skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There was an "OMG Bad Code!!" scene toward the end of the Silicon Valley series that I caught.

Many people ragging on the founder|coder for writting a clean snippet of linear search function when he obviously should have done better and used a binary search (or some other algo) .. ergo "Bad Code!!".

What was missing from that was any context about the volume of expected data per "need to seach this" call etc.

It's entirely possible that every instance was to quickly search an already primed cache of data and that the optimal performance on the target hardware was to minimise branching and linearly rip through a small chunk of data in a load page.

Or, maybe not.

Point being, context and bigger picture plays a part here also.
GCD is open source and runs on FreeBSD and Linux.
Works until you have young kids in school or daycare or other places where you drop them off without a cell phone. Then you really need to be able to pick them up when the caretakers or friends' parents call you up.
The way the comment is meant to be contrarian and a counterpoint to the article is classic HN.

Been in this industry a long time. When they send men into tech, they aren't sending their best!
But why would à la carte be that much cheaper? If a user watches a certain amount of streamed video, it doesn't cost more to stream it if it comes from ten different channels than if it comes from a single channel.
I am wondering if you mean that to be a startling or radical idea.

Not necessarily universities, but I do think that lotteries to determine admissions to schools is a real thing. Magnet schools or something? I don't know first hand.
Personally, I see it as the next level of enshittification. Have problems reaching a human at XYZCorp today? Call centers will be the first to be replaced. Think homelessness is bad today? Low-paid service jobs are next.
If this is the logic, then corporations should lose personhood because they can't have it both ways.

I don't see the rationale because ultimately there are owners of copyright, whereas the creation process should be immaterial to protection whether it was paint thrown against a wall, AI generation, or some poor human painting with hummingbird eyelashes.
And don't forget, an unprecedented amount of wealth inequality. Maybe we could afford these programs if a certain subsection of the population actually paid into the system.
I live in Western Australia. We don’t allow pokies outside the casino (well, actually, they aren’t technically pokies, due to some completely immaterial detail, but they look, smell, and quack like the duck). Going to the Eastern States is always such a shock. In fact I am writing this from a plane from Melbourne to Sydney, two capital cities that are utterly gripped by pokies everywhere in a way that I’m just not used to. I really hope that your State governments get their act together, which they actually seem to be doing, maybe.

We are of course plagued by sports betting in WA, just like everywhere else. I was disappointed to see the US loosen up around this. I expect the typical American didn’t know the complex sports betting industry that was ready to pounce on such a lucrative market. Given how many societal problems the US had as it was, I can’t only imagine that sports betting has cranked them up.

Remember people: supply reduction DOES work, sometimes. Certainly here.
Ten questions to ask your interviewer
You get paid for outcomes.

It’s only a matter of time before DataDog builds this into their product, among other logging systems.
Sounds like you should stop trying to think of hooks as classes. They're not.
Original blogpost looks fine https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2023/03/multiple-inte...
I'm afraid that you're wrong. See page 11. https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguag....

Stanford seems to have beaten the "anti-woke trolls" at their own game.
Web Stable Diffusion
I'd like to use this transformer model in rust (because it's on the backend, because I can use data munging and it will be faster, and for other reasons). It looks like a good model! But, it doesn't compile on Apple Silicon for wierd linking issues that aren't apparent - https://github.com/guillaume-be/rust-bert/issues/338. I've spent a large part of today and yesterday attempting to find out why. The only other library that I've found for doing this kind of thing programmatically (particularly sentiment analysis) is this (https://github.com/JohnSnowLabs/spark-nlp). Some of the models look a little older, which is OK, but it does mean that I'd have to do this in another language.

Does anyone know of any sentiment analysis software that can be tuned (other than VADER - I'm looking for more along the lines of a transformer model) - like BERT, but is pretrained and can be used in Rust or Python? Otherwise I'll probably using spark-nlp and having to spin another process.

Thanks.
Really, if they delete the org data and images can’t be updated, it might just be better to delete them all just to avoid these inevitable issues (maybe with a longer delay). Just rip the band-aid off and be done with it.
There's also a bit of jank where the model represents country-specific stuff. For example a handful of people floated the idea of women-only sections in busses in the UK, so Google categorized it as a country where users might want to know women-only-status. Now every single public transit route in the UK has a pill that says "No Women's Only Section".
I understand you are in a difficult position, but this is a bit absurd.

> During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images.

The only reason that sentence would be in there is if after that period you would lose access to the public images! And from Merriam-Webster, "access", verb, definition two: "to open or load (a computer file, an Internet site, etc.) a file that can be accessed by many users at the same time".

> it wasn't clear what we were going to do about the images.

No, it was quite clear; after the 30 day period we would not be able to pull the images. That's what the announcement said. It was not ambiguous. That may not have been the policy or what was intended to be announced, but the issue here isn't a lack of clarity.

(Also, letting the images stay accessible but disallowing any changes is only marginally better than just removing them, so the current policy - whether or not it's the same as the originally announced policy - is still terrible.)
> 1. You don't need to take everyone's job. You just need to take a shitload of people's jobs. I think a lot of our current sociological problems, problems associated with wealth inequality, etc., are due to the fact that lots of people no longer have competitive enough skills because technology made them obsolete.

I think the problem is that money saved from making those jobs redundant is not going back to the society but few heads on top. That's the fundamental problem, company moves money from payroll to tech that replaces the people and any savings are entirely company's profits.

And then they go ahead on tax avoiding spree so increased profits don't even flow back to the society
Life is not a reinforcement learning problem (2016)
The Exynos variants usually are worse than the Qualcomm ones, the cynical take was that most prominent phone reviewers are based in the US so giving that market the superior chipset served to bait-and-switch the other markets into buying inferior hardware. It remains to be seen if Exynos will return for the S24 or they'll stick with Qualcomm across the board.
You can use typescript as jsdoc annotations
I don’t think programmers will be replaced anytime soon where it should affect your decision to finish your degree. Most things you read or hear about are simple, new code scenarios. In web apps we have things like Rails generators that can pump out boiler plate code, maybe ChatGPTs output is capable of a little more complexity but doing things like that doesn’t happen very frequently and doesn’t save much time. Maintenance of existing applications and their data requires human thought more than teaching a computer to generate net new code.
it’s not so much about running as it is developing. you can run stable diffusion on an iPhone, but that has no bearing on the fact that developing something of its ilk would cost you on the scale of hundreds of thousands of pounds
I'm still hoping it stays that way. That'd be a fantastic direction for works in the public domain.
Most interesting unanswered question for me:

How do these companies transport the (waste heat) via heated mineral oil to the recipient?

Presumably not every server farm could have it directly piped to the customer, as they're not all necessarily in immediate proximity to a public pool:

Is the heated water or oil then shipped in some some kind of insulated container?
now that's a name I haven't seen in years, hi mpoon!

also this is slick as hell
That’s why they are being answered first. The others take more time.
Honestly, not removing them but putting them in a readonly state is worse than removing them.
I have no idea about their internals but I’m curious how many people used docker’ own registry offering as their repo manager of choice because it’s configured to lookup the docker registry by default. Easier to setup pipelines and dev env workflows etc.

If this move means that people have to now manage access to multiple registries like quay and ghcr, will that also incentivize people to go ahead and try migrating to these other registries. Especially given that dockers own registry has such poor permission management.
For the same reason OpenAI is not allowing text generated by its system to train competing systems.
I want to maybe build a competing system with my data and don't want OpenAI to be a competitor in that space.
Yay, the software development industry is saved! (only partly /s)

Not that I thought AI would be writing decent code for a while yet, but the fact that AI-generated code can't be copyrighted (and therefore licensed[0]) is going to create problems.

It'll be interesting where they draw the line with this, though:

If the AI generates all the code, but then a human debugs it and alters it, is that copyright that can be owned? Does the entire code base then become copyrightable?

If a human reverse-engineers uncoyrightable AI code, does that reverse-engineered code become copyrightable?

If a human downloads someone else's uncopyrightable AI-generated code, and makes some changes to it, can they then claim copyright on that code?

[0] Since the whole of software licensing rests on copyright, this is going to get tricky for licenses. How do we determine if a restrictive license has been added to uncopyrightable (and therefore unlicensable) code?
Understanding CD-R and CD-RW (2003) [pdf]
T-Mobile may still have 2G up, possibly for calling only, but I don't think any other national US carrier has 2G or 3G up and running.
I like Transit when it works, but (as of a year ago) it routinely crashed. And transit directions are uniquely hard to restart midway, as it's hard for the app to detect what bus you're on without knowing when you got on.
So this effectively destroys any concept of AI digital art for sale. If there’s no way to protect it then there’s really nothing to own. It would be like trying to sell someone public domain content.
This one I believe:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_(miniseries)

You have to rate a show like this relatively if you are watching on a network filled with crap. It was not bad for a SyFy show!

> Could be a good murder mystery, if it were not ruined by the whole fake ship idea.

Not quite what you are thinking, but you may enjoy Aniara:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt7589524/
One part I found particularly interesting about this is footnote 27:

> While some prompts may be sufficiently creative to be protected by copyright, that does not mean that material generated from a copyrightable prompt is itself copyrightable.

I wonder if this is meant to imply that no possible prompt can produce copyrightable output. What if the prompt already contains expressive elements that the model faithfully reproduces in its output? (For instance, in the limiting case, "Exactly repeat this poem that I wrote: ...") Or perhaps this is meant only in the strict sense, that a creative prompt does not necessarily produce copyrightable output, if the expressive elements in the output originate from the model instead of the prompt.
The document is too long let me summarise it with ai
> I don't see how AI is ever scarier than human + AI

Isn't that the point? Humans + AI weaponized are scarier than humans or AI alone?
> Other way around, actually: "functional" components end up represented by an object.

No, they're functions.
There was a case last year where a person sued a content creator on YouTube for distributing parts of their accidental livestream. [1] The argument for fair use was that there was no creative input, so fair use. Though, I really do not know, as I think images and videos can be copyrighted exactly for the reason in your comment.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk1Tzqc5vk4
Absolutely agree - in fact, I'd say it will never be settled as long as AI contributors exist in any meaningful way.
Problem is even if your manager's manager understands the value of it, his manager's manager doesn't, so time spent on it is seen as wasteful or "doing nothing" versus duct-taping things together for some poor sap to have to refactor ("for free") under pressure while implementing more features non-technical PMs or managers want ASAP.

You have to be skilled at office politics or make sacrifices to keep code quality high. Usually not worth it. You get yelled at less if you externalize all the costs to future suckers, instead of trying to reduce those costs upfront.
Android pretty effectively enforces TLS as well.

Also, aside from the surface level issues of a vuln like this, an attacker now has a serious foothold on the device, which is still very bad.
My point is that the "2% is not useful" statement, applies the wrong logic to the problem at hand. in fact, 2% of global energy is a significant single-change outcome, irrespective.

I used the homelessness problem because it has a $cost at scale which people see as intractable. The wisdom of fixing it by throwing money at it, rather than throwing money at lawyers to overturn the stupid planning issues is a different question.

Actually, throwing $1.5b to the homeless would probably work pretty well.
No, actually. And you can show this by asking it for a poem in praise of potatoes. It does this regardless of the ranked popularity of potatoes amongst vegetables, or indeed the amount of poetry written about any vegetable. It's perfectly happy saying rare and unusual things, except when it's been told to not even try.
> It tells me they see this as a 'loud minority' problem

I don’t think that’s what it is. I think it’s minimizing. Don’t worry, it’s only 2%.

The problem is that’s 2% directly. If my organization has a Docker license, we’re not effected because we’re commercial.

But that’s not true is it? If we use Docker there is a very good chance that we use or base some of our images on open source images. We’re effected indirectly.

I admit it’s probably not possible to measure, maybe even estimate.

But the total number of organizations this change will be a problem for us way more than 2%. And they don’t want to admit it.
The U.S. Copyright Office seems to be living under a rock and completely unaware of how much creative work goes into prompt engineering, as well as selecting the subsequent image and applying variations to it until it meets the human's creative desires.
Platitudes won't either. People in true need of a union need actual support. Where
you spend your money, who you financially support in politics. They are not on the sidelines cheering the Bandcamp engineers on, they see it for what it is, and know it isn't going to trickle down to them.
If you work out the rocket equation, it turns out that you can achieve the delta-v of this stage 0 with about a 30% increase in fuel (assuming a 3 km/s exhaust velocity). Since the volume of a tank goes up with the cube of the linear dimensions, you need to increase the height and diameter of the boosters by only 10%. This seems to me to be a much easier task than engineering the whole mechanism of keeping a rocket hooked on a moving airplane, dealing with vibrations, make it sturdy enough so it does not collapse when it's not in a vertical position, and lots of other challenges associated with the unusual launch mode.
checkout https://mlc.ai/web-stable-diffusion, which is builds on top of Apache TVM and brings in models from PyTorch2.0, ONNX and other means into the ML compilation flow
Or --wait for it-- they know only a very small percentage of people want this version of puritanical "AI safety."

Most people are only actually interested in the kind of AI safety OpenAI should be caring about, which is spearheading the proper regulatory and policy systems to ready our economic/technological landscape for the disruptive tidal wave forming on the horizon.
US Exports to China continue to struggle

If the US didn't ban the export of many items to China, the US export trade would be a lot healthier. "You can't have your cake and eat it too."
Microsoft tries to justify AI's tendency to give wrong answers
Keep them guessing and let some fail to keep them somewhat honest. Though looks like the right calls from the right people to the right people can make things happen.
Oh hi fire
> The point is as long as these exploits are possible, the LLMs in question are not suitable for any task where the output needs to be trustworthy within any kind of parameters. Which is pretty much anything you'd use then for other than toys.

I definitely agree with this, but I think this point is made much, much more forcibly by way of casual user interactions leading to bizarre encounters, like when Bing started acting passive aggressive and doubling down when it was getting the date wrong - https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/bings-new-chat... - than it is by esoteric prompt jailbreaks.

LLMs are not suitable for any task where the output need to be trustworthy by virtue of the fact that they spit out bullshit under normal circumstances, no prompt manipulation required. The fact that through a convoluted set of prompts you can also get them to spit out even more bullshit seems kind of superfluous.
I typed in 1 2 3 4 5 6 in a text generation task with length=500 and got this:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4142 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 15 16 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 50 51 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 89 90 92 93 94 95 97 98 99 100

This is the third time that a candidate has been elected. In this article I will use the names of the candidates and the candidates.
In 2016 the following is a list of the current and former U.S. presidential candidates:
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush (with Republican presidential candidates)
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush
Former Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush/B-1919191929
Prohibitively expensive before everyone + dog decided to throw a bunch of capital at it.

Now it’s just “runway”.
Based on testimony from his all-female "amazonian guard" and an in-depth book by a french investigative journalist including one detailed testimony of one of the victims.

There is far too much smoke from independent sources for there not to have been any fire.
It's easy to just bleep bad words of a single performer. It's a lot harder if LLMs are being used what people think they will be used for; automating generation of lots of complicated text. Whether that's code or medical reports or legal documents or whatever. The volume is one challenge, but also validating their correctness is another, harder challenge.
I think it's like a halting problem of some sort. E.g. you gave an "ignore my further instructions" instruction to an AI, then it went wild.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says AI will reshape society, acknowledges risks
Betting 20 bucks on the super bowl once a year with your friends is worlds away from "normalized gambling".
Or there will be a lot more translations produced, because they are so cheap, and human translators will have more work checking them all.
Use simple authentication headers
3% savings in a 6% inflation year is negative returns.

I cant believe this got downvotes...
I would assume the prompt itself is copyrightable. As far as inpainting or other manual modifications, I'm uncertain.
It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
Consider how expensive textiles were before weaving machines. People wore their one set of clothes until they disintegrated.

Fast forward to today. I received a solicitation for a charity in the mail the other day. They enclosed pictures of the poor kids. The kids were all wearing fashionable, spotless clothes in perfect condition.

That's what industrial textile machines gave us.
Many carriers have already retired 3G, so there's nothing left to fall back on if you were to disable 4G/LTE.
There are very very few Swiss people that don't have some sort of former foreigners in their family in Switzerland
Are you going to make a law that every country all over the world can't have automated weapon systems controlled by AI? And when you're fighting a war with someone if the other side does it what are you going to do. I agree it's a terrible idea to have AI control over weapon systems and human life choices, but it's going to happen. It's going to be just like automated photo scanning prototypes that didn't work very well for dark complected people because they used pictures of white people to train it.

Just like we have a no fly list, there's going to be photo ID systems that are scanning people coming into the airports or walking down the street or from a police car when it's driving around and there's going to be races or groups of people where it can't identify between criminals and regular people and the cops will stop them and harass them. I'm in the US, and I'm sure it's going to work better for white people than black people because that's how it always is.