skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It depends on 1) the domains 2) your comparison group.

On 2), many software engineers and computer scientists compare these language models' logic and creative problem solving abilities with themselves and their peer group. But they are usually 1-2+ SD above average humans at these things.

(Note: Someone gave GPT-4 an IQ test and the result was 96, slightly below the average of reference human group at 100. The SD of an IQ test is 15 or 16.)

For language-focused domains, there is evidence that GPT-4 is already better than most humans, eg. 99th percentile at GRE Verbal, beat humans at a fairly novel puzzle like Twofer Goofer, which is not in its training set.

Ref: GPT-4 Beats Humans at Hard Rhyme-based Riddles https://twofergoofer.com/blog/gpt-4

Yes, GPT-4 is not an AGI yet, but the research paper (OP) has a point.
Plot twist: all of this is just a very clever Maersk marketing campaign.
what is typed holes?
Interesting! I'm looking forward to seeing what you have lined up.
What about the training data corpus ? Other than large cos like Google or Meta, can anyone else procure the same ?
> We might look at 2022-2023 as a brief golden age when regular people could use stuff like GPT-4

Not sure about that since it seems to being baked into a lot of products at places like Microsoft.

However, I'd change your statement a bit: We might look at 2023 as a brief golden age when regular people could access trained parameters (the LLaMA params) and run these models on their own machines (such as with alpaca.cpp). I doubt we'll get access to LLM params again unless some kind of non-profit, actual open source organization is formed to produce them and put them out into the public domain.
> This whole talk of aligning AIs values with human values seems to mostly ignore the immense diversity of human values.

Imagine if I were to pick a uniformly-random point from within all the observable universe. What are the odds that that point is farther from you than the farthest any human has travelled? If I said it's a certainty, would you reply: You seem to be ignoring the immense distance humans have gone! We've crossed the mountains! We've sailed the seas! The Moon is really far away, and humans have gone there!

Yes, human values are very diverse, and it might be impossible to create one AI whose values capture that whole breadth. But for people involved with AI alignment, that range of diversity still fits within a very narrow box compared to the vastness of the space of possible values. It's kind of analogous to the mindset of "pale blue dot" -- once you really understand how big space is, and how small Earth is in comparison, it totally changes your perspective. It's hard to have productive discussions between people who "grok" that and people who don't.

Even just on Earth, we have some species that do really weird things. Bugs that eat their own mates and their own children, for example. The space of all possible values has regions that are even weirder than that.

Part of the idea of a "paperclip optimizer" is to illustrate just how it is that an AI could end up with completely alien values as a consequence of its programming. As diverse as humans are -- and we do have people who get really obsessed about certain hobbies -- I doubt you will find a society with values like that. The closest you would get are some extreme illnesses like drug, gambling, or gaming addiction. The people who starve to death while playing World of Warcraft. But even then I think if you offered a gambling addict a pill that would completely cure their addiction, while still allowing them to freely enjoy slot machines, most would probably take it in an instant. They don't want to be addicted. So I think maximizing slot machine pulls is not a value. A paperclip maximizer would reject such a pill.

The author of the article believes that mind space is narrow; I think that the space of functioning mental algorithms might be narrow, but the space of objectives that those algorithms apply to could very well be extremely vast. The reason for the difference is that the space of mental algorithms has to be constrained by what works, while the space of possible moral values is really constrained only by self-consistency.
My initial contributions sometimes stem from noticing a bug while trying a library's examples. I often just fix the bug and submit a PR (e.g. for major memory leaks, crashes, and Windows incompatibilities). This can be useful to the project, since the examples affect first impressions.
False. If your local governing agency (whether private or public) fails to maintain the local parks, schools, and roads, the value of your house will fall. Houses are securities according to the Howey test.
Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars
Is it that low?

How do people think that roads get built? Among many many other things that people take for granted.
Was that BLM/ANTIFA HQ? The building will lose value because of all the woke air inside.
>it has no way of knowing what "white", or "bear", or "north" actually represent.

What does it mean to know what "white", "bear" or "north" actually represent?
Data will transmit to a third party, which may be a problem in some usecases
You say: OpenAI really seems to believe that not publishing details will save them from competition.

Then say: The only competitive advantage that OpenAI has here is a headstart of 6-12 months

It's almost as if they want to keep this advantage, huh? Blows my mind how business illiterate some HN commenters are.
Anyone else incredibly amused by the tone of this article?
It’s a tricky one. I feel like enthusiastic users’ recommendations (browser tabs!!) is what grew Firefox in the first place, but also what killed its market share as users became enthusiastic about Chrome instead (fast! crashes limited to one tab only!!).

These days, Firefox just isn’t better than it’s competition in ways that large numbers of people care about, alas. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any big cohort of users enthusiastic about any browser in particular right now. I doubt Mozilla can fix that easily. I think it’ll take the next revolution in browser tech (whatever that is).
Nobody has any kind of inalienable right to their preferred business model.

You want some new crypto rules to make your business more lucrative. Meanwhile, I want someone to explain to me how crypto is a necessary piece of our economy.

The way I see it Coinbase should be thankful that crypto wasn't banned or classified as a gambling instrument.
TATP is so unstable, that even though it is chemically speaking relatively straightforward to create, it is actually quite difficult to produce while staying alive/in one piece.

It is sensitive to temperature variations, high temperatures, ANY open flame, ANY friction (rubbing your fingers together is more than enough), ANY shock, such as failing to set down a container, dish, or vial slowly enough, and having a small static charge in your body will also set it off. Because of this, TATP actually has no current industrial or military application.
"At some point, during the macOS Mojave beta, Apple pulled Nvidia's ability to sign its code, which ended Nvidia's support for macOS in one spiteful, anti-competitive move. In order for GPUs to be Metal compatible, they needed drivers, and Nvidia wasn't able to release drivers."
Leaving the legal aspects of crawling aside, I think there is an important distinction here between 1. "can you procure it" and 2. "do you have enough money to process it all"

1. Yes, I think almost anyone can write code to procure the training corpus, in theory, and test it on a small scale

2. No, only the biggest labs and universities have enough resources to process such huge amounts of data and iterate on models with that scale. But that's just a matter of resources that can be overcome with partnerships between industry and academia that are common anyway. All the big labs already have huge efforts underway to reproduce GPT-X and it's just a matter of time before they catch up.
You accuse others of 'swallowing urbanist propaganda' but that's both highly uncharitable and also grossly ignorant given the extremely high demand for pre-war and denser areas.
3 hours, IPO not impacted. People who don’t value inclusion identified. Win-win. Hope you’re enjoying Tucker Carlson (alone, likely) tonight.
> Prices will go down in total value due to interest rate rises.

As somebody with the cash, I'd settle for even seeing this much. So far it's been high interest rates with the same high prices (in much if the Northeast).
https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4-system-card.pdf

Does anyone have a summary?
If someone doesn't file a Form 990, they are out for themselves and want to fuck (sorry... extract value from) everyone who isn't a (majority) share holder.

Open AI is not the first for-profit philanthropy. It's just another evangelical church with a televangelist at the helm. TED talks are sermons.

TBF: at least Open AI doesn't pretend to be a charity anymore... I feel sorry for the working sops who held MSFT stock in 401Ks and funded a massive tax write-off for the capital class. Dumbasses, amirite?
Yes, EVs are practical, in a general sense. But buyers don't make purchasing decisions based on everyone's average needs, they make them based on their own specific needs. Concerns of practicality are not entirely boolean, and are why we don't all drive one single model of car -- people have different needs.

I really want to buy an EV. I have a single family home. And my average commute is < 10 miles per day. I'm the perfect candidate, right? Well, I live in a cold climate, and I drive 150+ miles most weekends. And once per month I take a 300 mile trip, one way, with no charger at my destination.

It is possible to do these drives? Yes. I can get a Bolt and cross my fingers that the Electrify America charger I need is operational. But for the same or similar price I could get a Prius/Corolla/Camry/Accord Hybrid which would provide a better experience overall for that specific use case. And everything around the drivetrain is also well built.

But if you still insist that my use case is silly, and most people can get around just fine in a Bolt, I propose this: Most people can get around just fine in a Versa/Accent/Rio/Mirage for $10K less than the Bolt, too.
Coinbase claims that none of the crypto assets it lists meet that test. For the coins Coinbase lists:

- Criteria #2 is debatable
- They don't meet criteria #3
- Or they don't meet criteria #4

Lots of coins look like commodities. They represent a digital asset, not ownership in a common enterprise or a loan. CFTC officials have said as much, as Coinbase quoted: "the SEC has no authority over pure commodities or their trading venues, whether those commodities are wheat, gold, oil…or crypto assets." - Then-CFTC Commissioner Quintenz

Coinbase believes that all of the tokens they list are securities. The SEC needs to tell Coinbase specifically what it believes they are doing wrong - it will have to eventually, if it files suit.

It feels like a lot of people have knee-jerk crypto=bad reactions. But read their press release - it really sounds like Coinbase is trying their best to comply with U.S. regulation, and the regulators aren't doing their jobs.

And last - For digital assets that do look like securities, the SEC provides no way to register them, and thus vaguely implies that Americans can't own digital securities. That's not their decision to make - they either have to do their job and regulate crypto securities, or get congress to ban them.

Edit: arcticbull pointed out that many digital assets do seem like securities (ICOs). Updated this comment with Coinbase's claim that they don't list any tokens that resemble securities
No, that isn't their job, that is what they do but it isn't their job. The owners would gladly replace lying managers who fudge numbers with an AI that never betrays them and communicates problems accurately.

If you just replace one manager you get the issues you enumerated, but if you replace all managers with AI then all of that just disappears and the AI just has to prioritize and make decisions according to the will of upper management. This would replace most middle managers, so no more need for shitty corporate politics.
Securities regulators worldwide have devised processes for compliant crypto securities, so it is possible.

It’s more like the guy running the FAA is a former Boeing exec and refuses to grant airspace authorization to rocketry startups.
Parents Can Talk About AI and ChatGPT with Their Kids
Alienating your employees who have the most job mobility isn’t back door layoffs. If they had excess staff like others, which by all accounts they didn’t hire at the same rates, they would have done layoffs by now too. This is just them gambling that their preferred management dictate won’t cause too much attrition.
If you take the SECs view on how securities work, everything from a house to a baseball card to a GPU is a security.
It's not controversial it's factual
Cryptocurrency's original selling points were:

0)Freedom from central bank hegemony

1)Decentralized infrastructure beyond the reach of regulators

Coinbase is something of a collaborationist in this regard. They created a centralized platform and got in bed with US regulators. They've asked repeatedly for, "reasonable regulation".

Reasonable people can disagree about these issues. I know many here are die hard cryptocurrency haters. However, there's no room for synthesis between the original premises of the cryptocurrency movement and "reasonable regulation".

If regulators are not attacking cryptocurrency, is it really living up to the original ideals?
A headstart doesn't matter unless you can keep it. The point is that there are many mort smart people and resources outside of OpenAI and there are inside of OpenAI. If they focus their efforts, they will easily catch up.

A headstart is not a competitive moat like network effects are. Go and try to raise money for your startup from a VC and tell them "well, everyone is doing the same as us, but we started 6 months earlier!!" - nobody cares.
I’d be really skeptical too, and I hope the price-per-square-foot is much lower to compensate.

I would imagine that some well-angled mirrors near the top of the building can greatly increase the amount of light that goes down that hole.
Sure they do. Explanation here. [1]

> Crypto folks: We want regulatory clarity.

> SEC: Check out 'Framework for “Investment Contract” Analysis of Digital Assets' [1]

> Crypto folks: NOT LIKE THAT.

The regulators have been super clear, the crypto folks just don't like what they're seeing. They saw people who didn't ask make money, and people who did ask get shut down. So they didn't ask. But the noble ostrich is only able to keep their head in the sand for so long.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-an...
Makes sense, you've changed my mind a bit but only the part that consciously understands.
Incredible book, and I’m not even finished with it yet. :)
> I think "all these crypto projects are securities" is a perfectly clear stance.

That's not the part of their stance that's unclear. The unclear part is the part where they say "please register" when they really mean "get bent".

> their calls for clarity are actually calls for "please change your mind"

Coinbase's calls for clarity are actually calls for "you asked us to register, so let us submit a registration application already".

> really I see all along the SEC has been clear in saying that it's all securities.

Again that's not the part of their stance that's unclear to me.

> Now, enforcement actions go in front of a court and the court may disagree with the SEC, which then clarifies regulation by setting a legal precedent for the SEC being wrong.

The SEC's job is to write clear regulations, not to invite corporations to pay $1000/hr lawyers to conduct mind-reading sessions in court.
I wonder what percent of this comes from people Musk replatformed?
I don't the the US has any mainstream left leaning channels. MSNBC and CNN might have some socially liberal takes, but they never provide airtime for left economic policy discussions. When it comes to those topics they are squarely pro corporate, privitization, financialization on industry sectors, etc. They give very little attention to workers rights topics, labor unions, crimes of big business, etc. Neither do the FOX News type channels. All of their funding comes from the same sources, mega corporations who also don't want airtime provided to left economic policy discussions. Corporate media has narrowed the area of acceptable discourse. And eight corporations own 90% of all media consumed in the US. There is a big filter of acceptable discourse that is intended to lead the public to the conclusion that those are the only topics worth discussing.
This nitpick is fair. My kids are pretty young still. 30 lines of C is not simple for them without help. 30 lines of C wasn’t simple for the employees of the schools I went to either, who were baffled by the technology that was shoved at them. My “computer class” teacher lamented that she only got stuck with the class because the rest of the faculty realized she had figured out how to use the mouse before anyone else. Simple or not, I would make a small bet that not a single faculty member in that district to this day knows what a PID controller even is, and a very large bet that no one at the time did. They provide a very standard education.

But yes, you are quite correct that a PID controller is not the only (or even most complete) application of integral calculous. The example was given as a pathway by which an unschooled child could become aware of a topic concurrent to an understanding of its importance. By no means did I intend to imply that the education should stop there. There's also nothing stopping an unschooled child from pursuing higher education or degree. Indeed, already knowing how to learn seems to place them at an advantage in such a case.
Sorta. It didn't hit a hard boundary per se, but SRAM has practically stopped scaling and even random logic is only scaling at about 1.5x every three years or so. Like a lot of cases it's an s-curve, and we're on the other side of the bend at this point.
It may be possible if you programmed the pi bare metal, I can't imagine a non rt os working.
> they should have legally obligated SVB to remain solvent!

They did!

When SVB failed to meet those regulatory obligations, the bank was seized and the depositors were made whole.

So the system worked, right?
When people say that Teams is worse than Slack or Zoom, I feel like I am taking crazy pills.

In my opinion, Teams an order of magnitude better than Zoom and at least somewhat better than Slack.
Au contraire, no one knows how large GPT-4 is, which is the single best predictor of performance (for a model trained to convergence). The GPT-4 paper spent much of its time writing about this — they did some small scale experiments with 1/1000th the compute, then picked a loss level they wanted and trained GPT-4 till it got it.

Neither the exact loss level nor the number of parameters are revealed by the paper. Unfortunately it’s not possible to guess these from outside observations.

Will this save them from competition? No, but it certainly makes things harder. Everyone immediately aimed at 175B the moment GPT-3 was published. GPT-4 is now a question mark.
Whether Google's search is good or bad isn't going to be adequately explored by a brief Twitter hot take.
It's extremely disingenuous to act like these tendencies are new, or as if anything has fundamentally changed. It hasn't. 150 years ago, Karl Marx articulated all of these characteristics of capitalism, including the tendency of capital to accumulate, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the contradictions and complexities of financialization, and much more.
I've largely hated the slow transition of information from barebones html scrawlings to the modern video presentation format. One thing I've discovered is installing an HTML5 video speed controller extension that lets me run most videos at 2.5-3.0x speed. It really seems to help. I think part of the problem is that most videos are tuned well below the rate I like to scan in information.
Across the board we just sucks. Can't be explained by environment being different if US states all exhibit the same pathologies.
You're confusing real money with fake money. In America, we can only withdraw so much real money every day, too. The banks will tell you things like "We only keep $2000 in real money in the safe."

But the fake money never gets printed. It just lives in bits and bytes. You can move it around as much as you want.

Fortunately, it's as good as real money. It's just not as good as real wealth. Real wealth is in ammunition. Never goes down in price, skyrockets in price when the world gets more dangerous, and can be used to protect itself. That's where America has you beat, because we can turn fake money into ammunition whenever we want, as fast as we want.

Not to mention, it's a consumable resource that keeps well in storage but requires a high level of technology to produce. And even under non-apocalyptic conditions, it's about half as efficient as silver coins by weight and volume.

People downvoting this are politically opposed to guns because that's the fashionable thing to be in SV, but hackers have a strong gun culture. Always have, always will. Because we're practically all either anarchists or military.
I don't think it's a smart idea to build any serious business using a tech that you can't replace. ChatGPT is great tool to help with coding for example but it's by no means substitute for an engineer. If someone starts a business by hiring a number of bootcampers and giving them ChatGPT hoping to run a serious business that way - well it's their risk to take... But no crying later...
Wait wait? How come in all the commercials with athletes and actors they don't say how much the actor was paid then?
Different incarnations of "privatize the gain, socialize the losses". Coinbase became the company it is today because they have the first mover's advantage in an unclear regulatory landscape, and it pulled in profits only because of that regulatory arbitrage. Now they are turning around and playing victim of the same regulatory landscape that made them what they are today.
Agree. This is a stupid way to get rid of your best people.
The problem with these studies is that socialism means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For instance, some interpret it as "Socialism is when roads".
So, I am not saying the crypto community (or Coinbase) is right or wrong here. But it's not as clear-cut as OP makes it out.

While Howey's test is well-known, each crypto asset can be argued to pass or fail for different reasons:

1. The biggest issue is what constitutes a "common enterprise"? Most federal courts (but not all) have defined it as a horizontal structure where assets are pooled. (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/159597203.pdf) Coinbase can argue that a straight purchase of a crypto token has no "common enterprise" because there is no pooling of assets.

2. It's not trivial to prove that profit for a given crypto token comes from the "efforts of the promoter or third party." Who even is the promoter of a distributed token? What identifiable third party's efforts is the profit in the crypto sale even dependent on?

3. Finally, is there always an expectation of profit? How is buying a vanity NFT different from purchasing a vanity domain that I do not use? What about a vanity NFT avatar I want to show off on Twitter / Reddit / Telegram?

It's a complex case with lots of nuances. Whichever way courts rule - it will set new precedents.

What we have here is different from the allegations that the SEC has made against other crypto entities, which were mostly about mixing consumers' assets, insider trading, improper disclosures during promotions or even straight-up money laundering.

Those cases were not going to set new case law. This case will.
lol - have you not seen the united states?