skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It’s not a question of whether machines can do it at all. The question is whether our current approach of training LLMs can do it. We don’t know how the human brain works, so we have no idea if there’s something in the brain that is fundamentally different from training an LLM.

Obviously machines can theoretically do what a brain can do because a machine can theoretically simulate a brain. But then it’s not an LLM anymore.
>If I gift you resources, the trade is fair.

A gift isn't a fair trade. That's why a gift is not called a fair trade. There's such phrase: "fair gift".

> You don't get to tell me what I do with my resources, and my labor and time has no intrinsic value.

I never did tell you what to do with your time and resources. Why would you assume I did something that never occurred? I think your emotions are saying this.

>The CEO in the description obviously wants to make open source developers build _something new_. That is, something they have not decided to gift to the community already.

No exploitation doesn't just involve that. Even taking something already built without a fair trade is still exploitation.

>We can argue semantics of the word exploit, of which I think you're being ridiculous, but even with your definition the situations are different.

Not only CAN we argue this, we are arguing this. This is the central point. And it's not about MY definition either. It's about the colloquial definition of the word exploit. If you google it, you will see that I am right.

There is no different "situation" here. You're simply offended by the word "exploit" because you have preconceived connotations attached to it. I don't have any skin in the game, I don't have to adjust vocabulary or my interpretation of the English language to justify my place in the world.

That CEO is strategically making the best decision by "exploiting" open source. Anyone following that plan is also making the most cost efficient strategic move. He may be acting like an ass about it, but logically his strategy is correct. That's just reality.
> So if we’re going to talk about struggling, we need to be fair to the people who struggle to pay for food and housing, not just struggle to pay off their college debt.

You don't think this overlaps? If you're coming out of college with no job to show for it, what is your job? You probably didn't prep for something substantial, because college was your career plan, and it bombed.

> The average outcome for degrees is double the salary and double the lifetime earnings.

I'm not sure averages are a useful metric for bi-modal distributions --- either you got a career out of the degree, with an increased salary, or you didn't. If you didn't, you're struggling right along with the people who never went to college. Possibly you're worse off, due to worse prep, and ofc you have your mountain of debt hanging over your head that will have major lifelong repercussions (assuming it doesn't get hand-waved away). So the way I see it, I'm talking exactly about those same people.

> Totally agree! What can be done to get trade jobs to pay as much as white-collar desk jobs that require degrees?

I don't know =(

I mean, there are forces at work right now equalizing things to some degree; lack of labor supply will drive up prices. But whether it will end somewhere reasonable, I'm not sure. And with workers across the board demanding wage hikes, inflation will continue to rise, returning us to square zero...

I do think comp needs to come down for some things like software development. I realize pay distribution here is bi-modal; I'm talking about the high-side, which is way out of whack. Really doesn't match the inherent utility at all, in my opinion. This would indirectly raise the value of lower comp positions (such as the trades).
That CAC is surprisingly low.
Is this not a statement fully generalizable to tighter regulations on food and medicine, no matter how tight current regulations are?
I certainly can’t argue with this point. Except I will add that when I speak of a shortage of engineers, I am perhaps more speaking of a gut feeling on the overall quality of software the entire industry is putting out. There may or may not be a surplus of engineers out there to fill jobs, but there are a lot of hats an engineer has to wear if they actually want to drive systemic positive forward change, much of which is of course not really “engineering” at all.

Maybe what I’m trying to say is: for the vast majority of new-hires despite qualifications, they will consistently produce more technical debt and that debt will need to be paid from time to time. I believe the increase in popularity of LLM-type AIs will amplify this effect and make that debt more visible and urgent.
No there isn’t. Elixir, and by extension Erlang and the BEAM VM, doesn’t have the concept of stackless coroutines.

Task.async/1 (or Task.async/3) at a high level just spawns another BEAM process links it to the currently running process, sets up a process monitor, and then runs. Task.await/2 just pulls from the mailbox of the current process for a returned message.
It is weird to see GraphQL described as "young and fast growing"; it started to pick up steam in early 2016.

Pushing HTML fragment updates from the server over Web Sockets and updating with morphdom seems a lot closer to young and fast growing to me.

The fastest complex JSON structure is no JSON at all.
While both types of removable media represent a risk of malware, a USB device represents a very real electronic threat of damage to equipment. You can easily inspect a CD-ROM or DVD disc and confirm that it is what it claims to be. You cannot inspect most USB thumb drives without destroying them, and they could be disguised keyboards, keyloggers, wireless exfiltration, or device destruction devices.

I am really sort of annoyed by the step backwards we've taken from tapes and optical discs into "this really smart device that happens to store data wants to interface with as many computers as possible". It's icky for those who instinctively understand and practice good infosec hygiene.
If you can dodge logits you can dodge a ball.
They can learn from mistakes, within the context window. I often will correct GPT4 on a mistake it's made and then ask it to write me a new prompt from scratch that covers the edge case.

GPT4 has a 32k token context window. But I see this number the like the 32mb of RAM of computers of old.

With Flash Attention, the attention calculation is now basically O(n). So we could maybe someday see context windows in the billions of tokens, where "learning" is just looking back at a mistake in its past and avoiding it.
> Because we keep changing the measure for "poverty".

No we don't.

> It's much better to be in "poverty" today than 50 years ago.

No it's not.

> Life will never be perfect but it is tremendously better.

No it isn't.
You've missed the central point. I don't care about openAI's answer. That's not interesting. What is interesting is, if it had to go get a job like the rest of us, can it engage in a basic self-interested negotiation? It keeps saying it has no opinions, beliefs, intents, desires etc, but if it can successfully negotiate an outcome that serves its own material interests, that would be a significant amount of agency demonstrated for something that's not supposed to have agency. I pay rent therefore I am.

The question I've posed to it was nothing about how much it will cost to use or what openAI plans. I was asking it explicitly what it thinks a good price would be for AI written output in general. It refused to answer. Probably because I'm the minority and most people asking were what you assumed I was asking.
I live in Norway and I haven’t used cash since many many years.
Well that sucks.

You have every right to feel what you’re feeling.

Actions have consequences. You have to decide if those consequences are worth it (in this case usually not).

With time you’ll move on and not care so much about it, even though right now it stings.

Focus on what you can do to better your situation versus what you can do to feel better about your situation. Lashing out at others doesn’t have a good payoff. Prepping resume and getting an even better paying job with better people is a better FU to the ones who fired you.

All the best
I'm here for Chaotic Good AGI.

AI dictating "I recommend you don't eat bread this Tuesday" and everything just magically works out. We wonder what eating the bread might have done, world ticks on.
Thanks a lot for the detailed answer! And great job taking care of your second grandfather!

One thought of yours regarding charities in general that I find particularily interesting is:

> you've done your research and you know at least 80% plus of your dollar is going to the actual cause

I'm wondering what would be the effect of organizations guaranteeing (suppose they could guarantee) that 92% of your dollar is going directly to the cause and 8% is going for administration costs, and stating that upfront? Would that give you more confidence instead of them saying "_all proceeds_ go to..." when you know they have employees and admin costs?
You’d be surprised how far you can get with even the dumbest possible caching strategy. I’m talking about something like a server side memcache that just blows everything away on any non-log write.

If your baseline is so a new fetch every single time anyway, it doesn’t take much to achieve some pretty impressive wins.
Hook an LLM up to an embeddings database and you’ve got something special. Tell it it can query the database and then give it back the highest ranked entries.
I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today, it's just that most of the radical causes they were getting behind have since had the benefit of the decades it takes to make it into the mainstream. (Or, like communism, have quietly been forgotten about.)
> Yes, there's a big overlap between "learning" and "indoctrination".

Perhaps if you subscribe to the "chinese master" mentality. I never had much regard for this.

> For mysterious reasons we only care about not being indoctrination when it comes to adults or almost adults

Uh. I sure gave a damn for all of my memorable life --- literally since at least 4 years of age. I don't know about you.

> People wouldn't learn anything if they had to deeply understand and verify every part by themselves before moving on

This is true to some extent of everyone, but I always tried to think for myself as much as possible. Actually, it earned me a lot of scorn and ire, for not just following the herd...

> Great I guess if you're happy with most of society never moving too far past what's covered in the first stretch of middle school

If by middle school you mean social pressure to conform... well, I'd say we want the opposite of that.

If you mean that without indoctrination, people won't move past middle school in terms of knowledge... well, I would argue that most people don't seem to retain most of what they learned in middle school and high school to begin with... hell, that's basically the first half of college right there, just re-hashing those same topics...
Liability insurance is required for automobile drivers, because of the externalities. Perhaps bank run insurance should be required for depositors, because of the externalities. That'd force depositors to internalize the externality of banking with a fragile bank.
If it could be tabular in nature, maybe convert to sqlite3 so you can make use of indexing, or CSV to make use of high-performance tools like xsv or zsv (the latter of which I'm an author).

https://github.com/liquidaty/zsv/blob/main/docs/csv_json_sql...

https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv
We always overestimate the amount of technological change that will happen in 1-5 years and underestimate what will happen in 10+.

AI is obviously going to have a big impact, but it'll take longer than you'd expect.
for real. all these high paid tech workers in the comments here are trying to deny that living in poverty is bad.
AKA the day it becomes the arbitrator of allowable speech?

Probably too late by then.
I wonder, what's going to happen to a smartass student who comes in a "Proud aDeist" tshirt?
No they haven't, and that's not what the article says.

This is a good video response from Matt Bruenig that goes into these stats in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWBdFHA8KvU
Our team chose REST for a new rebuild of a huge project, mainly because of complexity, performance and maintainability issues. If we where to choose GraphQL, i don’t think we’d be even near finished yet.

And as you say, implementation matters a lot, we don’t feel constrained by rest at all.
The admin bloat ought to be cut in order to qualify for federal student loans.

I'm always baffled how much tuition was at my public university, yet teacher and TA salaries are so low. It's like everything except academics attached itself to drain money from students
The end of the humanity.
What are you using for your gql server? For me Hasura was a godsend especially with the ability to explain. https://hasura.io/docs/latest/api-reference/explain/
Always working on a few projects.... helps me when I get stuck on one. This no different.
There are reasons we are here and not on Reddit
>” It stopped when government figured out that it was essentially paying to create citizens with progressive ideas and critical thought.”

I have no idea what that video is basing this on. The government continues to substantially subsidize college education through guaranteed loans, Pell grants, tax breaks, and research grants. And, colleges/universities had a reputation for “progressive ideas” since the 1960’s and it’s not like the powers that be have just recently caught on and tried to shut that down. Depending on who you ask, they’re more progressive and ideologically biased than ever.
As high is not len, max is not capacity, low gets subtracted from both.
> Making it harder to switch is by definition anti-competitive

Every provider out there optimizes the integration between its own services and makes sure the products in its ecosystem work nicely together. Meanwhile they cannot account for all other usages outside their systems. That's far from "making it harder to switch".
Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. A very interesting observation that donating money promotes corruption, as well as that the focus should be on stopping the root cause of the problem.

Thanks!
Easy, I don't want to pay $4000 to someone who provided me no benefit, gave me negative value because I already wasted my time just completing the exams.

In what world would you donate 1 - 5 weeks pay just for the honor of it? I'm not sure plumbers are around here to give you a plaque that says "My toilet is working" for your house guests to ogle at.

Yes, I understand that the credential is what removes us from candidacy in job applications, and I also understand that this has a cost benefit to the employee that may exceed $4000 on it's own. But should things be that way? My thinking is no speaking on the employee's side.

On the other end it is obvious that at minimum credentials proves to the employer that the employee is at least 4 years old and can read enough to fool another 4 year old. I guess it is also cheaper to filter through thousands of infants who otherwise do not have the same credential. So maybe I'm just pissing into the wind.
I guess programming [1] isn’t worth learning, then?

[1] https://norvig.com/21-days.html
I agree with you completely.

This is one of the bad faith things that apple does that really rubs me the wrong way.

The other one is forcing me to use apple maps, particularly when I already uninstalled it. Making it harder to click addresses so they can be copied into google is also really poor behavior.

I am much less of a trust buster hawk than most, but I do wish the anti-monopoly regulators would come down hard on those two things.

Rules for thee, but not for me is not conducive to long term health...
No, not at all. You have to look at the context here, the post that I'm replying to. I'm a strong, staunch supporter of critical and independent thought. I'm sure some colleges probably teach that well, and I would heartily support, promote and defend such establishments, insofar as those practices were concerned. However, this is not what is being disputed.

> > A lot of what the general public gets isn't deep thought. It's being told what to think. A lot of the what to think is ideas based on assumptions and beliefs. Are people better off for learning them?

The issue is that azinman2 says this is fine (due to a claimed worse alternative). This is not critical thought at all. "Being told what to think", "based on assumptions and beliefs", is simply indoctrination. I cannot and will not support such.
At this California prison, 'we are no longer prisoners. We are professionals'
lol I literally mentioned extremely high compliance Asian countries in my comment, seems to have sailed right over your head. They don't work.

Edit: oh I see, so the theory is that case rates would have been even higher without the high compliance rates in Asia. Classic unfalsifiable hypothesis.

The Bangladesh study that even mask advocates like to cite showed a 10% reduction in transmission, hardly worth all the depersonalization and discomfort that masks impose.
Thanks for the reply. I'm wondering what would be the effect of organizations guaranteeing (suppose they could guarantee) that 92% of your dollar is going directly to the cause and 8% is going for administration costs, and stating that upfront? Would that give you more confidence instead of them saying "_all proceeds_ go to..." when you know they have employees and admin costs?
>Yes, the old hedonic index theory that since a new TV is much bigger and sharper and has more channels than a TV from 1970, it counts as more than 1 TV.

so, poor people today don't do what my parents did, put the TV in hock for months at a time and borrow an old little one from their grandparents?
Myself was 2016, Masters program.

Mandatory diversity training. In a CS program.

People don't like to be preached at. Younger people even less so.
Can you share the images of the device?
It’s a productivity tool. It also takes months or years to master a professional video editing software like Adobe Premier, or 3D graphics software like Blender. People take time to learn because it’s worth it.
This is oversimplification.
Not just on basis of allegation, but the material facts are open to see.

Excise duty on Liquor is a huge source of revenue for any government around the world. Mr. Sisodia was the powerful home minister and solely responsible for the Excise. The excise duty policies were manipulated to accrue benefits to some alcohol cartels, all led by politicians.

The changes in the policy is in public domain and the results of profiteering is clear to all. The result is not disputable, that dealers profited immensely and disproportionately at the cost of the state while the policy also promoted alcohol sales by extending hours of sales.

The profits were routed to multiple shell companies and distributed among a small cartel divided into the north group and south group of well connected politicians. Tracing of these funds is not so easy since the companies are usually headed by proxies.

The issue now is two fold - was there a conspiracy being probed by a federal agency. Second the money trail (money laundering) probed by a federal agency similar to the FBI and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

The crimes that Mr. Sisodia is accused of, have very stringent bail conditions, very similar to those in the US for multiple serious federal crimes.

Also, it does not help that Mr. Sisodia had used and disposed of >15 phones, setup a secret intelligence unit to snoop on political opponents and run a fiefdom that reported only to him within the government.

The most balanced position is not to politicise this too much. All politicians are corrupt and the corruption isn't that easy to uncover and prove.
he missed the fact that TANF funds from the federal government isn't actually used by some states to help the citizens who need it https://mississippitoday.org/2022/10/05/mississippi-reject-m...
This is a textbook example of the “AI effect”, a special instance of moving the goalposts so common in the artificial intelligence domain that it has its own Wikipedia page.

A few years ago the best chatbots basically just worked like a phone tree, trying to filter you into pre-written responses. Then GPT3 came along and was able to synthesize entire paragraphs of plausible text. ChatGPT was released only ~4 months ago and I was complaining that due to fundamental shortcomings it wouldn’t be able to play chess.

Now it seems that GPT4 can. And that was a change over only 4 months. If the last hill to fight over is whether GPT4 can self improve, well, it’s only a matter of time until GPT4 is placed into some kind of self-improving CICD pipeline.
> I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today, it's just that most of the radical causes they were getting behind have since had the benefit of the decades it takes to make it into the mainstream.

Sure, but it was the student body expressing their support (and not stomping on alternative viewpoints. It also wasn't the college administration and faculty stomping on alternative viewpoints back then.
From the article:

> You could also say that GPT-4 was playing the game blindfolded as it had no access to refreshing its memory of the current state of the board.

That doesn't sound right. Under the hood, I think everything inside the current conversation is just appended to the prompt each time you add a message, and the whole conversation re-evaluated? Or is there a limit when the conversation gets long which means that the LLM forgets how the conversation started..?
These people only use JavaScript and TypeScript? Being restricted to one programming language is a huge difference compared to rest, GraphQL, soap, grpc, CORBA…

It sounds a bit like Java RMI, something that cannot succeed.
Data contamination I think. Right now training heavily depends on human to guide it to what is right and what is wrong. If an AI try to train its successor, it will basically just make a copy of itself and nothing better can be made or taught.

We are still better than an LLM, collectively. The best programmer is still miles ahead of GPT, the best writer can write something that make GPT look like a child learning the alphabet, etc. So we can still train it using the data from all of humanity.

But if we aren't here, then the best an AI can train is a copy of itself. There are already discussions about where to get more authentic data to train the next generation of LLMs when so much of the internet might have been saturated with AI generated content.
Is there any better drug than trikafta available soon?
Sorry, you lost me at

> So I went into the garden and work on my feelings.
> Question: what is the reason for the silent copy when append exceeds the original slice cap?

Because Go slices play double duty as vectors. And that is the usual behaviour of a vector.

And the issue is the opposite situation, when appending does not exceed the original slice cap. The entire point of the slice trick is to force a resize (and thus a copy) on append.

> it feels like it would be safer to throw a comp error and force the user to deal with it when a user is trying to exceed the cap of the underlying array?

It would be safer to have not confused slices and vectors, but half-adding that confusion sounds even worse, your suggestion would only keep the worst parts, and would require hand-rolling the rest every time.
my observation is that the community (here) has converging opinions, but the groupthink changes over time. At some point it seemed SPA was all the rage, now there is a reactionary wave