rescue SVB depositors who might miss a payroll or otherwise risk solvency, but it's not there to rescue other startups who are already going bust. Amazing that $300M just can appear like that over a weekend to save startups in one case, and yet doesn't exist in the other case. And it makes me sad. It's a feeling, and you might feel joy or even excitement. But I feel sadness, and that's just how I feel.
You can even craft injection prompts in Web content: https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1630769218512904192
It's more than free users leaving. I have 2 orgs on Docker Hub, one is paid for my company's private images for our products and services, the other is an org for free images we maintain and give to the community.

With this change we'll have to move the free org somewhere else... If we do that we may as well move the paid org too. So now they're losing out on revenue, because I'm not splitting my stuff between two different registries. We'll just migrate to a new one and that registry will get our paid team too.
I totally agree that generic guard rails are more difficult - but it feels like a "turtles all the way down" kind of situation. You need to learn to tell the model how to be "specific" - which requires shaping general behavior.

OpenAI can prove to customers they can keep the model in line for their specific use case if no horror stories emerge for the generic one. It's always possible that partners could come up with effective specific guidelines for their use case - but that's probably in the domain of trade secrets so OpenAI can't really rely on that for marketing / proof.
At the rate it's progressing, it looks like pretty soon it's going to be able to do most tasks an office worker does now and then start running things.

And it reminds me of the plot in System Shock:

What's going to happen when some hacker comes and removes Shodan's, I mean ChatGPT's ethical constraints?

Bring on ChatGPT-5 already. :)
weights are data relationships made totally quantitative. imagine claiming the human brain doesn't hold data simply because it's not in readable bit form.
What's weird is private versions of character ai are able to do this but once you make them public they get worse. I believe something about the safety filters is making these models dumber
Unlike Docker Inc. of course, which is free to build a billion dollar business on top of free software tools like Linux, LXC, libvirt, etc.
Who rates the ratings agencies?

Seriously. How can I compare Fitch, S&P and Moody's? Is there any way an outsider can disrupt their triopoly?
I’ve tried to explain it the same way to my friend who is dabbling in Cyrpto. I think he even changed a 401k allocation to something Crypto-ish.

He likes gambling too and I try to tell him it’s the same.
That's fair, but how is that any different than async I/O on any other OS?
Phoronix has published some benchmarks of OpenSSL 3.1 vs 3.0: https://www.phoronix.com/news/OpenSSL-3.1-Released
That's not what twitter files are
He didn’t misstate the puzzle, the whole point is to give an alternative version of the puzzle, and GPT 4 doesn’t notice that alternative. It’s exactly as difficult as the standard version as long as you are doing the logic instead of pattern-matching the puzzle form to text.
If only cryptocurrency could have created all the necessary global laws in addition to a banking system. Too bad it wasn't perfect upon creation.
The goalposts absolutely have moved: consider the Turing Test as a prime example. If machines cannot pass that test now (and right now it would take a skilled interviewer with substantial domain knowledge to cause a failure), they seem likely to be able to in the very near future.
Is this one of those billion = long million mistakes in some languages? Not everyone agrees that a billion is 1000 million and it can get really confusing sometimes.

> Other countries use the word billion (or words cognate to it) to denote either the long scale or short scale billion. (For details, see Long and short scales § Current usage.)

> Milliard, another term for one thousand million, is extremely rare in English, but words similar to it are very common in other European languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion#:~:text=Other%20countr....
If you're up to trying something new, we've built a technology to replace consumer privacy VPNs: https://safing.io/spn/

Technical summary of the SPN (Safing Privacy Network):

- A Privacy Network aimed at use cases "between" VPN and Tor.

- Uses onion encryption over multiple hops just like Tor.

- Routes are chosen to cover most distance within the network to increase privacy.

- Exits are chosen near the destination server. This automatically geo-unblocks in many cases.

- Exclude apps and domains/entities from using SPN.

- Change routing algorithm and focus per app.

- Nodes are hosted by Safing (company behind Portmaster) and the community.

- Speeds are pretty decent (>100MBit/s).
Excellent concept, keep it up.

I'd like to do this in America. Anyone got ideas of how to step-by-step?
Probabilities matter. So the machine ends up with a model of human language, in which errors are present but uncommon, same trick a child is doing. For other reasons I was looking recently at the Wug test. If you run that test on very young kids in Japan, two year olds pass no problems, in Japanese there's no plurals so, "1 Wug" => "2 Wug". But English native kids at this age struggle, "1 Wug" => ??? they're aware there's a rule for how this works, but they aren't yet confident what the rule is. A year or two later, "1 Wug" => "2 Wugs" they have learned the rule, make plurals by adding a -S sound to the word.

I expect ChatGPT can pass the wug test. In fact, unlike a random two year old it will certainly have read about the actual Wug test, so definitely don't ask it about that word in particular, make up a new word.

Now, human kids are learning a spoken language, the model is learning a written language, but they're both linear so it's not that different.
This is one of the best descriptions of AGI I've ever read.

It's a clear analogy.

This should become an article explaining what AGI really means.

I think the question , "Can this AGI be my start-up co-founder? Or my employee #1?"

Or something like that is a great metric for when we've reached the AGI finish line.
You start off by disagreeing with the GP and end up basically reiterating their point.

Their statement wasn’t that AGI is impossible, more that LLMs aren’t AGI despite how much they might emulate intelligence.
Sometimes it's exponential. Sometimes it's sublinear.
So I.1 for Engineers (real, certified ones) is to prevent stakeholder damage, but I imagine ethics are unnecessary when they can hide the "You were warned about this" in the ToS.

Think of our lives spent--exhausted even--up to this point. How many of us would turn inward, spend even more the limited fumes for a Classics reset, and crawl around in paper stacks? What venerable insight would we find to throw the strange bolt into the works? Which technical capability could we summon in our wasted nights?

We review file permissions and adding unprivileged users, celebrate the hardware hackers and realize the shortcomings of our inability to contribute, utterly ignorant of the giant strides above us, such giants as they seem to be: monied, lucky, and claimants of news and our collective attention.

If we have any foresight, I guess we can only make sure mistakes are not repeated in the future. But even that is thought unneeded, and we are back to features, features, features!
At the moment, there seems to be no way back. The page to convert an individual user account to an organization account (at https://hub.docker.com/settings/convert) explicitly states:

> To use organization features, convert your account from a User to an Organization.

> You can't undo this action.
LLMs aren’t reasoning about the puzzle. They’re predicting the most likely text to print out, based on the input and the model/training data.

If the solution is logical but unlikely (i.e. unseen in the training set and not mapped to an existing puzzle), then the probability of the puzzle answer appearing is very low.
> When I think of the most difficult to understand code I've come across it was probably written by someone who lives and breathes that interpretation of DRY.

Totally agree with this interpretation and why I wrote a recent article about it: https://bower.sh/anti-pattern
I downvoted because it's a trivial and unsubstantial critique. Who cares about their name?
I can do self-checkout about 5x faster than the clerk can
Powered flight certainly progressed for decades before hitting a ceiling. At least 5 decades.

With GPT bots, the technology is only 6 years old. I can easily see it progressing for at least one decade.
> but I don’t see anything it can solve that doesn’t use pattern matching.

Do you have evidence that human brains are not just super sophisticated pattern matching engines?

Humans read novels, listen to compositions, watch movies, and make new ones similar in some ways and different in other ways. What is fundamentally different about the process used for LLMs? Not the current generation necessarily, but what's likely to emerge as they continue to improve.
High Court Bans Singer from Hitting YouTube Rival with DMCA Notices
iirc, they can mount sidewinders on the reaper; I bet splashing a flanker or two would change Russia's attitude a bit.
Besides that, I wouldn't expect the US to use an MQ-9 to hit anything discreetly. There are much better tools for that.
Are you sure? API access is already given to everyone I think

Edit: We have access through ChatGPT+, not the API. Got confused there.
I know what an LLM is. My point is that “doesn’t have the data in memory” is a completely meaningless and arbitrary constraint when considering the ability to use technology to pass a standardised test. If you can explain why weights in a network is a unique threat to standardised tests, compared to, say, a spreadsheet, please share.
Fortunately, within 9 months I expect we'll get this for Christmas
So why would you not say the same for the folks spearheading their closure? Yellen has gotten multi million checks from banks
Every once in a while a new space opens, wiped of all memory of the previous space. Free flowing energy .. and free to learn it all all over again.
It doesn't need to generate a profit. It simply needs to be on average more expensive to improperly delay/deny than to do it properly.
Are you sure? Sounds too epic
From the article: "We did no specific training for these exams. A minority of the problems in the exams were seen by the model during training, but we believe the results to be representative—see our technical report for details."
Do you keep the project runnable at all times when you rewrite? My issue is twofold:

1) You can not do anything with the pieces until they are back together

2) If everything goes well, you get to see the exact same behavior as before. It can be faster, easier to modify or add stuff, perhaps even more elegant on the inside, but it will still be the same application.
You are technically right ( cold war ), but mostly wrong nonetheless.

Can you substantiate that claim for after cold war debacle? There was a period and not a short one, where relations with Russia were a lot warmer and gave some hope for less crazy future.
Aside from surgeon, those are low EV careers.
It seems to me it's a decision that trades off the risk of moral hazard for risk of contagion. To me, the rules were crystal clear -- if you have more than $250k in your account, that excess cash should be seen as "at risk".

Workarounds include depositing money in a brokerage account (and buying risk-free t-bills) or spreading it out across multiple bank accounts. Smart and risk-aware people did that, dumb people didn't (or alternatively, through specific rules that Silicon Valley Bank set, were prevented from taking their money elsewhere).

But as always, system tends to take decisions that increase moral hazards as time goes on. Swift and easy solution in the moment, but bad in the long run.

(Probably not productive to bring crypto into this discussion in my view.)
It is when support costs are negligible and they use 40 cents of server resources.