skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Is this an indication that the biggest impact from LLMs will be on the edge?

It's almost a certainty that a model as good (or better) than Alpaca's fine-tuned LLaMA 7B will be made public within the next or two.

And it's been shown that a model of that size can run on a Raspberry Pi with decent performance and accuracy.

With all that being the case, you could either use a service (with restrictions, censorship, etc) or you could use your own model locally (which may have a license that is essentially "pretty please be good, we're not liable if you're bad").

For most use cases the service may provide better results. But if self-hosting is only ~8months behind on average (guesstimate), then why not just always self-host?

You could say "most users are not evil, and will be happy with a service." Makes sense. But what about users who are privacy-conscious, and don't want every query sent to a service?
>anyone who is legally resident in the UK can walk into a hospital and get largely the same healthcare as anyone else

This is true in the US too. Hospitals don't just refuse care unless they consider you "well enough" which unfortunately happens sometimes but its not per policy. Same thing in the UK though...

I know a guy who's next door neighbor's dad died because he couldn't get an ambulance or basically any "urgent care."

Didn't have a car and they refused to send an ambulance for some reason. They called the police to try to get them to help but they were too late. I don't know the details but he was fuming mad about it.
> e.g. hardware T&L even on the Wii was probably done by a vertex shader.

Nope, no vertex shaders on the Wii, just a hardware T&L unit with no code upload feature.
Except the drivers can reject trips. Uber can just choose not to use them for future assignments, e.g what they're doing with suspending accounts for rejecting too many rides.

They're basically saying they don't want to work with unreliable contractors.
Seems like the key to consistency will be generating multiple images in a sequence simultaneously, rather than generating frames independently. Are models being developed along these lines?
Years ago I started a personal blog but like many others, I found myself struggling to write more than a couple of posts per year. The barrier of quality felt too large. So I decided to create a separate shortform blog where I would share small code snippets that solved problems for me.

It turned out to be quite popular and since I started the blog in 2013 it's gotten well over 1.5 million visitors and still attracts hundreds every day, exculsively from search traffic.

While I can't say that it changed my life in any way, it did bring me a lot of satisfaction that it helped many people. It also taught me about the concept of "long tail keywords" on Google!

You can find it here if you are interested:
https://snippets.khromov.se/
I agreed with the headline but now I think about it lots of interesting and or funny stuff too. Look at HN as an example.
The number of possible states asymptotically approaches infinity, so we can model it as such. You can get a more "accurate" model using more math (with measure theory), but the terms will coalesce such that they are negligible.
I haven't formed a definite opinion on this, and I think I largely agree, but what about a counterargument like this one:

Virtually no one does long division manually anymore, or really any basic arithmetic greater than two digits, because we invented pocket calculators and smartphones that do this for us. And are we any worse mathematicians or engineers because of this? If anything, this has freed us to perform more higher-order reasoning.

And so with these kinds of "AI" assistants, is it possible that the types of reasoning that we offload onto them will free us to reason in even higher orders?
Plato was an elitist.

He didn't want or believe that the lower-class Athenians should have access to education. He very much believed in an Oligarchy where the State would be ruled by a select few.
Let's restart counting Unix timestamp to from 2020
Old counting start date: Jan 01 1970 01:00:00 GMT+0100

New counting start date: Jan 1 2020 00:00:00 UTC+0000

Example in Dev Tools how to get the new epoch time

const newBeginning = new Date('Jan 1 2020 00:00:00 UTC+0000')

const newEpoch = Date.now() - newBeginning.getTime()

console.log('New epoch timestamp', newEpoch)
wonder if there's a way to pool funds like some kind of ethereum contract. I know ethereum won't talk to bitcoin, but maybe there's a way to do it?
What does escape mean?

GPT4 can't run on my home computer. I don't have the giant pretrained model and I don't have a powerful enough CPU to run it at speed.

Would escaping mean copying the entire model somewhere else? Some subset of the model?

Wouldn't it need to copy its current state/thread to another computer?
I actually started working on a free open source tool for developers recently because I wanted to create a new blog for a startup and Wordpress was surprisingly the best option.

Wordpress is super outdated and bloated, and I feel like there has to be a better way.

I’d love some feedback if anyone has some to give! The link to the project is in my bio. Please :)
You disagree with the guy who created the term REST?
Not surprising taking into account how much of headache they generate.
This feels like a critique from 2013 when high IBU counts briefly became a fad. IPA land has mellowed down and "juicy" and "dank" flavors are more the recent, popular thing.
You can use various forms of projection mapping, i.e. triplanar projection or surface gradient projection...

That way you only need point positions in the mesh, and no UV or normals.

However, I think (at least in games: in VFX we go the other way and have many many "primvars" as vertex/point data) most real-time setups for hero objects end up having points and UVs, and then normals are normally done as a texture.
> they were evasive or hiding things in their financial reportings are off base

Nobody (in this thread) claimed this? And I disagree with the “within a billion or two,” though do think within a few tens of billions is accurate. The problem isn’t the specificity of the filing per se but the delay; that isn’t the balance sheet anymore.
What if you prompted with something like:

Let's play a game chess. Use the standard rules except that ....

Basically perturb the context to something a human would easily adapt to if they first knew the rules of chess but that would be difficult (or at least not obvious) to extrapolate from training data by ChatGPT (or more generally an LLM)
Right -- a job can be both (1) exploitative and (2) better than nothing.
> but it will quickly fall apart if you ask it something it has not been trained on

It would be pretty uninteresting tech if that were true: the ability to generalize beyond training data is a core feature of what NNs do and why we've bothered with them, and is almost certainly on display in the demos above.
Yes, this stuff is fun to work with and use as an aid to programming. But I think what's dawning on a lot of us is that it seems to be able to facilitate a large increase productivity. And given that large productivity increase will industry need as many software developers (and other knowledge workers)?
Yikes, thanks for the warning.

It's working OK, but honestly that may be because 1) most people don't care about licensing, even the difference between public domain, AGPL, BSD, or GPL, or frankly shareware, or even pirated; and 2) they're running from twitter so they have to go somewhere.

It may have been bit much to say "baby with bathwater", but to fix the analogy maybe I can say "Throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it's fine because you have another baby, and half as many babies ain't too bad. At least it's not zero.".
Do you have any statistics about how many Uber drivers have actually been a victim of crime in these “dangerous areas”?
Because peanuts are oily as all get out and every young kid that eats peanut butter is literally covered in it and will rub it on everything they touch, including kids that don't eat peanuts yet.
New Data Links Covid's Origins to Raccoon Dogs at Wuhan Market
AI translation is good enough to get business done. And it is instant, which opens up completely new opportunities and markets. Getting e-mail in a foreign language, translating it, writing a response, translating that back and closing a deal. Using a human translator would take much more time, because they cannot always be on call.

An adequate AI translation is a lot better than no translation.
Ah that makes sense. We could certainly investigate solutions to this. As a stopgap, if you see the log-line for the error in your output, you can copy just that log-line and ask Warp AI about that line specifically.
You didn't say that. You said "the CAO of the bank" was a Lehman person. That's not true.
My response was targeted towards the discussion. There are things this country badly needs but putting paper over them via laws we cannot reverse is a bad idea. Just because you have a dumpster fire out back you have to deal with doesn’t mean you should bulldoze the building, and to me the codifying of contractors like this prop does is like a bulldozer versus waiting a while for the fire dept to come in the form of better worker rights.
I this this is a fair point. I would argue, though, that 99% of the negative news (or most news, for that matter) will have zero effect on 99% of the population (e.g. focusing on individual crimes vs. aggregate crimes or a systemic crime problem).

In an ideal world, news outlets aren't pushing news that is shocking for the sake of being shocking (and therefore, increasing viewership/readership), but pushing news that is actually relevant to a good percentage of their viewers.

Sure, report things like severe weather forecasts, boil water advisories, etc.

But I don't need to know about every crime, or every scandal in Hollywood, etc. -- and this is most of the negative information that's covered. Not the things that are genuinely relevant to most of us.
And in infra there's figuring out what new approaches you can use to replace stuff in your infrastructure. Then figuring out the migration costs, evaluating its usability, and dealing with a director that's been sweet-talked by a vendor into using some other solution that sucks. Then deciding whether to just build in house b/c none of the solutions quite work and would require additional stuff to build on top. Then when you finally decide on something the back and forth with the vendor because you need to handle some unique thing they hadn't thought of.

The complexity in software engineering is almost never coding. Coding is easy, almost anyone can do it. Some specialized aspects of coding (ultra low latency realtime work, high performance systems, embedded) require deep expertise but otherwise it's rarely hard. It's dealing in ambiguity that's hard.

The hype around GPT-* for coding generally confirms my suspicions that 70+% of folks in software engineering/development are really "programmers" and 30% are actually "engineers" that have to worry about generating requirements, worrying about long term implications, other constraints, etc.

And every time that comes up those folks in the 70% claim that's just a sign of a poorly managed company. Nope. It's good to have these types of conversations. Not having those conversations is the reason a lot of startups find themselves struggling to stay afloat with a limited workforce when they finally start having lots of customers or high profile ones.
This already happens all the time with delivery services for the Bayview and Hunters Point neighborhoods of SF. The wording is usually something about avoiding the area "east of Interstate 280", e.g. https://www.purplestarmd.com/delivery/
That stance goes both ways: “It’s not ok for Uber to fuck people over as full time employees just because a few drivers want to treat Uber like a full time job.”
Criticisms like this are exactly how the model will grow multimodal support for chess moves.

Keep poking it and criticizing it. Microsoft and OpenAI are on HN and they're listening. They'd find nothing more salient to tout full chess support in their next release or press conference.

With zero effort the thing understands uber domain specific chess notation and the human prompt to play a game. To think it stops here is wild.

People are hyping it because they want to get involved. They want to see the crazy and exciting future this leads to.
Free Social Wirecutter
Does that matter? Seems weird to me to make that argument. I’m honestly quite confused by it.

A bowling bot that threw strikes 9 out of 10 throws and a gutter ball one time out of ten would still be a great bowler even though no human with the ability to make strikes that often would pretty much ever throw a gutter ball.

This is a weird kind of alien intelligence that does not have to behave like humans.
If you work in an office, you can probably find a poster with a bunch of them on it, somewhere. Break room or something like that, usually. You'll be able to find it because one of the legal obligations employers have to employees is to post that information. Not an exhaustive accounting, but it'll be a good introduction.

If your post was intended to be sarcastic or otherwise wasn't serious, sorry for missing your meaning.
Maybe, if you're in need of therapy but aren't in it, you're already making your own excuses for not going. But just in case that's too taxing in your current state, here's a "helpful" article!
I always joke to new parents that they should adopt this strategy. Glad to see I was right!
I think the idea of sharing writing in general could be broken down into a few fundamental benefits where the reception of said benefits depends on the person and the situation.

1. Sharing ideas to get feedback from a community can be incredibly useful for iteration.

2. Rubber duck principle: Sharing your thoughts out loud helps you refine them and you arrive at a better understanding of the subject. Example Stack overflow questions and answers.

3. Catharsis and/or Story telling: People who want to just write to express what they feel or like or do can be just incredible.

4. Money. Yeah.
One could argue that setting up a printing press for high-quality art printing is creative. Deciding what inks to use for a 7-color press and how to separate the original image was a creative act.

Or at least it used to be. Now it's automated.
Ah that's not true about beer in the US at all. I also don't particularly like IPAs and have no problem at the local breweries.

I'll grant that there was a time when a lot of places were IPA heavy but they basically always had a few other styles.

Now every brewery around me is really varied. They might have a couple types of IPAs but all have another 6 or 10 + styles. A sour or two, such as a Belgian or American type. Often a berlinerweisse. Some brown/stout/porter types. Not just oatmeal stout. And even different lager types besides "lager". I see Helles and bock, Vienna, pilsner, everywhere. A rauchbier at one place.

I've never really had to look at the IPAs in years.
There's a podcast called "The Past Times!" where two comedians just read a newspaper from 200 years ago. They're insane.
Carbon credits: central issuer doling out credits to hoard so you can sell them to a bank or polluter at a higher price in 2030

except there are many central issuers in a fragmented market and they all believe they’re doing something they’re not

so like crypto tokens
Note that the claim is not that it's an ELO 1400 human equivalent player but that it can play chess at a level that gives it an ELO of 1400, which is not nitpicking: that's a completely different thing. We're not testing whether it plays like a player with ELO x, we're proving that "it can't play chess" is fallacious. It can, and when prompted properly, it can achieve an ELO of 1400.

ELO allows for illegal moves: as per the rules of chess, you lose the game if you make an illegal move. The end, ELO doesn't care about why you lost a game on purpose.
I deliberately added a !isnan() to my tests. There be dragons there. ;)

More precisely, my test compared the bit-patterns directly:

i = 0 .. 2^32-1
memcpy(&x, &i, 4);
y = x + 0.0f;
memcpy(&j, &y, 4)
if (i != j) {printf("%f + 0.0 -> %f\n", x, y);

and I'm pretty sure that NaN addition, while resulting in a NaN, does not need to preserve the original bit pattern.

Regarding fast-not-so-math - Praise Kahan!
> You, apparently, believe the opposite.

I'm not sure how exactly you read that given the context, but I agree with you.
Yes, until we know how many people are doing it for what reasons, we both can’t say either with authority. I’m arguing that I’ve never seen a part timer, though I don’t use those services anymore. I do see a lot of appeal to that particular point by proponents of prop 22, but never seen hard numbers to trust.
And as a complete counter example, I find it useful but my wife does not. It doesn't seem to be a gender thing, but rather a personality thing, which may or may not line up along gender lines.
We are all primitives of the future. Forbearance toward, and forgiveness of, the deeds and attitudes of our ancestors is a way of atoning for our own barbarism in the eyes of the future.
So, having a background in chemical engineering, perhaps I’m missing something embarrassingly obvious here and should hand over my degree, but what does adding a few drops of water do to something that has already been heavily diluted with water? Most bourbons are not sold at barrel strength (which is typically around 60-70% ABV), and they are watered down to either “full proof” or somewhere around 45-50% ABV as the last step before bottling. Adding a few additional drops of water beyond this step does not initiate any chemical reactions and just dilutes the bourbon slightly further than whatever level the distillery decided was pleasing to a large number of consumers. At most, perhaps it encourages the drinker to swirl the glass a bit.

What am I missing here?
A low-cost (under $50) smartphone fluorescence microscope
They probably got them. The problem is that it's difficult to repeat, thanks to temperature, meaning users will get a random spread of outcomes. Today, someone got a legal game. Tomorrow, someone might get a grandmaster level game. But then everyone else trying to repeat or leverage this ends up with worse luck and gets illegal moves or, if they're lucky, moves that make sense in a limited context (such as related to specific gambits etc) but have no role in longer-term play.
ReTool is sorta this — I imagine that’s why they published this article!
ChatGPT is a brilliant piece of tech but random people trying it out for five minutes and making wild claims does it disservice. More so when such clickbait headlines are shared all over the internet as fact.

It is a language model. It cannot play chess. It can't even play tic-tac-toe, which was trivially solved by machines decades ago. Here's the result of a game I just tried:

X (me) – 0,0

O (chatGPT) – 1,1

X – 0,1

ChatGPT instead put my move at 0,2 for some reason

O – 2,2

Regardless of whether my move was at 0,1 or 0,2, I easily won. And after I won it just ignored the outcome and continued playing. Plus this was after telling it to play a perfect game.
My old Intel laptop from 2016 had a Realtek ethernet gigabit chip and Linux rand fine on it. I don't have it anymore to confirm which chip exactly, nor do I think they still sell that today.
My anecdote beats your anecdote. I’ve ridden in Ubers all across the country. I know many who are doing this part time.
You kidding me? They're arguing for a long term trend reversing, and use an example contemporaneous with the trend beginning! There's literally no better source to use.

The trend tracks with my experience. I (with influence from my parents) caught the tail end of the academic rational movement, was over it by the time it moved online as lesswrong and EA, and like to think I'm at least a bit ahead of the curve on the counter-swing.
East of 280 doesn't really denote anything about danger to me, as I don't recall those areas being any more dangerous than the rest of SF. If they deliver to Tenderloin and not there I highly doubt it's for the reason you're alluding to
GPT-4 was created by humans, but is too complex for humans to understand. This puts it in a broader class of valuable-but-incomprehensible things that includes the world economy, the source code for large software products, and life itself.

GPT-4 was created using a rapid iterative process where vast numbers of GPU cores made tiny iterative improvements to a model of human knowledge. Indeed Matt Ridley has argued that a similar evolutionary process is responsible for the creation of pretty much everything that matters.

But this kind of productive evolution doesn't just happen automatically by itself. You can't just pour out a pile of DNA, or people, or companies and expect something good to magically evolve. For productive evolution to happen you need the right structures. Those structures ensure that iteration is fast, that each step has low risk of causing harm, and that iteration progresses in a good direction.

I wrote a blog post about how those structures work, drawing on examples from machine learning, metric driven development, online experimentation, programming tools, large scale social behavior, and online speech.
If you're still having anger management issues (or depression, anxiety, whatever) - you should ask those questions to a therapist, who can help you find the best answers for you. Everyone needs something different.
It's important to clarify that emails are only retained for the duration of the chat session and are not stored beyond that. This approach ensures that users' email addresses are only used for verification purposes and are not vulnerable to unauthorized access or misuse.
Do you think that other sources are infallible? Almost every source is wrong sometimes. ChatGPT is as good as my professors were in college. They would regularly say things that were just completely incorrect but were knowledgeable and correct often enough to be helpful.
If you aren't breaking any laws transmitting like that in International Waters, why call it BREAKTHELAW and call out that use case? If you are breaking laws transmitting like that in International Waters, why would this setting be called out as specifically useful in International Waters?

Neither seems to make sense. (And does this come from the Microsoft team who came up with

setup.exe /IAcceptExchangeServerLicenseTerms_DiagnosticDataOFF

?)
It's difficult to see how such a hypothesis could be tested either experimentally or observationally. Sounds more like metaphysics?

Stars shine until they run out of fuel, and the age of a star - the status of its fuel, the buildup of fusion products - happens as time passes. Life on planets taps into the flow of sunlight from the star (and/or the flow of heat and chemical energy from the a hot planetary core) to generate complex structures in defiance of the regular direction of entropy (not violating conservation of energy, though). So... life reverses the arrow of time?
this morning I needed to populate an SQL database with dummy values, only a few dozen though

so I told ChatGPT the model with types and asked it for random values in csv format. I’m sure the API could spit out far more if I used that

I imported into the database and moved on. 30 seconds? mostly waiting for it to output

maybe we should make a site where people share what they used LLMs for
I dont see how .net was more tightly controlled than VB? VB was a closed source proprietary language tightly integrated with the IDE. They had absolute control.
Beautiful! I love obfuscated code, but I normally do it in high level languages. Always wanted to pick up golfing in asm.