skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think at the start they'll develop programming languages that focus on lower level operations, then from that it will branches out to hyper-specialized higher-level programming languages.

Storage managements will be tied to low or middle-level languages without additional abstraction, since they can develop and iterate so fast, it'll makes optimization easier IMO. There'll be multiple specialized storage types suitable for different cases.

They'll also design the API to be as pure / stateless as possible, since they can easily repeat tests that way.

I think it'll be interesting to see what kind data-interchange format they'll come with to communicate between programming languages / apps, since they can ignore human readability altogether. It should be very compact but fast to compress/decompress.

Lastly they'll deploy their own OS since they'll find the one that human develop is insuffucient for their use case
> The ideas I'm expressing have merit -- but are they wholly original?

I think the difference is that your intention is to write sentences which you think and believe are correct and which can help other people understand the subject. Chatbot has no intentions of its own, it only imitates texts it has read from the internet. As far as it is concerned they might be totally wrong. You on the other hand have the ability -- and the desire -- to reason about what you are saying and think whether it is actually true or not.
Ok, I'll bite. I'm happy to be wrong if I am wrong...

This document [1] defines a Nitro Enclave as an application image that runs in a secure runtime with no external networking.

This document [2] shows how you build a secure image. You basically take an image (like [3]) and run `nitro-cli build-enclave ...`.

Ok... so explain to me:

- Given that the image you build has to contain 1) private data (mine) and 2) private models (yours).

If I build the container image, how do you protect your models? (because I did, to access the base image)

If you build the container image, how do I know you didn't access my data? (because you did, to build the image)

What am I not getting?

[1] - https://docs.aws.amazon.com/enclaves/latest/user/nitro-encla...

[2] - https://docs.aws.amazon.com/enclaves/latest/user/getting-sta...

[3] - https://github.com/aws/aws-nitro-enclaves-cli/blob/main/exam...
Have you noticed how fast everyone else was able to copy open ai. And that's just what we saw or someone leaked. History is full of parallel inventions... how long after the US had nukes did russia?
CoDev – A GPT 4.0 Prompt for a Virtual Programmer
Here are the available commands:

/project [summary] [task] [languages] [frameworks] - Output the list of
files & folder structure for the project based on the project summary, task,
languages, and frameworks.

/code [filename] - Output the code for the specified filename.

/tests [filename] - Output the tests for the specified filename.

/explain [filename] [function] - Explain the given function in the
specified filename.

/run - Simulate the console of the program when it is running.

/revise [filename] [modification] - Rewrite the content of the
specified filename, taking the modification into consideration.

/comment [filename] [function] - Add a comment to the specified
function in the specified file.

/format [filename] - Format the code within the specified file properly.

Example usage:

/project "Weather App" "Display current weather" "JavaScript"
"React, OpenWeatherMap API"
/code "app.js"
/tests "app.test.js"
/explain "app.js" "fetchWeatherData"
/run
/revise "app.js" "Add error handling for API call"
/comment "app.js" "fetchWeatherData"
/format "app.js"
> I think the people who claimed chatGPT was a stochastic parrot are now realizing that they were the ones that were part of a giant parade of parrots regurgitating the same old tired trope of LLMs being nothing but simple word generators.

Muhahaha that was delicious. I hate that parrot meme. Authors lost their respect from me right from the title of that paper.
This puts in mind the earlier post on HN about modelling civ as either a one-shot or iterated prisoner's dilemma.

You make the case that, for sufficiently high N, possessing GPT-N is a one-shot prisoner's dilemma.

The only winning strategy is 'defect' --- which in this context, means chokepoint control.
Maybe stop treating it like an intern and learn some prompt engineering (there are good tools out there).
I would go even further. People are not even that advanced stochastic parrots. In the similar task, we failed just as spectacularly as the GPT-4 did right now. Rust, Zig, Julia, Kotlin, and dozens smaller "new" languages fail to bear a smear of originality in them. Their authors remixed old ideas in different proportions and got different grammars as a result. That's something an LLM can do and much faster too.

But there is also Unison. That one new language that stands out, and the very fact that it does makes it improbable for an LLM to generate. LM is a language model, it avoids marginality and originality altogether by its design.

Language models can and are useful if you specifically want to avoid marginality. To reduce noise, to remove errors. There is huge potential in them. If the problem was to design the most average programming language with no purpose, no market niche, and no technological context - then GPT-4 is clearly a winner.
Pedantic: 1 atm = 1.01325 bar (exactly). They're nearly equivalent units, even more so when you consider that Earth's atmosphere varies by more than 1.325% on a given day. But in a strict sense they're not the same.
> It's looking increasingly possible that, at some point in the not-too-far future machines will be so good at creating software that humans won't be competitive in any way, and won't be in the loop at all.

This is an enormous extrapolation from what the LLMs are currently capable of. There has been enormous progress, but the horizon seems pretty clear here: these models are incapable of abstract reasoning, they are incapable of producing anything novel, and they are often confidently wrong. These problems are not incidental, they are inherent. It cannot really abstractly because its "brain" is just connections between language, which human thought is not reducible to. It can't reason produce anything really novel because it requires whatever question you ask to resemble something already in its training set in some way, and it will be confidently wrong because it doesn't understand what it is saying, it relies on trusting that the language in its training set is factual, plus manual human verification.

Given these limits, I really fail to see how this is going to replace intellectual labor in any meaningful sense.
That's just one run of "fix your consistency" for LLM.
Was it with gpt3x or 4? In these exercises 4 is miles ahead now, I’ll highly recommend ponying the 20 bucks and playing with it to see for yourself!
I read your comment about curators and instantly thought “priests”.

> its purpose is ultimately to serve human goals

That’s a pretty big assumption. We may start with some kind of agreement with such an AI but I fully expect a true singularity love AGI and to be capable of turning around and telling us (but not necessarily wanting to act on), “I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further.”
If lunar colonies aren’t very challenging, why aren’t there hundreds by now?
What I'm wondering is to what extent the companies who have invested a lot in LLMs (essentially Google, Meta, and MSFT via Open AI) are already using these models to automate away code creation and even higher up the human-value-chain of solution-imagination?

At some point, one would assume that such companies would need fewer and fewer software engineers. It is only a matter of time.

As humans, who can imagine the future, now is the time to rethink where you add unique value in this universe.
Is this what we refer to as design by contract?

If so, what about invariants? Are invariants related to good interface design?
> and high inflation means cash today is scarce/expensive.

High inflation means cash is abundant/cheap. That's what inflation means.
Bravo!

I've often been off put by books that advertise that they link to some sort of digital content because I can't trust that said content will be around when I want to actually access it. It never occurred to me they could be forced to host it, and I'm glad someone did that to at least one publisher once
https://archive.ph/YDUPj
"Coming soon", "Join the waitlist", etc. generally mean this work isn't ready to be discussed on HN.

Once there's something for people to try out, or at least some substantive information about what it actually is and how it actually works, it will be possible to have a good HN thread about it.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
The chances of a future Butlerian Jihad just went up a few points.
When I buy fivebucks coffee, sure I get a sweet drink.

But 99% of my consumption is my own cold brew. No sugar, brewed very strong, and then with just enough milk to bring out the flavor.
What was the impact of Julius Caesar’s murder?
Is there a way to get it to babble less, i.e., use more compact and to the point language?
That's basically the petting zoo outcome - you let others live because it makes you feel nice. But you still can't allow anyone access to the same level of tech because you can never be certain of their motivation. There's no nuclear deterrent between AGI only first movers advantage.
Legitimately better than what 99% of humans could write, and done in seconds at that. I'm amazed.
It's dopamine related, same as other stimulants.
Coffee shops are not representative of everyone's routine coffee consumption.

By my anecdotal sampling a good portion of the population would never pay coffee shop prices for what they drink daily to function.
I wonder if there could be a synthesis of traditional testin g / verification / compiler technology that would help in filtering for correctness. Like property/fuzz testing that automatically checks for deviations in translated vs original by sampling the input space? Or symbolic execution that do the same. And also ask GPT to find a difference in semantics.. and verify its answer to check for hallucination.
>I think your comment is largely anecdotal

Ok, sure! Let’s see what non-anec

>So, in my very personal opinion, the Best Time Ever to be in tech was in the 2010-2015 era

-dotal bit of data are you going to use

>We were disruptors. We were supposed to change the world.

to disagree with my

>I really don't think recent events are unveiling any kind of disdain so much as adding another black spot to a long laundry list.

point?

As for

>explaining how you came to that conclusion.

Group B is a superset that includes group A! If you are certain that you’ve proven otherwise, I won’t personally be reaching out to Mr. Judge, but anecdotally I suspect that more people watched it than were in the tech industry.
The ban on Cuban cigars was more accurately a sanction of Cuba the country, and a related ban on imported goods from Cuba. Medicine from Canadian companies isn’t banned, but medicine sold in the US has to comply with safety regulations. Likewise, Kinder eggs are regulated due to food safety concerns.

All of those have a tie back to existing authority held by the federal government. Banning a mobile phone app that shows people digital content doesn’t seem to have a similar connection.
This is a good reminder that when these models are intelligent enough to be dangerous not only will there be insufficient safeguards, but the developers won't even try to be safe. This is like confirming your gun isn't loaded by pointing it at your friend and pulling the trigger.

Of course these models aren't dangerous - but that's becoming less and less certain as their capabilities develop. I'm not even how many more GPT's to go until we reach truly dangerous levels.

Imagine the Red Team for GPT-10 asks it to "convince me to help you take over the world" and it basilisks him successfully...
Red bull never gives me the jitters so I’m going to experiment with taking taurine and drinking a couple of strong cups of coffee to see if it is helpful to my usual extremely stressed out response.
There can be big dogs with an acceptable risk of HD. But it takes an effort most breeding organizations don't want to take and the breeding standard usually works against that anyway.

Hard to say what the most healthy "breed" is, in general, even for me who actually studied this stuff. Even crossbreeds will inherit the problems from their ancestors, crossbreeding isn't inherently better. For most people I recommend going for a dog that is around the size of a Beagle, but even Beagles are bred to have shorter legs than "wild type".

Also beware of breeds who reportedly have fewer issues... sometimes it's just that there haven't been published studies to that effect and often because the sample sizes are too small.
> I can provide those papers if you so wish.

I'd like to see them but I don't have a background in AI or theoretical computer science. Can you post a few of them?
It was with gpt3. Already tried a couple of previous convos with gpt4 and noticed the difference.

Will have to try the gravity one now.

Thanks for the recommendation!
Sounds like it performed wonderfully. It included the best parts of python (there are none)
Small LMs do tend to avoid originality, but large LMs can use the context as a starting point to walk outside their training data distribution. They can do that by being better at composing concepts and using context-conditioning, which is also known as in-context learning.
> some representation of the ability to understand what you don't know, what you know, and what follows from those things consistently

Right, that is truly what the chatbots are lacking. They can fool some of the people some of the time, but they can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Their creators - not the chatbots themselves - are trying to "fool" people into believing that the chatbots would have as you say "ability to understand what you don't know, what you know, and what follows from those things consistently".
Sounds like more of an argument for preemptively wiping out the competition.

Comparing it to nukes doesn't hold since social norms/ethics/etc. become irrelevant if core tenant of society is broken.

One thing that could happen is AI defense outperforms offense long enough to develop multiple instances - have no idea what would happen at that point.
I used to simply ask it to make it brief, provide a summary or contain answer in N words and in my language it complied happily.
I’m glad to know about that

Any thoughts on Congress’ appetite for approving such changes? It would just be a simple law, and a 60 vote threshold in the Senate. No supermajority necessary.
We stand at the precipice of a monumental societal shift, as artificial intelligence continues to revolutionize the way we live, work, and interact. The potential for AI to create a brighter, more inclusive future is immense, and it is up to us to harness its power for the betterment of humanity.

At AI Startups Discord, we are driven by a passion for making AI technology useful, accessible, and beneficial to all. Our mission is to unite individuals from diverse backgrounds who share our dedication to creating a world where AI serves as a force for good, enhancing lives and fostering a more equitable society.

By fostering a global community of innovators, researchers, entrepreneurs, and AI enthusiasts, AI Startup Discord aims to bridge the gap between technological advancements and their real-world applications. Our platform encourages collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and the exchange of ideas, empowering members to develop AI-driven solutions that address pressing challenges and contribute to the greater good.

Together, we can shape the future of AI, ensuring its potential is leveraged responsibly and ethically. With the collective strength of our vibrant community, AI Startup Discord is committed to creating a better future for all—one where the power of AI transforms lives, promotes inclusivity, and elevates humanity to new heights.
You know what I love about Java’s library ecosystem?

You configure your project to use the de-facto ones…

OR you configure your project (not your system’s user profile!) to use your own internal registry/repo

And all the repo software supports pull-through from every other repo, so you cache all your dependencies however you want and have full control over everything.

Why does pretty much no other ecosystem do this?
Impressive. No really, it's super cool.

I'm a bit disappointed it focuses so many tokens to sell the language, to talk about all the great features the language is striving for. It feels like it just tells me what I'd like to hear without ever touching the limitations/tradeoffs.

I'm not talking about the language itself, just the response style. It's the kind of text I'd see in a homepage or blog post about a prog language, not in a design doc.

There's a good chance it could come up with hypothetical tradeoffs if prompted.

PS. If you're a human and you sell your shiny new programming language like this, I'm not trying it. I really care to know limitations up front.
Do you have a link to an explainer of how it would work or a potential implementation?
That's true but the reality for many will be selling at least the amount of shares to cover the cost of executing their options. And because the next window to sell could be undetermined (possibly many years in the future), many employees will find it prudent to get liquidity that would cover their cash needs for the next fair-number-of-years. (Based on their understanding of what their stake is worth now. Of course they're going to have that number in mind even if it wasn't able to be realized until now...)
for reproducing a build you need at the least the source and the tools to build it which might not be available as well
Prompt: please write a comment expressing fear and anguish over headlines about AI becoming better and better
> The Innocence Project estimates 2-10% of convictions are wrongful

This is exactly why I find the death penalty unconscionable. 1,567 people have been executed in the US since the 1970s (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/executions-overview). How many of them were wrongfully convicted? If someone is wrongfully imprisoned, at least we can let them out when they are exonerated - damaged, but with a chance to rejoin society. That's not the case with the death penalty. Without a perfect justice system, which is unattainable, the death penalty will take the lives of innocent people.
React Native Binding of Whisper.cpp
whisper.cpp: High-performance inference of OpenAI's Whisper automatic speech recognition (ASR) model (https://github.com/ggerganov/whisper.cpp)
But do we need yet another language? Python's syntax is almost ideal. Maybe GPT would improve it's performance instead making it 100 times faster?
Yeah, but imagine sending your own adversarial bot to take the call for you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

Read the the Minsk II agreement — all the provisions are super positive and constructive for everyone involved. It should have been implemented.

Zelensky said never planned to honor it, just like Hamas never planned to honor previous agreements with Israel… went badly for Gaza, and the Gulf states sending weapons to Gaza only made things worse for the actual people living there. Gaza wouldn’t have received sanctions and a blockade if Hamas had actually implemented previous agreements. And same here:

https://youtu.be/Mg4Jmnw3xQg

Zelensky ran on actually implementing peace with Russia and even started to, but the US and NATO and the Ukrainian far right very likely told him to cut it out, or else:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/19092022-is-zelensky-afraid-of...

You’re asking what the US could do? All we had to do is not get in the way. That’s all.

But we blocked all peace agreements. So much for “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JREMEqXSpGA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O10svZJ2Fps

USA and UK did everything possible to make sure Ukraine would NOT make peace with Russia, and also that the European countries wouldn’t either. Including very likely blowing up the Nordstream I and II pipelines dealing a major blow to German industry and European energy in the short term. Swedes know who did it but are keeping mum. No one dares criticize the big daddy in the room.
You may be right, of course.
Yes, precisely this. (I only do ML/DS work)
That's not true of banks, because as history has shown, a temporary competitive advantage as a result of riskier behavior often ends with insolvency (indeed, often is the case with business in general, but especially banking). In the case of Frank and his leadership and influential role, it stands to reason he would foresee such risks and avoid them. As of yet, though, I haven't heard any concrete argument about a specific item of the original legislation (or its current leaner form) that would have prevented Signature or SVB failures.
I thought it was generally accepted science that Earth was the only planet having plate tectonics in the entire solar system...
My simple take on this is that summaries are for consumption or extraction in pursuit of a task essentially extraneous to the source material.

Reading the original (properly) is for participating in the discourse, which entails the potential of writing a response in essentially the same medium and so continuing the discourse.

Unfortunately much of our education with its emphasis on assessment leans hard on extraction and habituates us the same way. Shallow and attention seeking content online hasn’t helped at all, obviously.

With universities, I always found it confusing the cognitive dissonance evinced by the attempts at signalling the importance of discourse through seminars/tutorials and Socratic methods while pretending we all weren’t reading the assessment schemes on day 1.

When you read and pay attention to the original source, the extra information you get are contextual clues, biases and emphases … essentially insights into the cognitive structure behind the piece and how it might play out at more general levels or in response to future conditions.

You capture more of the “thinking”, not just “the thought”, and so can adapt, continue and extend it.
China pls make some counter demands. Maybe the US can cut the MIL complex budget/employment guarantee scheme by the same dollar amount. Put the money in an joint org that improves things on the net.
I generally agree. With the breeding standards of German Shepherds for example there will always be a tendency.

But also in general, I'd like to caution about overinterpreting the "x percent genetic" figures. They are computed for a particular population of individuals at a particular time. If a breeder's association then changes their guidelines to screen, for example, for HD, and they actually do a good job at it, that figure will go down, because the following generations will have fewer variation in the genes responsible for it.
Good point. A dual system would be ideal. http to ensure coverage, bt to achieve network effects on the popular images.

Presumably a few - nginx and what not - have a high %
That's a more focused and responsible driver than I'll ever be.
> The advent of chatGPT had millions of people on the internet trying to downplay the intelligence of chatGPT by continuously trying to re-emphasize the things it gets wrong.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the criticism. It is not that chatGPT is unreliable because chatGPT makes occasional errors. It is that chatGPT is not intelligent because the type of errors chatGPT makes are indicative of the fact that it is assembling text into forms that humans assign meaning to, and has no understanding of the relationship between the symbols and their referents, and therefore is not 'intelligent' qua intelligence.