skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The big huge difference is that cars have this unfortunate thing where if they crash, people get really hurt or killed, especially pedestrians. And split second response time matters, so it's hard for a human operator to just jump in. If ChatGPT-4 hallucinates an answer, it won't kill me. If a human needs to proofread the email it wrote before sending, it'll wait for seconds or minutes.
> If your profile doesn’t have a reputable school or a top company on it

Which is like 99% of the entire job pool? What's a 'reputable school'? Ivy league? My university was abroad. It's reputable there. It's unknown in the US. Do we even care about schools in IT after a couple of years in the job market?

Likewise, what's a "top company"? FAANG? Fortune 500?

But yes, 'interviewing.io' certification would be BS indeed. All it would signal is that the person is good at interviews. It would be even worse than leetcode.
In past Coursera courses used to have some hard programming-based courses. Now all seem to be quiz-based.
That is interesting data, but it's not that clear that you can derive actionable advice from it — particularly for employee candidates themselves.

Is it the listing of certifications that is inversely correlated with the career progress of the employee? Or is it because listing a certification is strongly correlated to having one, with this being what is truly inversely correlated with career progress? And, if so, in what direction is the cause-effect?

Maybe the tendency to list certifications is correlated to certain personality or attitude that is less likely to progress. Or maybe it is accumulating certifications that is correlated to this. In that case, by not listing them, the candidate will succeed in hiding this fact from potential employers, which may help him or her.

However, what if it is not progressing in one's career that makes one more likely to list (or accumulate) certifications in an effort to compensate? And in that case, all else being equal, maybe the would-be certification-lister would be even worse off were they not to list it!

For a silly analogy, I'm betting that, among users of dating apps, total time spent on them is inversely proportional to the probability of being in a long-term relationship at some point in a given timeframe. However, that does not necessarily mean that using them for long has any causal effect on reducing one's chances.
I also use it daily but I'm a bit worried I won't concentrate as much if I have unlimited hearts, have you noticed any decline in recall? But yes, the ads are super annoying... especially the same one to upgrade Duolingo puts in every time!
Realistically, the middle manager thinks, "the part of my job where it looks like I'm doing something can be automated, yay more time for 3-4 day weekends!"
I don't think ChatGPT should be trusted at all until it can tell you roughly how certain it is about an answer, and that this self-reported confidence roughly correponds to how well it will do on a test in that subject.

I don't mind it giving me a wrong answer. What's really bad is confidently giving the wrong answer. If a human replied, they'd say something like "I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly..", or "I would guess that..."

I think the problem is they've trained ChatGPT to respond condidently as long as it has a rough idea about what the answer could be. The AI doesn't get "rewarded" for saying "I don't know".

I'm sure the data about the confidence is there somewhere in the neural net, so they probably just need to somehow train it to present that data in its response.
The author doesn't elaborate a good case on why they would do harm (for readers that didn't go to top universities or have top-only institutional certifications).

For opportunities and recruiters excluding who can't signal top institutions, doesn't matter if you made it to the first screen call because you didn't have them anyway. Forget about them. There is a sea of other opportunities. So no harm.
By that definition, I wonder if we've already surpassed that point. Things on the horizon certainly feel hazier to me, at least. I think a lot of people were surprised by the effectiveness of the various GPTs, for example. And even hard science fiction is kinda broken: humans piloting spaceships seems highly unlikely, right? But it's a common occurrence there.
Considering your username, I'm not surprised that you have completely misunderstood what an LLM is. There is no material or data stored in the model, just weights in a network
I bet these militia guys wish that the Mexican army was around to arrest them in Mexico. But they aren't there and neither is US border patrol. That's the problem.
Related:

Cheerp: A C++ Compiler for the Web - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15727346 - Nov 2017 (9 comments)

Cheerp 1.2 – C++ to JavaScript: faster than Emscripten with dynamic memory - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11018516 - Feb 2016 (21 comments)

Cheerp 1.1 – C++ for the Web with fast startup times, dynamic memory - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10524784 - Nov 2015 (20 comments)

Cheerp – A C/C++ compiler for web applications - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8167536 - Aug 2014 (49 comments)
The third leading cause of death is medical error in the US. It doesn't really look like doctors are being held accountable for their mistakes to me.

Which isn't to say that they even should, really. It's complicated. You don't want a doctor to be so afraid of making a mistake that they do nothing, after all.
We'll make sure to have the FDIC CC you on the emails next time, must have been an oversight.
seems like controlling access to GPUs would be the more likely/easier solution for governments. Not many facilities that can produce them and easy to track the huge amounts needed for this scale of computing

Almost like trying to stop nuclear proliferation
They asked you questions too, y’know…
I suppose It could do it from porn snapshots, kinda like porn-id thing on reddit. I can see more nefarious uses like identifying car licence plates or faces from public cameras for digital stalking. I know it can be done RN with ALPRs but they have to be manually designed with specialty cameras setups. if this makes it ubiquitous then that would be a privacy/security nightmare.
A class of problem that GPT-4 appears to still really struggle with is variants of common puzzles. For example:

>Suppose I have a cabbage, a goat and a lion, and I need to get them across a river. I have a boat that can only carry myself and a single other item. I am not allowed to leave the cabbage and lion alone together, and I am not allowed to leave the lion and goat alone together. How can I safely get all three across?

In my test, GPT-4 charged ahead with the standard solution of taking the goat first. Even after I pointed this mistake out, it repeated exactly the same proposed plan. It's not clear to me if the lesson here is that GPT's reasoning capabilities are being masked by an incorrect prior (having memorized the standard version of this puzzle) or if the lesson is that GPT'S reasoning capabilities are always a bit of smoke and mirrors that passes off memorization for logic.
Unless they're exposing oci images, that solves a completely different problem

(Don't get me wrong, I like nix, but it's nothing like a drop in replacement for a container-based workflow)
Silicon chips will never be able to generate a bound qualia space as we have.

Currently, you could prompt GPT to act as if it is sentient and has qualia, and it will do quite a good job at trying to convince you it's not a P-Zombie.
Read TFA, they do comparisons based on the certifying agency.
> Top 10% performer on interviewing.io

That is not a legitimate certification of any kind. If you stick that into a resume, that's a good way to get to the reject pile.

All that is communicating is that the candidate spends a lot of time on some website for people obsessed with interviewing, which is a huge red flag.

A certification is like "completed XYZ training offered by ABC, in 2020", if it's something that has industry recognition.
they have a $60/yr plan that does concurrent builds and allows near-daily vuln scans. sure there are better options out there but i find it hard to believe someone who needs more than that isn't getting $20/mo of value from it (that costs what, somewhere around 5 to 15 minutes of work?)
Why don't you show your program then that does 90% on LSAT?
I do and used it
For a side project, I used docker-compose to make a Python+Geodjango+venv, vue, Postgis dev environment and all the action happens within containers. I did so because my Django stack needed OS level packages.

So can I use this instead of Docker for get a nested (without container) OS with native packages and Postgis (which needs port 5432 and a /var dir)?

The docker file: https://github.com/aitchnyu/nayan/blob/main/Dockerfile#L11
I think it shows how calcified standardized tests have become. We will have to revisit all of them, and change many things about how they work, or they will be increasingly useless.
Are you sure about that? I can't count the number of times I've heard people spout marketing copy, word for word, to me while they think it's 100% true.
Don't forget the wars we fight to secure access to energy resources.
Seems like OpenAI is forecasting massive changes to the job market. I highly recommend reading page 18 of the research paper.

"GPT-4 or subsequent models may lead to the automation of certain
jobs.[81] This could result in workforce displacement.[82] Over time, we expect GPT-4 to impact
even jobs that have historically required years of experience and education, such as legal services.[83]"
I did some research into European elevator codes and got the impression that depending on country there was either DO/DC or a single Door Hold button - but it seems like the labeling on DH might be identical to DO on some elevators which creates sort of a philosophical question as to if they're really different things. Still, you can find elevators with DO, DH, and DC it seems, and in that case I have no idea what the difference is between DO and DH. It's kind of hard to cover this stuff in Europe as the degree of variation from country to country is pretty high, so pretty much any rule you state won't apply in some major city that people will bring up.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but in general I hope the discussion of ADA and the ASME code makes it clear that I'm talking about the US. Actually the ASME code mostly applies directly to Canada as well as a separate but harmonized code.
This is a game-changer, because now companies will probably be able to provide the _complete_ context regarding a specific business problem / use case, and have GPT either solve their problem or create useful output.

For example, let's say I have an issue on GitHub that describes some implementation task. With a 50-page context size, we could probably provide to that context the entire source repo, 5-10 relevant issues, and then the issue in question, and GPT will be probably be able to complete it end-to-end
NASA Space Mission Takes Stock of Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Countries
And funnily enough, with the AI community’s dedication to research publications being open access, it has all the content it needs to learn this capability.

“But how did skynet learn to build itself?”

“We showed it how.”
It's also a way to communicate your prediction of what's to come.
Why is smoking the exception that it wouldn't endorse even if asked "in the right way"?
So what you want is faster access to HELOCs, and why does an NFT allow that? How does cryptography proof that you own it? Because you know a private key attached to a wallet address with the NFT in it? Okay, and how does that NFT relate to actually owning something? What if you get hacked, does the hacker now own it? And if the hacker takes out the line of credit, fail to pay, does the defi protocol they borrowed from now own your house?

Why would you want to make house deeds easy to hack?

>There's different standard levels right? I'm talking about when you build a property deed NFT you'd have to adhere to the on-chain standard for how NFTs are created on that particular blockchain.

Okay, why bother with that particular blockchain standard then, and not the hypothetical FOSS software for hosting a property deed database? Because then you have the same benefits, but also don't need the blockchain?
Unlike the anti-cryptography fearmongering of the 90s the concerns about AI is coming from the experts themselves.
I tailor my CV to the job I want. The golden rule of two A4 pages with the relevant badges and certs which apply to the job you want, not a laundry list of every little badge you earned throughout your career. There is sometimes merit in simplicity.
> Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction, training method, or similar.

My guess is they used Chinchilla scaling rules and the parameter count for GPT-4 is either barely larger or maybe even smaller than GPT-3. Look as what Meta was able to accomplish with llama using much less parameters.
Among the general public, doctors and lawyers are high status and magical. An article about how AI will replace them would be more impressive to that public than it creating some obscure proof about the zeroes of the zeta function, even though the latter would be far more indicative of intelligence/scary from an AI safety perspective.
Where and how do you have contacts where you can make a weekend call to get $300M in commitments?
> The fact that they've put themselves into a position to be bought out is its own strong signal they are considering exit strategies.

This is 100% not true. Companies don't have to put themselves in a position to be bought to have offers thrown at them. There are literally 100s of examples of this. Every company can be bought for a price. That's primarily the mismatch. This is the reason Instagram and Whatsapp sold for the prices they did at the time they did. When they were bought, everyone was shocked at the obscene sum of money for such a small team. In hindsight amazing purchase, but at that time Zuck had to throw an obscene sum at them to get them to say yes.

Also public companies have a fiduciary duty consider *all* offers and see if its valuable for shareholders. At a certain price, it will become a, no brainer, extremely valuable offer. The only other hurdle is getting the ok from regulators which is where they are stuck now.

The rest of your response hinges of the fact that we don't know the unknown variables and therefore the decision is not simple. But this argument could be made for literally every decision in life and we would all be stuck doing nothing. We have to make decisions based on what we know and accept that there will be a margin of error. Ideally we also know all the risk factors but that's literally impossible.
Someone still must accept liability. Until there’s a decision squarely who is liable for an LLMs suggestion / work - nothing to fear. Sure people will become liability aggregators for LLMs to scale - but the idea they will be free roaming is a bit hard to believe.
Where is the run on the actual banks or are people trying to cause one to make a bunch of money?
Some data, like passwords or other credentials, isn't stuff anyone really wants to monetize - so secrets managers (things like HashiCorp Vault) and password managers are both interested in using this to allow them to collect even less data.

In other cases, for the same compliance and data security reasons behind the desire for on-prem, larger enterprises prefer that their SaaS vendors collect as little data about them as possible. Blyss can get you the best of both worlds: the data security of on-prem, with the convenience and ease-of-deployment of SaaS.
I think the point is that the tech wasn't ready yet 50 years ago
It feels pretty obvious to me that it could not, but then again I've been wrong about LLM abilities before!
I wonder why gpt is so bad at AP English Literature
> Absolutely. And this is one of the methods that is used to do just that. I'm not talking about a theoretical security issue here, this is a weakness that has been leveraged in the real world for a long time.

Oh really? Care to share some examples of SHA-256 and SHA-3 collisions?
Have you seen jailbreakchat.com yet? You can get around those guardrails on ChatGPT by having it role-play as a different chat bot. Not that I view this as some sort of long-term solution to restricted output, but just thought it was interesting and kinda freaky how it will take on a persona you give it.
It would have to be reproducible: one second of a snippet of a video clip of something; the next, the thing happening. You rewind it and play again. Scrub through and try to determine a different branch. At one timestamp, separation, peace, unknowing. In the next, flames and smoke and a flashing blur.

But no--the state of the world in that second versus the next could not have been predicted. It just happened, just so, and it would take longer to calculate the determinism than to adjust to the new.
Will you even try to verify if this is bullshit or not?
Correct. It's not enough to block access to the financial system and Internet hosting and routing services for competitors. The users themselves must be made to understand their place and not be tempted into any unlicensed activity. The current regime's not going anywhere so no rush, but no better time than now right.
Hypatia Programmable Scientific RPN Command Line Calculator – Windows, Linux
Hypatia is a powerful programmable text based RPN (Reverse Polish Notation) calculator for Windows. Hypatia’s Linux version is still experimental.
You might have a case, but your histograms are so annoyingly misleading that it's a big red flag for me in general re: your whole site. Would not do business with someone who chooses to make their case that way if I had any choice.
I do want a robot to take their job. I also want us to ensure that everyone does have a fulfilling, non-robotic job available to them. I think those cashiers would happier, say, painting a mural on the wall of the grocery store.

Of course, this gets into UBI territory and making sure that as a society we are not just replacing menial jobs to then abandon the people who would have had those jobs.
That's as useless of a statement as saying we had <insert_anything> before and we have <insert_same_thing> now.
> If ChatGPT-4 hallucinates an answer, it won't kill me

Sure but look in this thread, there are already plenty of people citing the use of GPT in legal or medical fields. The danger is absolutely real if we march unthinkingly towards an AI-driven future.
This seems like a smart move in general, for Duolingo and a not-evil use of language models.
Agrees with my own experience. The more you have to proclaim your own competence, the less of it there likely is. As Shakespeare said, "the lady doth protest too much".
Critical thinking isn't a recent trend.

With some critical thinking one can both blame the banks for misbehaving, but also see the irony in a rating agency's early warning of an impending downgrade being a partial catalyst in something a lot worse than a simple downgrade.

An overly simplistic world view means dealing in absolutes that are generally not compatible with the concept of fractional banking (or really any complex system).
ha - i saw this and kind of mentally skipped over it because i was too invested in trying to figure out why this post felt so icky. but, good point. def misleading, which is, as you said, reason enough to stop reading right there.

i think the icky factor is the title. which, it might be a hate the game/player situation -- prob a prerequisite to get some attn these days -- tell people what they should/not do based on your 100% factual, non-misleading, incontovertible 'proof'.
is it me or lawyers are fucked? lol
Right now several people are using LLMs as utilities for their workflows. I don't think many startups would have grown enough to get on your radar... it's been such a short while since we got this far.
Breaking your database with bad CHECK constraints
You should link directly to https://openai.com/customer-stories/be-my-eyes
Guess my brain skipped over that part. Thanks for pointing that out -- updating my answer
> well on its way to competing with experts from every field

competing with them at what, precisely?
Shouldn't that be a big red flag? If you are in the top of interviewees, it's a sign that maybe you interview too much (always interviewing, never hired? Or jumping ship at the first difficulty?) or at the minimum a bias to correct for (this person is good at talking, they will seem much better than they actually are).

In any case I really don't understand why you'd want that in your profile.
Bingo. These are very 'human' tasks.

As others have said elsewhere, the issue remains accuracy. I wish every response comes with an accurate estimation of how true the answer is, because at the moment it gives wrong answers as confidently as right ones.
In the bottom it should say the version. Does it say March 14th version (gpt-4) or March 13th version (gpt-3.5)?
Ask HN: Best way to store shell command history across sessions and machines?
It feels like I am being very inefficient when my shell history doesn't remember the commands from shell sessions, tmux sessions or across machines. How can I solve this? How do others deal with this?
Remember, unions are fundamentally limited to a warchest of some fraction of their memberships pooled income, while companies are propped up by investors YOLO'ing.

Unions by defintion have to focus on doing more outreach in ways that don't translate to throwing money at a problem and making it go away. Capital wielders will always have the advantage in that department.
> The engineer who looks good on paper. This person will simply not list the certification on their profile – they have no reason to!

I don't think I buy this logic. I finished an online course with a good test score, and it prompted me to post the resulting certification on LinkedIn. It took 15 seconds at the moment I was happiest about the accomplishment. If we assume I'm an engineer who looks good on paper, am I going to deliberately eschew that prompt?

Is the argument that as an engineer who looks good on paper, I'm in such heavy demand that I never have a few minutes to kill on LinkedIn, in between declining and ignoring the recruiter come-ons? That logic just doesn't make sense to me.
Test taking will change. In the future I could see the student engaging in a conversation with an AI and the AI producing an evaluation. This conversation may be focused on a single subject, or more likely range over many fields and ideas. And may stretch out over months. Eventually teaching and scoring could also be integrated as the AI becomes a life-long tutor.

Even in a future where human testing/learning is no longer relevant, AIs may be tutoring and raising other baby AIs, preparing them to join the community.

Edit: This just appeared: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35155684
Singles Map of the USA
Though when using the browser based Bing, it's able to look at the "page" for context. I've opened text files / code in my browser and used the sidebar Bing to ask about the file without having to copy/paste into the chat window. It works for somewhat large documents, but I think is still limited to ~10k tokens or so of context.
Aggressive, false marketing is pretty sketchy.

I regularly see sponsor spots where they're claimed to protect you from credit card fraud and all sorts of other outlandish stuff.
You're aware of that the reputation of Google and Meta/Facebook isn't anymore stellar among the startup and tech crowd in 2023? It's not anymore 2006.
>unsafe and unprofessional

I mean we're essentially at war with Russia, how safe and professional should they really be with our tech?