skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I’m totally convinced that a new idea or a new plan or a new technique is never really understood when you just explain it.
> People will often think they understand, and they’ll say they understand, but then their actions show that it just ain’t so.

Isn't this the very reason that homework assignments exist? When I was in college, it took me two years to realize that I could have easily gotten As and Bs (instead of Bs and Cs) in my various math classes, physics, chemistry, etc. had I simply bothered to do my homework properly--or, to put it differently, had I only properly applied the knowledge which I passively acquired by reading the associated textbook sections. Notably, I was always convinced that I "understood" everything I had read, only to find out otherwise when I tried to solve any of the problems. It was only after I actively applied the knowledge I had picked up, that my understanding transitioned from superficial (as in, understanding the underlying logic itself) to concrete (being able to apply the logic toward other problems).

If you apply this to abstract and esoteric technical concepts, it is easy to see why someone might say they understand--and even believe that they do--while in reality only having a superficial understanding at best. The problem then becomes getting the other person to spend the effort to properly internalize the concepts being conveyed, before they have built up the requisite interest in the idea to be sufficiently motivated to carry out said effort.

It's probably also true, however, that this may only apply to sufficiently esoteric and complex ideas in the first place.
What marks the hard line for "intelligent"? It's largely philosophical. Is a human? Dolphin? Mouse? Cockroach? Tree?
It didn't fail ?
Terra was centralized garbage from the beginning. Serious players in the crypto industry did not take it seriously.
The sheriffs also came up short on the money they seized.
The EANABs is fine - I even do this at my parties as adults, it's good to have good non-alcoholic drinks for non-drinkers and for pacing.

That said, you're spot on about the ridiculous rules. One of the dumbest alcohol policies was to ban liquor containers over 750ml [1]. But you could still have any number of liquor bottles, as long as they were individually less than 750ml. The rationale is that since two 750ml bottles costs marginally more than a 1.5L handle of alcohol, that will reduce binge drinking. I kid you not.

1. https://bulletin.stanford.edu/pages/0Wpl6joexOePOiCBZWCB
I think people are overestimating how many parameters GPT-4 is really trained on.

While also overestimating how many parameters anybody really needs after fine tuning.

The market will find the sweet spot. Right now everyone’s tinkering with the 7B parameter LLM and then going to move up to the 65B one once they've refined the process. I think its fiction that anybody really needs a 10 trillion parameter LLM at all. It will be completely niche.
I don’t think RAM on phones has been increasing exponentially? For good reason — it uses a lot of power.
There was a conflict of opinions with D3 and human annotator. The quote above at least does not indicate who was right or wrong, merely noting that the machine had a more sensitive sarcasm detector.

So I guess maybe it’s saying the human was wrong after all?
This is somewhat solved. I believe this was a test image for Flamingo (from DeepMind).
I don’t have all the details because NDAs but I ask questions and get nods and grins from colleagues and friends at chip companies; Apple (and nVidia and Intels) silver bullet to cloud hosted, software based AI is AI chips.

We’re circling back around to local compute being the default as hardware performance of next gen phones and tablets reaches a “good enough” point for most users.

There will be scientific problems that will require modern server clusters but most consumer facing AI needs will be done on hardware within a decade.

I’m not saying AGI in a decade, I’m saying cutting edge logic embedded in software now will be the basis for logic in chips in the years to come.
It doesn't look like (from TFA or the collected spreadsheets) there's enough information collected (2nd choices) at the polls to support an instant runoff. So they'd need to go back to the polls for a traditional runoff if that were the case.
In practice, I find keeping your CSS separate from the JSX tends to be cleanest (your solution 1).

Separation of concerns with what are essentially totally different markup languages is best when you can. We tolerate it with JSX because there isn't a fantastic first-class declarative way to express an object, a list of objects, or filtering in HTML. (I have seen WebComponents and the MDN tutorial seemed like taking a step back.)
> ...if I couldn't explain it to my partner, it was not a very good solution.

I've found that in situations like that, I just write out a prototype and that clears up the confusion.

Usually, what I'm trying to explain is good, but there's some context that I can't get out of my head and into theirs that's critical to understanding the thing I'm trying to explain.
To anyone coming from the article linking to that Twitter thread of absolute frippery: Welcome!

Secondly, I've been looking for something like this for a while! Thanks for writing this up and posting it, I enjoyed reading this and can't wait to see the iterative development that happens as we better wrap our heads around how to efficiently run semantic search. The side effects of GPT-4's release including that the GPT-3 embedding models being so much cheaper (IIRC) is nothing to shake a stick at! Price performance is maybe not always so bad a thing (especially if it's convenient)! :D <3 :)))) :'D

Hope this sticks around and keeps improving in some form! :) :D :D <3
Stuff like cucumbers, yes, because otherwise they would have much too short of a shelf life. Otherwise I don't think I've ever seen individual fruits or vegetables wrapped in plastic here in Canada, and I didn't think that grocery stores in the USA are very different from ours. Bulk bags of apples, carrots, grapes, lettuce, spinach, etc., certainly, but individual apples wrapped in plastic seems ridiculous.
Most people have terrible listening and reading comprehension.

You can work around it (to a limited extent) by explaining the same thing multiple times, with slightly different descriptions.
Congrats on the launch. Like a lot of the people right now, am doing some side project with OpenAI + LangChain and immediately got some value out of this, specifically:

* When your chains get long/complex enough in LangChain, it's really hard to understand from debug output what's final prompt that actually being sent, how much it costs, or catching runaway agents. This pretty much solves that for me.

As a "prompt developer", one thing that'd be incredibly useful is a way to see/export all of my prompts and responses over time to help me tune them (basically a "Prompt" button in the left nav).

Congrats on the launch. So nice to see a tool in the space that lets you get up and running in 4 minutes.
I think you might have a misunderstanding. The "error" was misclassifying the sentiment of this imdb review [1], the human labeled it as positive but the LLM labeled it as negative. The researchers concluded that the model was more sensitive to sarcasm than the human reviewer.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1756778/
Coding is clearly all those things.
Do they? I've read DM papers with the comments in the sources... but maybe they institutionalized a stripping phase.
Yes. They are much, much more likely to do the right thing than what one can cook up themselves. And if used correctly, work consistently and performantly across platforms (e.g. in theory at least, release and acquire barriers could be just a full stop-the-world memory barrier on one platform, and something more granular on another).
Microsoft is hardly an unbiased evaluator of anything built by OpenAI.

And "closing the G gap" is like climbing to the top of a 10-foot ladder and saying "all that's left is to close the gap between here and the moon." AGI is much, much harder than a large language model. But then radically underestimating what it takes to get to AGI has been going on since the 1950s, so you're in good company.
True, I was just offering up an example on the software end, but it has to do with hobbyist embedded people think they can make an Arduino sketch for safety-critical applications.

I am more concerned with hardware issues, since the plethora of ESPs and Arduinos being made do not go through a Six Sigma type process to control the process. Also, the piece I pointed out did not have other separate hardware or other safety watchdogs in the box, like a Pilz unit supervising Beckhoff i/o. It was an Arduino with some relays off of its GPIO pins. High-integrity systems need to include both the hardware and software. There are actually standards for high-integrity systems aside from the usual aerospace stuff that applies to show control or machinery control. Safety-Related Control Systems (SRCS) are being addressed more and more in ASTM F24 for Amusement Rides and Devices.

I loved my Basic Stamp, Pic-chip, and Propeller chip days. Fun, but I am glad I progressed beyond the hobby level before anyone let me put a piece of kit up! Window displays were fairly innocuous!

I've always tried to add actual physical, mechanical interlocks on some of the stage machinery I've designed where a flipped bit or faulty i/o would cause harm or death! See my Arduino reference below.

I wish SPARK2014 would get more love. It has been around for a while with real-world applications, but Rust is the darling of the tech crowd now. AdaCore and Ferrous Systems are teaming up to bring some Ada goodness to Rust along with the legacy experience and apps.

Cool article on drones and SPARK2014: https://blog.adacore.com/how-to-prevent-drone-crashes-using-...

Cubesats:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/building-high-integrity...

Arduino and Safety-Critical Circuit:
https://forum.arduino.cc/t/safety-critical-circuit/319986/2
That's normal. You signed a contract where you take X money and promise to return X+Y money over N years. But instead, now you want to return only X+Z money when Z<Y. In some cases, it's ok, but it doesn't have to be. In fact, there could be loans where you just don't have such an option. E.g. if you buy government bonds, the government can't just give you back the money you spent and take the bond back. The fee is an intermediary option - you can do it, but for a fee. Sometimes, if they really want your money, they could give you the option for free - at least you'd pay Z, it's better than nothing. But it's no law of the universe that they must.
I think it originally described South American Fascism.

So not really Fascism (as you loose some power to the Church, something Mussolini refused to do), but but radical Christianity with fascist ideals (a motherland instead of a nation, you only exist through your work, the only people that matters is you and your family, stuff like that).

It didn't work great with catholics (i mean, without US state dpt, you'd have a lot less fascism in South america), because of all the cardinals and the pope, whil not the best human beings, are at least decent ones. Fascism have a hard time building power on catholicism in general, because the church power is in the Vatican, which is tolarable if you're Italian, but harder to use if you're not. You can see that during Bolsonaro authoritarian drift at the end, he was suddenly a lot less christian than he used to be when attacking gay rights and abortion rights, and wasn't able to capitalize on the church power anymore.

Historically Christofascism didn't perform great. Might be different in a non-catholic country.
Yup, kind of sucks but the end result is likely everyone and every actual living thing will suffer from this wave of “AI” because it’s an arms race now, let’s just keep burning fossil fuels and hope the thing spits out the answer to that problem ?
> giving a loaded handgun to a group of chimpanzees.

Hate to be that guy, but this is our entire relationship to AI.
> Hand-written assembly kernels don’t scale!

I used to think this. And I think, in theory, it is true. But the fact of the matter is, modern ML just doesn't use that many kernels. Every framework uses the same libraries (BLAS) and every library uses the same basic idea (maximally saturate FMA-like units).

Large language models are being run natively on commodity hardware with code written from scratch within days of their release (e.g. llama.cpp).

From a conceptual standpoint, it's really easy to saturate hardware in this domain. It's been pretty easy since 2014 when convolutions were interpreted as matrix multiplications. Sure, the actual implementations can be tricky, but a single engineer (trained in it) can get that done for a specific hardware in a couple months.

Of course, the interesting problem is how to generalize kernel generation. I spent years working with folks trying to do just that. But, in retrospect, the actual value add from a system that does all this for you is quite low. It's a realization I've been struggling to accept :'(
This is a constant fight. The UI design people want a bunch of pretty white space, and the actual users want dense information. Despite people insisting they're "data driven", the design people rarely seem to appreciate the feedback.
> There are many places where developers will play outright power games in order to posture and preserve their position.

Isn't that a strong signal that the culture is bad?

Maybe not of the entire company, but at least of the team that's happening in.
You might be right, though there is a vast difference between not supporting a language and actively barring access from different countries.
if the 7b model took 3 hours with the same hardware and codes and parameters, how can the 13b model be done in 3 hours?
All it needs is guardrails which is available already.
https://twitter.com/arankomatsuzaki/status/16390003799784038...
That is the problem. Unfortunately, this will be forgotten over the OpenAI hype brigade.

I thought Stable Diffusion was a bad name due to its very technical name. But now I have seen something even worse for LLMs. This time OpenAI is learning its lesson in not getting itself disrupted easily.

For any hope of challenging them, we need to be better at names. Even the name 'Bitcoin' caught on. Same with iPhone.

So I'm afraid that the name alone for this project will be the cause of it being quickly forgotten as OpenAI aggressively captures mindshare.

The same with 'Bard'; a horrific name. Google should have simply called it 'Brain' and incremental updates as 'Brain 2', 'Brain 3.6', etc and renamed their existing AI division to Google Brain Labs. Easy.

How is that difficult?
Exactly. more than 5 years ago or so I used a lot of Rails (and have worked with Java/C++ before), but after switching to a typed language like Go on large projects I completely removed Rails from my future projects.

The Ruby/Rails magic feels like its not worth it for long-term or even short-term maintenance.
This is an argument for agnosticism. All else being equal it would be just as presumptuous to postulate the existence or non-existence of an entity.
But I think that the arc of history would suggest that all things are not equal. We do after all know a thing or two about consciousness even if a clean definition eludes us (we also don't really have good definitions for lots of things so maybe finding definitions is not the more urgent goal of philosophy). It was less than 100 years ago that vitalism held sway in the philosophy of biology. We find a similar state in the study of mind. You can still postulate the existence of something like the soul, but I think it is increasingly hard to say that this thing is not generated by matter as people once said.
Sex and drugs it seems, the usual boogie men.

https://archive.is/jEwSZ
"The Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus, used to train a trillion parameter LM in [43], is cleaned, inter alia, by discarding any page containing one of a list of about 400 “Dirty, Naughty, Obscene or Otherwise Bad Words”. This list is overwhelmingly words related to sex, with a handful of racial slurs and words related to white supremacy (e.g. swastika, white power) included. While possibly effective at removing documents containing pornography (and the associated problematic stereotypes encoded in the language of such sites) and certain kinds of hate speech, this approach will also undoubtedly attenuate, by suppressing such words as twink, the influence of online spaces built by and for LGBTQ people. If we filter out the discourse of marginalized populations, we fail to provide training data that reclaims slurs and otherwise describes marginalized identities in a positive light"

from "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? " https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922

That list of words is https://github.com/LDNOOBW/List-of-Dirty-Naughty-Obscene-and...
Regarding the Jack Crusher storyline:

Season 3 of Picard finishes a lot of the story arcs that got left over the runtime of TNG.

Take the storyarc that was begun in TNG S04E02 "Family" and continued in ST:VII "Generations" of the legacy of the Picard family. Both in "Family" and in "Generations" the desire to leave a legacy, to continue the family, is well established. The Jack Crusher storyline continues this very arc.

The show doesn't have to explore those feelings, because they've already been explored, this is just the conclusion of a 33 year old storyline.

I agree though that it'd be awesome if it was just the old TNG, continued, but I doubt that'd run well nowadays. First, the new showrunners obviously took some time to get the feeling of Star Trek - their seasons have improved one by one.

Second, them splitting what made TNG well into multiple shows - Picard resolves the open storylines, Strange New Worlds asks more philosophical monster of the week questions, Discovery explores progressive inclusivity - feels like a deliberate choice considering the fanbase is quite wide, and everyone expects something different.

Personally I really like that it's less pure action, a little more grounded, actions have consequences, Starfleet itself is involved again, it's all going in the right direction. Definitely not there yet, but after so many years of going in the wrong direction, this is good.
Someone who would rather self-host could use an embedding from huggingface (minilm is designed for this task) and faiss for the similarity search. I would really like to see a cross-encoder trained for search as that would noticeably improve on bi-encoder approach these guys who use.
Because Rails isn't good at building modern frontend experiences. It's built around static pages.

RSCs (and Next) are (going to be) built for dynamic pages. Loading new data from the backend is as simple as editing an ERB template, and you get updates on top of that. Suddenly you don't need to think about APIs nearly as much, you don't need to worry about making fetch requests, you don't need separate codebases.

If Rails decides to make data and UI streaming a primary building block then that would be awesome. Until then, that's why you would use RSCs.
Ah yes in jokes on a big early draft. Usually it’s funny because it’s at least a bit true but incongruent with the final work desired. Funny machine helping coauthor research on its self and investigating if it’s sentient with a “theory of mind “ and etc. or not and all the rest. Starting to sound like a great sci-fi book.
No your just using old numbers. headcount has also shrunk.

You can't use numbers and raw logic because it has various levels of inaccuracies and things you haven't accounted for especially when the numbers and data come from times prior to the layoffs.

Reports from recruiters and people who are unemployed are telling me things that are significantly different. There is a fundamental change in the job market.
Block (formerly Square) inflated user numbers
> Add in the nearly infinite profit and power motive to get hold of strong AI and it'll almost impossible to stop, as governments, billionaires, and megacorps all over the world will see it as a massive competitive disadvantage not to have one.

I wouldn't say that this is an additional reason.

I would say that this is the primary reason that overrides the reasonable concerns that people have for AI. We are human after all.
Got it, that paragraph is talking about just the M1 and M2 lines even though it starts by mentioning all 4.
And Joscha Bach might define "soul" in terms of computation.
The kernel has changed its threading APIs, the clone API, and how syscalls are made several times in the past, and you cannot predict how they will change in future.

I thought "don't break userspace" was one of the key principles of Linux design?
Thanks! I use a 46-key ergo layout (Mitosis) that would be perfect for a laptop and have always itched to have it integrated into the computer.
I'm still using it - it does the job.
I think there can be a bit more complexity than React (components, services, interceptors etc) but I've never found it to be hard to understand, even with all the extra stuff.
I never said that government is the only source of harm or that it should be eliminated. I'm not sure why you jump to that conclusion.

It seems like you agree that there should be limits to the scope of government as well.

We might differ on where those limits lie, but maybe not.

My primary point is that these limits are what mitigate the damage misguided individuals can do to others.
Is it better than Stable Diffusion 1.5?

Disclosure: No job, do whatever I want.
They would not, they're not even trying to be the same thing.

I get that you don't like RSCs, that's fine you're allowed to have that opinion, but you can't justify it by saying it's a CRUD framework. Apples and oranges.
"...you have to put in the work to be understood and to show people it's worth their time to pay attention. Communicating well is part of the job."

That's fine and I don't disagree but the problem is that there are very few truly good communicators out there (there is just not enough to go around).

Communication is difficult and really effective communication is very difficult. I'll use myself as an example, When I post to HN I usually know what I want to say and I generally make myself clear—in fact I go considerable lengths ensure I'm not misinterpreted or misconstrued.

To ensure this does not happen I'll often restate what I've said in a different way and or provide examples. This makes my comments long, prolix and boring so few bother to read them.

I don't have a Shakespeare-like talent to be short, pithy and simultaneously convey what I'm saying both succinctly and accurately, and I believe that not many people do.

OK, so when people have some talent, skill or knowledge that needs to be conveyed to the world and they can't get their point across effectively then what are they to do?
HIPAA applies if they accept insurance.
This hasn’t been my experience at all.

I’ve been remote for over 15yrs starting as a junior and becoming a senior with added management responsibilities. I’ve been mentored and have mentored remotely.

Remote can and does work, but the company needs to be set up or adjust for it properly. Remote and asynchronous communication needs to be the primary way to communicate for it to work IMO.

Here is a pre-pandemic post on Wordpress, which started as a remote first company: https://hbr.org/2013/03/how-wordpress-thrives-with-a-1

You mentioned troublesome employees, these also exist in the office but they also impact other employees. I’ve had many complaints over the years of disruptive staff in the office making it difficult for others to focus and get work done. I’ve only known one remote employee who clearly wasn’t spending his time working.

I need hours of uninterrupted time to get work done. This just doesn’t happen at the office.

I know it’s not for everyone, I’ve had staff leave because they need the social aspect of working in an office, but in general, in my line of work, people prefer to be remote.