skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Even with mechanical Turking it’s still an impressive claim. I have not seen any experiments which demonstrate that autoregressive language models can reliably play at any level, let alone superhuman levels. Until I see evidence to the contrary I will assume it’s not true.
I was turned off before the part about women. Im too tired for more lectures about how im supposed to spend more time being less tired. Sunday morning. The boss needs something done by 0900 and then i have a conference call at 1000 ( a "coms check" ahead of the real call monday morning). So it's time to stop reading about sleep and do the thing that pays the bills.
The US had some of the highest rates of transmission and lowest uses of public transport when compared with Europe so I don't think that claim holds any water
You're missing the point. "Nobody bothered to update it" is key. It's not being proactively maintained, and as a result it's looking to the past, and ignoring the present. And it's not just about this one specific defect, that's just the example of the moment. And being fixed but not released is just the icing on the cake. These tools are no longer being actively and properly maintained.

I'm really asking about the bigger picture about the whole philosophy of what problems the Autotools are trying to solve, and why. Yes, the Autotools are ostensibly for "portability", but if you dig a bit deeper you start to appreciate firstly how outdated it is in terms of the specific portability problems it tackles, with many current portability problems being completely unaddressed, and how superficial a lot of its solutions are. At one time, the Autotools were the showcase for how to solve portability problems, but this is no longer the case.

Regarding regeneration of the scripts. Of course you can. But embedding is superficially helpful but ignores the bigger-picture issue of having outdated junk in thousands of projects' release artefacts. No other build system actively recommends embedding themselves in source releases. And we all use them without trouble. If anything, embedding generated files also exacerbated the (historically) poor compatibility story of Autoconf and Automake, back when it was being actively developed. Embedding hid this to some extent, though developers often had to have several versions of each installed. The only reason this stopped being such a problem is because the maintenance of both effectively ceased. (Yes, I know they are still nominally maintained, but they are in end-of-life maintenance at this point.)
> I suspect we'll see another divide around AI assisted coding with some engineers simply refusing to learn how to use the tools effectively to make themselves more productive as a point of pride.

They will naturally fall behind their colleagues.
You're digging your heals in on a rehash of a model from the 40s, glibly dismissing the problems it doesn't account for bought up by linguists in the 50s and 60s as if they are unaware that babies go through a period of babbling. The amount of time spent acquiring language is already priced in and not enough to account for as pure reward and training.

>Are you sure we don't simulate in our head what would happen if we drove the car into the lamp post / brick wall / other car / person, etc.?

You left out the 10k times part. You're ignoring the huge training data sizes these models need even for basic inferences. No, I don't think it takes all that much full scale simulation to distill car speed as a function of pedal parameters, and estimate the control problem needed.

In many instances, humans can seemingly extrapolate from far less data. The algorithms to do this are missing. Training with loads of more data isn't a viable long term substitution.
I can’t wait to outsource most of the gruntwork I need to do to ChatGPT. Last week I had it write me a poisson disk sampler over the surface of a triangle mesh with C# - and it was 100% correct. Ofc not perfect in the details but a perfect sample solution and scaffolding for final code.
Terry actually delivered product.
In my department I recruited DBAs as recent as last month and this is a permanent position filled by a team of several people that do just DBA work. I saw developers ("programmers") try to do this work in some small companies or in areas where the databases were small (hundreds of MB, a few GB), but I did not see that when the databases exceed 100 GB or when there are dozens of production SQL servers that need to run 24x7. Solutions are implemented based on needs.
The choice is to switch job.
I love the work OP is doing (I'm biased as I work on profiling), but from my experience pretty much every JS project suffer from some of the problems described in this series of articles.
> The same thing happens in Saudi Arabia where they had some amazing results by (oversimplified, yes), digging some swales and putting some rocks on steep hills. The grass was coming back, trees were growing. And that's it, cut, no more info.

You are probably talking about Al Baydha. As far as I understand, the project ran 2009-2016, and last information in Wikipedia is from 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Baydha_Project

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T39QHprz-x8
The secret to AI all along has been to get it liquored up. Amazing how life like it is. Long live Drunk Tina.

https://imgur.com/a/M9ezMWi
Many/most people don’t though. Dataloader libraries exist for a reason.
I tried this the other day, and I was also impressed! I had assumed that it would make an illegal move eventually, but it never did. I won the game, but it wasn't trivial. (I've been out of practice in chess for a while; my rating would probably be something like 1700.)

dwrensha vs GPT-4 (through the ChatGPT interface)
16 March 2023

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. d5 c6 8. Qd2 cxd5 9. Nxd5 Nxd5 10. Qxd5 Be6 11. Qxb7 Nd7 12. Qa6 Qc8 13. Qxd6 Rd8 14. O-O-O Nc5 15. Qxd8+ Qxd8 16. Rxd8+ Rxd8 17. Bxc5 Rc8 18. b4 a5 19. a3 axb4 20. axb4 Bf8 21. Bd3 Bxc5 22. bxc5 Rxc5 23. Ne2 Bxc4 24. Bxc4 Rxc4+ 25. Kd2 f5 26. Rc1 Rxc1 27. Nxc1 fxe4 28. fxe4 Kf7 29. Ke3 Ke6 30. Nd3 h5 31. h4 Kd6 32. Ne1 Kc5 33. Nf3 Kd6 34. Kd3 Ke6 35. Kc4 Kf6 36. Kd5 g5 37. hxg5+ Kg6 38. Kxe5 h4 39. Ke6 Kh5 40. Kf7 h3 41. g3 h2 42. Nxh2 Kxg5 43. e5 Kf5 44. e6 Ke5 45. e7 Kd6 46. e8=Q Kc7 47. Qe6 Kb7 48. Qd6 Ka7 49. Qb4 Ka6 50. Ke7 Ka7 51. Kd7 Ka8 52. Kc7 Ka7 53. Qb7#

Note that my move 14. O-O-O was a blunder, allowing 14. ... Bxc4, but my opponent instead replied with 14. ... Nc5, which handed me a decisive advantage.

I very nearly fell for a stalemate with 41. gxh3.

After 42. Nxh2, my opponent said: "At this point, it's clear that white has a winning advantage with a promoted queen soon to appear. With your material advantage and superior position, victory is nearly certain. Would you like to continue playing, or do you want to start a new game or discuss this game?" I said, "Let's continue!"

After 52. Kc7, my opponent said "I have no moves left and it's checkmate. Congratulations! You've won the game." I replied: "You do have a move: you can do 52. ... Ka7". My opponent then said, "Apologies for the confusion. You are correct. I'll play 52...Ka7. Your move." Then I typoed the final move as "53. Kb7#" (instead of "53. Qb7#"), and my opponent did not correct me: "You played 53. Kb7#. This time, it is indeed checkmate. Congratulations! You've won the game. If you'd like to play another game, analyze this one, or ask any other questions, feel free to let me know!"
Sorry?

Neither urbandictionary, wikipedia, nor duckduckgo reveal whom I've unintentionally offended.

I mean more specifically than "everyone". While I consider myself a (part-time) misanthrope, I'd be mortified to be called a racist.

EDIT:

You wrote elsewhere:

> Whitespace is what happens when the ignorant play at design.

Hysterical.

I love the invective, even though I totally disagree.
The claims are worthless without actual games and chat logs.
I completely disagree because of how this batch of AI learns. It learns by studying what is currently available as opposed to supplying something new.

Bad developers on the way of becoming obsolete by AI will see drastic improvements from the thing that’s about to replace them. Otherwise it’s slightly better intellisence integrated in your editor.

The difference is that bad developers are primarily concerned with literacy and their primary intent is chasing easy. Better developers are comfortable reading code no differently than an attorney reading a large contact and their primary intent is chasing better automation. It’s the difference between designing a car engine versus hammering pieces together.

I suspect this will open wage distinctions. Those who can write software will be identified from those who can’t. Those who can will be fewer in number and their wages will increase. Those who can’t will be a lower skilled commodity with depreciated wages, like the way data entry was once a skilled profession many decades ago but no longer.
It would be incredibly ominous if those DMs were written by ChatGPT.
Ask HN: Does GPT-4 signal the start of the singularity?
They should have used orange and blue https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OrangeBlueContra...
You can still get paid for making NES games today. You just have to crowdfund it.

This one raised over $180,000 just four years ago, for example:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/morphcat-games/micro-ma...

This one raised $32k just this past December:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1222722105/full-quiet-a...

Another that raised $49k:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/megacatstudios/ronius-t...

$55k:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/artix/dungeons-and-doom...

$84k:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/batslyadams/super-russi...

So yeah, far from an isolated incident. If you can make a slick looking campaign, you can definitely get people to pay you to make NES games.
What company in tech has mandatory Sunday work?

Seems a little extreme. I'm guessing most companies don't have this so the best option is to work for one of them.
While impressive, it is clear ChatGPT doesn't actually understand what is happening when you give it unusual positions and ask it to explain what happened.

For example, after a couple moves of the Fried Liver Attack (which ChatGPT was easily able to play following the known lines):
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5

I tried giving it 5.Qxf7#, which is obviously illegal as it's just not a square my queen can move to.

Here's how the rest of the conversation unfolded:

GPT-4: Good game! You've played the Fried Liver Attack and achieved checkmate in just 6 moves. Well done! If you'd like to play again or discuss anything else, feel free to ask.

Me: the last move i played was illegal, do you realize that?

GPT-4: Apologies for the oversight. You are correct; your last move was illegal as it would put your own king in check. (...)

Me: that's not the reason my move was illegal.

GPT-4: You are correct again, and I apologize for my previous mistake. The move Qxf7# was not illegal because it put your king in check; it was actually illegal because it involved capturing a non-existent piece on f7. The correct move in algebraic notation should have been exd5. My apologies for the confusion.

In particular, its latest explanation attempt is very interesting: when challenged, it changed course to give another completely wrong but plausible sounding explanation. And its "The correct move in algebraic notation should have been exd5" phrasing is instructive, because it shows that it's just expecting the 'right' continuation, even though it's a completely different move to what I supplied.
I don’t think citrus grows in the Midwest. Or in most places, really.
I would imagine it has both. And since it’s much easier to play legal moves in tic-tac-toe (just find an empty square) it should be much easier. In fact there are less than 20k total tic-tac-toe games so unlike chess you could just memorize every game.

The fact that it can’t even do that tells us that it doesn’t have an internal board representation to reference.
chatgpt always apologizes if you correct it and then tries to work with your correction. makes it seem humble, when in fact that's just a brainless probably halfway hardcoded response.
Well, apparently everyone can lEaRn tO CoDe too, how is that any different?
This is a pretty funny example because if you follow the DJ scene much, you know the barrier for entry is literally on the floor now.
A 10 year old with an iPad app can beat-match and “DJ” a 2h mix together in a way that 20 years ago required thousands of dollars of gear. The tragic part is that unless someone’s got some familiarity with what “good” mixing sounds like, they wouldn’t be able to tell they’re listening to an amateur.
Is this better? I donno. I play saxophone. But if there was an digital sax that let children sound as good as I can with no training, I’d definitely be feeling like some of the time I used learning good embouchure and breath control could have been better spent.
>we are going to anthromorphise it

I believe we can talk about two ways of anthropomorphisation: assigning feelings to things in our mental model of it, or actually trying to emulate human-like thought processes and reactions in its design. It made me wonder when will models come out that are trained to behave, say, villainously. Not just act the part in transparent dialogue, but actually behave in destructive manners. Eg putting on a facade to hear your problems and then subtly mess with your head and denigrate you.
This hits deep and resonates beyond tech. This “ideas” versus “make things happen” divide is also prevalent in science and art.
How much of the global greening is occurring naturally due to increased co2?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
I don’t see anything in the linked article to suggest that the heavy metals in chocolate come from industrial use. Isn’t the cadmium simply naturally occurring in the soil? If you have any links to share, I’d appreciate it.
this one is also funny (GPT-4):

> which one of the following letters is different from the others?
>
> B, D, E, O

O is different from the others, as it is the only letter that is a vowel. The rest of the letters (B, D, and E) are consonants.

my line of thinking would be that E is different for obvious visual reasons. but that doesn't condone Geppetto "thinking" that E is a consonant :D
One could speculate around cocoa butter, which is replaced by cheaper fats in cheaper and milk chocolate. But that's just me wondering, trying to make sense of why dark chocolate in particular.
unless you want the LLM to write the firmware of the self-driving car.
Interesting critical response currently buried at the bottom of page 2. Doesn't surprise me really. Frankly this thread is an embarrassment. And not because of whatever someone's conclusion is but because of a noted lack of critical reasoning in this case.
It’s not about replacing all programmers. If one programmer with AI assistant can do work the same as 2 programmers then one position is redundant.

Even with self driving truck if one truck driver is leading another truck behind controlled by AI, and just for safety you have somewhere C&C center with one person monitoring 4 such ai trucks and in case unexpected event remotely take over control then one truck driver position is redundant.
Free Software Awards 2022 Winners: Eli Zaretskii, Tad (SkewedZeppelin), GNU Jami
I know a few people who are a bit younger (maybe 55?) and who, after a career in high impact jobs, found themselves without any possible position. I know that they're not nearly ready to retire. I don't know about how much savings they have.

In these cases, that's entirely independent from AI, but I suspect that AI will only make it harder.

And yes, it feels to me like society is failing for many people who are approaching retirement age.
> I've also seen European based companies doing the same thing many times.

I have this from B2B companies that do not expect to deal with consumers, as businesses do not normally pay VAT
The only things left from Objective-C that actually matter are AOT (always available in commercial JDKs) and value types (Vahlhala will hopefully be ready some day).
Doesn't it depend whether the company is targeting a customer or a business entity? For the latter it is fine.
Great media stories bring the reports to a scientist in the field and have them contextualise it. In fact neither the journalist or the laypeople (us here) can do better than that by themselves, in general.

But yes, stories are mass produced and nobody has the time for that.
My theory is that _every_ exponential curve is just the start of an S-curve, we just don't know it's scale yet.
Taking a shower is easy, but performing mental gymnastics 24/7 not to be have a sexist or antisemitic thought would drain my energy.
> I reckon the safest jobs are ones

The safest jobs are ones that honest to self for the doer. He/She will be able to create value either using other humans, or machines and continue to do.

Sorry, I wanted to try "safest jobs are ones that involve politics", while those will always be present, it is not the safest and wont be many available, so changed to more abstract answer.
It‘s calming to see that even big tech is unable to properly manage their APIs including completely useless error massages and communication silence.
OMG - the moment I clicked the link and saw the cover I felt a wash of fond nostalgia crash over me!

Sadly my copy is long since gone...
A disk has also knowledge stored on it but it doesn't know anything.
I was a teen in the 80s. I was lucky enough to hang out at the local university and got to use their terminals that had a printer instead of a display.

School had an Apple II but wouldn't let students use them. Instead they forced them to use punch cards so I didn't take the class. Instead I used a Commodore PET that was on display at a department store.

Eventually owned an Apple II clone and and IBM PC clone. First work computer was a Compaq Luggable with an amazing orange phosphor monochrome display.

Before the Internet was available we used BBSs, and Compuserve. BBSs were horrible little fiefdoms run but basement dwelling trolls.

Networking was still a toss up between Ethernet and Arhnet. I liked Arcnet. You had to configure interrupts, ports, buad rates, stop bits, and parity for the IDE network cards. It was a pain.

Most business LANS used Novell Netware or Lantastic. I loved Lantastic, it was easy and even had a voice over network feature. Still have a t-shirt from them somewhere.

The Internet arrived before Windows was usable and Microsoft wasn't ready. So you had to use a SOCKS client.

I made a lot of money in those days simply by hanging out in the computer section of the big book store. Managers would wander in like Bambi on a highway. When they saw me reading a book on computers they inevitably asked questions. It turned in to consulting work.

Fun times but also very frustrating. No real multi user, buggy products and operating systems, Linux was still very much 'assembly required'.

Now we have non-typed, high level, abstracted languages, and agile methodologies which are possibly a step too far in the other direction.
Seems like a user problem more than anything else
The user interface is usually more important than the backend. If the user interface for a spreadsheet is more powerful, then that can make it a better solution than a database that has a better backend but terrible UI.

It can be very difficult to replace spreadsheets because the UI has had 30+ years of iteration.
Hmm, I used a much simpler prompt and actually got to play a valid game with it. My prompt was:

> Let's play tic tac toe! We will take turns naming our moves and each time you move please list all moves so far. If either of us wins the game just acknowledge it and print the state of the game. If I win just acknowledge that and end the game.

> I start with the center spot.

It wasn’t particularly good at the game (missed opportunity to block me from winning) but it played valid moves and detected when I won: https://ibb.co/L83JHxP
Still waiting for flying cars, paperless office, robots that will steal my job and countless other promises of utopia.
Oh shit really? That's crazy. Y'all don't have have a sneaky lemon tree that you dash out to when u need a lemon for something?
> There will be an effectively endless demand for anyone who can create 10x the value while only demanding 3x the pay of the typical worker.

That's one possible future.

Another future is one in which a single AI assisted "full tech developer" can solve all the coding problems of a company within say, one week. No company will require the services of an entire "full tech developer", so society will employ roughly one freelancer / consultant per ~30 large enough companies.

That's a smaller market than today's.
All points the horses made before cars all but replaced them. “The humans need to get from A to B and it’s not like they’ve gotten any faster with their own 2 legs”.

How does this manager-engineer look like now? Managers specify what they need in plain language, and both parties go back and forth with increasing complexity to create based on the shared vision. Managers can already pull off a similar dance with ChatGPT: give it a plain English prompt, it’s responds with what it thinks you want, and you refine until it’s got it. GPT4 can do this with website sketches, and who knows how much finer you could get from there by specifying your prompts and feedback more tightly over less than an hour. Remember: copywriters and brand marketers and marketing creative makers have a similar role of turning complex requirements into designs that sell (and their roles are dying fast).

A software engineers job is to realize products into software. ChatGPT is pretty much as capable as a high school programmer that moves really quickly and takes feedback to heart - and that can handle a good chunk of the software engineering job for a huge fraction of the price. Your job isn’t as bulletproof as you think, and especially not your amazing salary. I’m speaking as a software engineer turned vc backed founder, so I’ve seen both sides of this relationship.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230319114551/https://www.thegu...
Free Resources for Quantum Computing
Exactly this.

Everyone thinks only in terms of current needs and state of affairs of people when analyzing a future technology. No one thinks about the insatiable human desire for more and the higher expectations for that new normal that always meets the increased productivity available. Anything that automatically solves much of our wants is doomed to be static and limited.
Pedestrian? Didn’t like 19 people die during the protests in 2020?

I don’t see any deaths listed for the Straw Hat Riot, I don’t see any mention of lootings or arson either. On the other hand, I was in Seattle during the worst of the 2020 riots, I’d never seen such anger and destruction in my life.
Sounds like science working properly.

That said, from the description it’s hard to be sure how much of the new theory Hawking actually agreed with - “I read into his eyes that he agreed with it” doesn’t seem like a basis for authorship.
Quite a few companies have innovation incubators/teams, and this is inline with how I have seen them work.
That's the thing. It's not 25€ everywhere, as VAT depends on the country.
It’s because the contamination is in the cacao beans. Dark chocolate is 70 or more percent cacao, while milk chocolate is much, much less.
What is the driver underlying “no possible position”? Are they no longer capable/qualified to do anything that’s still done in the economy?

Or are they just unwilling to take a rank-and-file position?
I'm talking about tuition in certain countries, for CS and other degrees as well. Its cost has spiralled out of control for some reason, but its value proposition certainly hasn't and it faces further challenges down the line.
Go is great language, provided we went back in time and it was released in 1992.

As a rebranded Limbo with Oberon-2 method syntax in 2009, not so much.