skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"YouTubeAI will give every 6-year old child the capability to be my boss, and the guidance to get there" - Jeff Dean, Head of Google AI

Youtube AI is the the most powerful AI model ever built, with 1 trillion parameters, trained on a staggering 1 billion internet videos and the entire google knowledge graph using 20,000 GPUs and 10,000 TPUs, taking 2 billion GPU hours, equivalent to over 226,000 years of continuous computing on a single GPU, and costing over $100 million to produce.

YouTubeAI is set to transform various industries with its groundbreaking capabilities:

Dynamically generated educational videos: that adapt to students' level and learning style to enhance education, such as using dynamic scenes to illustrate different fencing techniques for a 6-year-old beginner named Sophia.

Personalized video content that goes beyond traditional recommendations to bring you never-before-seen videos tailored specifically for you. With YouTubeAI, you'll receive customized content recommendations for YouTube and Netflix based on your viewing history and behavior.

Automatic caption and description generation for videos to make content more accessible, such as transcribing the audio of a breaking news video for a news media organization called The Daily News.
Adaptive and personalized gaming experiences that adapt to user behavior and preferences, such as increasing the difficulty of a racing game as the user gets better, for a gaming company called Game On.

Interactive and engaging marketing experiences that go beyond traditional advertising, such as offering a virtual tour of a Burger King kitchen for users who frequently watch cooking videos.
Real-time video analysis for sports analytics such as analyzing live video feeds in real-time to deliver more accurate and comprehensive sports analysis, for a sports analytics company called ScoreMax.
Thanks for the comment :) I also documented the process of building this on twitter. It was fun: https://twitter.com/zedkay22/status/1630010230531563522
Or just buy Premium
Same here. Early introduction -> emergency room.
I certainly did not have "The US military pulls a Musk, releasing footage to prove the other party is lying or mistaken" on my bingo card for 2023.
I have had small benefits from my blogs:

1) I ran a blog in the 00s about decommissioning old Lotus Notes environments and mapping out tech details of how to migrate from that platform to Microsoft tools. I got a few consulting gigs from that.

2) I put up some tools to design craft projects (knitting, beading, etc.) Got a little bit of monthly revenue, ended up selling the projects for a few thousand dollars.

So nothing life-changing, but I definitely paid for maybe a half year of my life from those gigs.

That being said, "purely vanity" is still more accurate. I didn't put any of that up with revenue as a goal. I wrote and coded for my own knowledge, and all benefits were purely accidental.
> Yes, were Putin to wash up at Plymouth Rock, it would be a federal crime for any LEO to comply with the ICC and arrest him.

I mean, since ICC arrest warrants have no force in the US, it would be a violation of due process and hence false arrest, but the American Service Members Protection Act has nothing to do with that.

It would not be illegal, however, for American law enforcement officers to arrest him on a US warrant pursuant to an extradition request from a Rome Statue Party, because the ICC extradition protections in the Act extend only to US citizens, which Putin decidedly is not.

Of course, the US could also just try, convict, and execute Putin for war crimes itself in that case, and the ICC doesn’t apply the death penalty, so I’m not sure not getting extradited to the ICC would be a win for Putin, anyway. The US War Crimes statute allows US exercise of jurisdiction if either any part of the offense occurs in the US, any victim was a US citizen or service member, or the offender happens to be present in the US, regardless of where the crime occurred and the nationality of victims.
How is this different from Meticulous, another YC company?
what prevents a child from have 2 chatbots open, one asking the questions and tutoring and another that it sources it's answers from? People are already leveraging AI to write their papers for them and kids will figure out how to hack around these things.
Critical Microsoft Outlook bug PoC shows how easy it is to exploit
Pubs in Scotland (especially those near distilleries) often provide small jugs of water with which to dilute one's scotch. Some people swear by doing so, others less so.
Is asking and getting answers how to learn?

Think about most of the stuff you have really learnt over the course of your life, was it from sitting in a classroom with information being spoon-fed to you, from reading a Wikipedia article?

Or was it because you had to search hard for the information, try and fail before you succeeded?

My bet is that your learning comes from the lather not the former.

Good teachers that I have had would point you in a direction and then give guidance or even question you instead of just telling you the answer.
That no human ELO 1400 player will have that rate of illegal moves may be true, but if anything treating the very first illegal move as forfeit appears to be stricter than most rules
Was She Really Rosie?
Oh, my mistake; I assumed it was one of their "smart displays" (https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/smart-display/), but yeah, Android is... less bad than the others in that list, at least.
most devs I've worked with in my career are absolutely terrified of CLI, and if their IDE doesn't hold their hand they are completely worthless.
Security firm Rubrik is latest to be felled by GoAnywhere vulnerability
This reminds me of a similar laser detailed in one of Scientific American's The Amateur Scientist articles from the 1970s.

I grew up reading those articles, they used to be great. You just knew a project was going to be fun when it included a "Model T spark coil" :-)
A good one might be:

Ask HN: can we please stop allowing cherry-picked examples of AI on the front page?
Mercury: The Unbundling of Silicon Valley Bank
Nuclear Waste Borehole Demonstration Center Started
FTA: If you were curious about the “banner” command, which was historically used to generate ASCII text suitable for printing huge messages at dot matrix printers (!)

Dot matrix printers typically allow for better output than grids of monospaced characters, and, AFAIK, weren’t commonly used with computers when banner was written, so I would think it was made for line printers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_printer), not dot matrix ones.

I don’t know when that was, but https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=2.11BSD/src/games... has a man page dated October 1982. https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V6/usr/source/s1/... must be older since version 6 Unix is from 1975. Also, the man page supports that claim by saying

“you may want a printer or a fast hardcopy terminal, but if you are patient, a decwriter or other 300 baud terminal will do.”
No, that's not the case for many insurance companies. My insurance company only qualified surgery if you had a qualifying health condition. If you were just obese you didn't qualify.
Assuming that time "moves" kinda is
An interesting idea - and I would agree that my initial gut-take was that it does seem to make the text easier to process (assuming it is simple enough to begin with).

But what do you think of this (rather damning-sounding) retort?

https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/11jy27e/comment/j...

Also:

[it] obviously has an AI component, because why not.

It's not at all obvious to me that it needs AI (as opposed to say, a more or less obvious heuristics on mundane statistical analysis of how words are formed).

If your only justification for it is "why not?" then that's probably an indication that you don't understand the underlying problem to be solved.
You can thank Mozilla's MIECO program, my GitHub sponsors, and my Patreon supporters. See my recent blog post: https://justine.lol/rusage/#funding It's thanks to them that I'm able to keep doing what I'm doing.
Interestingly, the norm of your 4D speed vector is constant, IIRC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line
> almost all people from ~300 elo can play without making illegal moves

I don't believe you. Are you giving those people a restricted move set (i.e. computer chess, where it will _only_ allow legal moves)? Because if you give people an unrestricted board, I _guarantee_ you people will make lots of illegal moves.

Me: Moves pawn

Opponent: You can't do that, you exposed your king to check.

Me: Oops, sorry, you're right.
It isn't because we have the observations we have. It might be mathematically easy to invert time, but empirically it's not so simple. Mathematical symmetries and expressions are nice, but then the actual physical consequences and requirements (e.g., material, time, energy inputs) sort of force one's hand.

Also, geocentrism is actually disproven by numerous observations, which in fact guided the mathematical formulation of our current physics.

One thing is (almost) certain: the laws of physics as we know them (i.e. the Standard Model and General Relativity) are incomplete ("wrong"). That doesn't mean any old model is equivalent or as useful as either, though.
> It's absolutely not backwards.

But it is. The best population-level guidance (now) is early exposure. We told people to do the opposite. The result was a lot more kids with anaphylaxis-level allergy. (I don't know if this increased the total number of people who died. That'd be an interesting question, but given that we reversed the guidance, I assume from a public health perspective people now believe the original guidance was exactly the wrong thing to do.) The best you can say is this was the best we knew at the time, but it's exactly wrong.

> What we did know is not exposing children to a trigger of anaphylaxis would prevent them from dying from anaphylaxis, so, similar to many dangers, the most logical course of action is to remove the risk altogether.

I think you mean that it's intuitive, but I don't think it's logical, for exactly the reason that it turns out not to be a good idea. It's based on a wrong model of how the world works. Yes, that wasn't known. But I feel like we have to account for the fact that we might not know everything. (Admittedly, this drives me particularly nuts because I think this fallacy pervades so much public health advice, especially for kids.)

Like I said above, I get that people need to make recommendations in the face of uncertainty. But I feel like when we find that we've recommended the exact opposite of what was good (i.e., exactly flipped the previous guidance) with such severe consequences, it seems appropriate to step back and look at our methodology to ask if something went wrong or if there's something we can do to improve it?
"Statistical power" isn't some magic property of GPT4. It can produce statistically more likely moves because somewhere deep down it can model chess.
That would also mean that when I don't see or hear other people, they don't "exist" as physical things that can be seen or heard until I encounter a situation in which they would be.

It's the same as "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

But then again, that information has to be stored somewhere right?

Like, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, sure you can say it isn't being perceived so it won't be "rendered" but the moment someone walks in the forest and sees that fallen tree, it would need to be rendered from some information about the fall and information of how it looked before the fall. That information would have to be sitting somewhere in limbo waiting to be rendered. So why not just actually let it sit IN the rendered "realm" and now you have one place for data to live in. You save on data transfer fees too.
A bizarrely rightwing investment in the anti-Communist witch hunts, and a pretty enormous structural backlash in the form of the Taft-Hartley act?
It seems like it plays mostly legal chess games, when not explicitly reminded of the rules. There's no problem of sportsmanship when it makes mistakes in a game it has not been verified to understand the rules of.
How serendipitous! I just saw these at my Trader Joe's for the first time a week or two ago and I've been addicted to them.
No, it is GPT 3.5

and the real answer to every debate about capabilities comes down to "you're prompting it wrong".
The US has done that…a lot historically. Like, since before Musk was born. Not sure why you’d call it pulling a Musk.
This is in no way an attack on you, but your post shows exactly the problem. You first wrote

> With few exceptions, positive stories

and then you wrote

> a whole section for feel-good features

"Positive news" is more or less orthogonal to "feel-good features". When I moved to my current job, I had the option of watching Kansas City news or Topeka news. The KC news stations took the route you're suggesting. Everything was negative and intended to shock/alarm ("Joe Smith was murdered and then the police were involved in a car chase to catch the murderer. When they shot out his tires, he took his own life.") The Topeka stations did mostly positive news, with some negative mixed in. As any sane person would do, it didn't take long for me to go with only the Topeka news. It was nice to know what was going on in the area, to see a review of a local restaurant, or to hear about the debate on a change in the sales tax. I don't watch the news to see someone's good luck.
Not unless we want nuclear annihilation
fair. It's not proven that a solution exists for our models but I don't see much that leads me to believe it's impossible. I know GPT is not reliable but there's also really not much done to improve reliability. Its open research but certainly interesting. Most approaches I know are developed on way smaller datasets, models and usually in a computer vision context.
Anyone know what format the models have to be in for use with textsynth? I looked at the gpt2 example binary (gpt2_117M.bin) and it seems like the "normal" params.json is embedded as a header for the binary and then some ascii string like "attn/c_attn/" and then the binary weights.

I tried just using the Stanford Alpaca fine-tuned version of the llama 7B weights that work with llama.cpp with textsynth but it didn't like that (ggml-alpaca-7b-q4.bin: invalid file header). Having a textsynth HTTP API would save me a lot of hassle . I'm currently wrapping the stdin/out of a execution of a modified llama.cpp binary and that's extremely messy.
Posted earlier here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35141859
Want a loan? Please pay $20 to meta to verify your credit and social score.
I agree with your conclusion but the example you gave of Magnus Carlsen doing an illegal move is a pretty bad one imo. That was clearly a trap from his opponent as he did an illegal move first by checking Magnus while he was under check and then immediately calling the arbiter when Magnus moved his king in response. Magnus also probably did not have had much time left as it was a Blitz game.
Fine, just wrap the LLM in a simple function that detects illegal moves and replaces them with "I resign" or "I cannot conceive of a winning move from here". Then you aren't "reinterpreting" anymore.

My point is, it sounds like Elo doesn't measure what we want it to measure. If we care about the way an agent wins a game and not just whether it wins a game, then we need an instrument that measures strategy, not outcome.
Ask HN: How to build a moat in times of “almighty” foundation models?
Many hard problems became trivial with GPT4 (if you're able to use an API).
What could be the competitive edge of a company building on this technology?
Yes. I agreed that the VCs are at fault for poor decisions relating to their use of SVB in the face of known issues with the bank. I also agree with your additional point that the initial concentration of uninsured funds in a single bank was also a bad idea.
Thanks for this - I now realise that I had 10BASE-T and 100BASE-T mixed up when I asked the question.

P.S. Too many generations... I still remember Token Ring and coax Ethernet fighting it out, and even today I run a mix of four different speeds at home, 1G/2.5G/10G and 25G. Everything's become a bit of a blur. :)
Love this, couldn't be happier. Hear so much about potential risks. Take our jobs blah blah end of life on earth blah skynet etc..

What about the singularity and/or giving birth to a new form of life?
I suppose "nobody used that product anyway" is way more true of Microsoft's dropped projects than Google's, and that's important.

Everyone here can name Google products they loved which they can't use anymore. For me, the big ones are Google Reader (RSS), Google Inbox (bundles, and the Travel and Shopping email categories), Google Now (flight information), and Google Hangouts (SMS integration).

For other companies, not so much. I can name minor things, like I miss macOS's old 2D virtual desktop grid. And an AirPort router would have been nice. And I'm sad Amazon Go is being shut down. But nothing on the level of those Google shutdowns.
> Yet they will not quit their job. What that suggests to me is that they don't really believe it, otherwise they would sacrifice their paycheck to stop it.

I've talked to quite a few researchers. They generally do earnestly believe that AI has huge damage potential. The answers to why they keep developing AI falls in several different buckets (to which I have varying degrees of agreement)

1. We're in a prisoner's dilemma. If everyone could unilaterally agree to slow down AI research I'd be happy to quit, but until that happens if I don't do it someone else will and with even fewer scruples.

2. The only way to develop AGI safely is to push things to the brink. It's impossible to make progress on how to make sure that AGI is safe is to almost make AGI because not until then do you have a clear enough picture of the exact form AGI will take to do productive safety research.

3. Slowing down AI research has its own risks. If you slow down AI research, but other fields of technology continue to progress, you can end up in a scenario where everyone's personal computer is capable not only of running models, but of doing cutting-edge ML training. Right now to coordinate on developing AGI safely, there are maybe ~10 top teams with the infrastructure possible to do the training (not just running the model!) needed to advance the state of the art you have to get cooperation among. Hard, but not impossible. If technology progresses to the point where there tens of thousands of teams all capable of meaningfully advancing the state of the art then coordination is absolutely impossible.

4. If AI can, then AI should replace humans entirely. (the most chilling response I've heard. Luckily few in number, but it shows up even on HN)
I go with a couple drops of melted ice from the mountains, living an hour away away from Waterton park makes it easy to grab.
I look forward to that blog post, I hope that can clear up some of the confusion.

Personally I found that the best introduction for me to actually understand what the different parts do (mainly OSH and Oil Shell) was the Github wiki, particularly "OSH versus Oil" and the two Migration guide posts. Even reading several of your posts, I didn't fully understand what being "an upgrade path from bash" actually meant until I saw the mechanics of how the process would go, and then it all clicked for me.

I think a guided walkthrough of the "upgrade" process would be very valuable to help people understand what the goal is, and would be a good introduction to the project.

https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki
> “You have to be very careful in a retrocausal model because the fact of the matter is, we can't send signals back in time,” Adlam explained. “It's important that we can't, because if we could, then we could produce all sorts of vehicles or paradoxes. You have to make sure your model doesn't allow that.”

This rings false to my scifi-trained brain. Paradoxes emerge when information about the future allows you to change it in some way. But if the future is truly immutable, there's no reason why you can't learn what it will be. Any attempts you make to alter it will only result in the exact thing that you already knew would happen.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the author. Maybe what they MEANT to say is if you didn't already receive an email from your future self 5 years ago, then you can't send one today that your past self will receive at that time. Just as the future is immutable, so is the past. But if we had some sort of quantum email that allowed for such a thing, it WOULD be possible to go check it today and find a message from yourself 5 years in the future.
It's still only mimicry. The barbarian pictured is of the Hollywood movie kind. I real one would likely have more body fat. Could it be able do tell the difference between what's more historically accurate and made up? It's basically the flip-side of GIGO, now it's PIPO photorealistic in, photorealistic out regardless of verity.
The other competitor was Borland Paradox.

IIRC there is an easter egg in Microsoft Access 1.0 where the About box changes to an animation of a pond with two ducks in it that are then hit by lightning from a cloud above.
I.e. a cirrus and a 'pair of ducks'...
How the first chatbot predicted the dangers of AI more than 50 years ago
I don't follow this argument. The coexistence of probability theory and strict determinism create no issues in modern mathematics.
No. The block universe is that 3+1D spacetime "exists all at once". We just happen to experience travelling through it in one way.

Holographic universe is that the physics and information in a 3+1D space time could be encoded into a 2+1D universe (with it's own physics).
There's a huge difference between 1400 elo in FIDE games versus 1400 on chess.com, which is not even using elo.

For instance the strongest blitz players in the world are hundreds of points higher rated on chess.com blitz versus their FIDE blitz rating. Chess.com and lichess have a ton of rating inflation.
that would be the optimal rule :) We usually optimise to improve and learn better and better rules, hopefully approximating the optimal rule after some iterations. There's still a gap here, but hopefully it can be closed by improving the models, training algorithms etc.
Really? I'm loving this topic. I'm not upvoting all these posts or anything but this feels like HN at its best. Everyone is sharing snippets of their experiments, trading notes, and generally having constructive fun. SMEs are dipping into the occasional thread. The folks who are scared of AI on these threads are all discussing the topic quite reasonably. Is some of it derivative or low-effort, probably for some karma farming? Sure. But, this is a welcome change from the usual "hyperbolic anger about latest tech drama" content (cough Musk cough) that starves the oxygen on tech sites so frequently and imparts a tabloid-y feel, IMO.
What you say about Dijkstra is true, but we're not actually talking about a Dijkstra quote here, we're talking about Harold Abelson.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson
If you have played with ye olde flip phone's T9 predictive feature as a child, trying to compose entire messages just by accepting the next word that comes to the phone's mind... that's ChatGPT, with the small difference of giving waaay better suggestions for the next word. But other than that, there is no understanding in the black box whatsoever.
I tried playing just now, with exactly the same prompt as the article.

It played an illegal move on move 4.

1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 nf6
4. g3 Bg4
Gravity is a universal constant. If you reverse time, you just reverse the order of cause and effect, not what the effect is.

Does that make more sense to you?
Honestly? Next to nothing, but it's nice to know that I have a space for me, managed by me where I can write in my preferred format and follow my own limits, it's really nice
They’ve literally been winding down the balance sheet for the last ten months.