skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it.
…

> The government already operates roads. Nothing would change.

Okay. So we established that you don’t mind if the government runs the roads as long as they pay for it (tolls, gas tax).

I’ll go out on a limb and say that until the Federal stepped in, our road system was haphazard and ineffective. Having standards and an interstate system was crucial, and only possible with government.

Now given that law enforcement and military can incur injuries, can we have an effective law enforcement without the medical support to get them back up when injured or sick?

Now for this portion:
> So it’s not unsurprising that your attempts at forcing others to pay for your things is met with hostility when you and others that share your views don’t even want to face those policies themselves.

Why would you assume the worst ? This goes against Hacker News’ core principles.

> People like you always pull this “indirectly use” argument to justify making people pay for things they do not use. I don’t pay for the gym membership of the delivery guy, this is no different.

I help pay for all of infrastructure, the building safety codes that ensure the gym doesn’t collapse or electrocute me, that the machines aren’t death traps, etc.

It’s great that I don’t have to pay for a membership or other services if I don’t want it, but the foundation that makes these services even possible or reliable costs money.

Having these services on standby also costs money, even if you don’t use it. So yes, I’m already paying more than I’ve ever received in healthcare.

Back to healthcare. What I find frustrating is that your kneejerk reaction is neither unique nor uncommon, yet it
never comes with a workable alternative and solution.
Shall we do the Declaration of Independence next? ... This is so silly.
Fun thought exercise — do you want an electric lawnmower? Most people don’t for the same reason they don’t want an electric chainsaw, trimmer, etc.

They work well in small yards (very small), but Beyond that you’re talking multiple sessions of work as it charges.

Imo that’s the hurdle for green tech. Great for public transit which is consistent, but difficult for large land which is less developed. You want to leave both options available. Imo id use electric if I could, but I can’t where I’m at
Maybe that's not the right board, but a level shifter is what, $1 or so? Could be on the board itself easily.
Innovation.

Could GPT be given some screenshots of a game you want to play and then code it up?

Could you run through a demo of some competitor’s app and have it make something similar but better?
You're right, maybe a whole book is unrealistic. I guess it's more likely that they'd have someone make small corrections, like if enough people flag a common result as wrong or poor.
the shadows are so dark (or the secrecy so official?)....that for all we are able to know, they already done it.
You can keep butter for a long time in room temperature if it is submerged in water (e.g. in a pot). It also spreads really well, but your bread may get wet if you are not careful.

Something that I learnt in post-1989 Czechoslovakia when we cut down on our electricity bill by turning the fridge off for weeks :) Ancient knowledge of my grandma who grew up in eastern Slovakia without any electricity served us well.
OK: I believe authoritarians should be laughed at early and often. If anybody happens construe the people I mistakenly described as authoritarians as fucking authoritarian, please mock the motherfuckers.
The Navy is looking for "builders" for it's next generation of submarines

U.S. NAVY | UNITED STATES MARINES | COMMERCIAL | BUILDSUBMARINES.COM | NAVY'S 'NEXT-GEN' SUBMARINES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RVDcwOYKi4
Too many things. Added on purpose to food (preservatives, etc), added on purpose to produce (pesticides, etc..), added by chance to processed food (mineral oil...).
Absolutely not. If you work for a company that's even semi-serious about security and has to be audited, you could be fired. Honestly the fact that you're asking this means your company has utterly failed at basic security training.

Don't send your code to any cloud you don't own, and especially don't send it to a service that's explicit about using your submissions in new training sets.
CLIP, which powers diffusion models, creates a joint embeddings space for text and images. There's a lot of active work on extending these multimodal embedding spaces to audio and video. Microsoft has a paper just a week or so ago showing that llm's with a joint embeddings trained on images can do pretty amazing things, and (iirc) with better days efficiency than a text only model.

These things are already here; it's just a matter of when they get out of the research labs... Which is happening fast.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.14045
For another example of this lazy marketing strategy see the garbage live action remakes Disney has been putting out there over the past few years.
onrender.com was banned because of past abuses by spammers. I've unbanned it so you can post your submission now.

In the future, please follow the site guidelines and email hn@ycombinator.com with this kind of thing. I only found out about this because another user did that for you.
I think you are right in a sense. Whether ChatGPT 'understands' might be moot if it produces responses to that effect. Understanding to me implies perceiving the intended meaning, which to me implies sentience. Does it matter though if it doesn't have this property? As the aphorism goes (paraphrasing) "asking whether machines think is like asking whether submarines swim", ie. it's kind of beside the point. If you get the result you want, in this case understanding-like responses, then that's enough right?
I'd say the F-111 is a particularly odd case, given the vastly different initial requirements involved. To be clear, everything that made the F-111 a great long-range interdictor for the USAF would have have also made for a great long-range interceptor and strike platform for the USN. It wouldn't have made a good air superiority fighter, and the experience over Vietnam made it clear that this capability was still very much necessary, and there was nowhere near enough budget (or, more critically, carrier deck and hangar space) for the USN to operate both an air superiority fighter and a dedicated long-range interceptor.

There is a very long list of could-have-been multi-service aircraft, though. If you look at the number of ground-based operators of the F-18, clearly the USAF could have been satisfied with it as well. The USN probably could have been satisfied by a navalized F-22 derivative (the story of 1990s/early 2000s procurement is complicated), the USMC definitely could have been satisfied by a navalized AH-64 rather than developing the AH-1Z, etc.

The services are just very resistant to ever needing to compromise on procurement issues unless Congress and the DoD make it clear that they have to. The USN feels their needs are special, and that the USAF would dominate any shared procurement and force them to compromise too much, while the USAF feels like every pound added for carrier operation is a direct affront. Neither view is entirely wrong - the development delays and compromises of a navalized platform like the Dassault Rafale are another good example of the costs of shared development - but the simple reality of modern aircraft development costs and defense budgets means joint platforms are here to stay.
This dissent is well justified.
AR glasses are a very dubious solution looking for a problem (that also bring up a lot of their own problems). Modern phones do so much and are totally ubiquitous. In the design of consumer electronics, it is hard to find a really compelling answer to the basic question: "why not just do this with a mobile app?". There is no need to commit to the tooling costs without a decisive need to have a piece of hardware built. For AR glasses, all the answers to this question that I have seen strike me as being sub $1000 dollar answers (would do it for ~$300 but not $600). Informally I can say that among people how are paid to use AR headsets (i.e. they are given one for free by their work and are paid 6 figure salaries to make them useful) usage is minimal. Senior executives on these projects are generally oblivious to the challenges and only wear these things at major meetings. Designers work with Figma and photoshop more than blender and frequently don't even check their designs against the optical issues of the displays. Engineers start spinning up byzantine projects for new Operating Systems because why not. The only people who consistently wear and use these machines for more than 2 minutes at a time are the prototypers. And while they are indeed serious users I have a hard time trying to parse whether they are just having fun playing in a world class sandbox or whether they actually think these are useful devices (Prototypers are the only people in tech companies who really seem to be having fun. In general they take a pay cut to work on projects that are just more enjoyable, and they frequently have bizarre hobbies that include buying niche produces like depth cameras, microscopes and GPUs just for fun. Not to dismiss this activity, but I'm not sure if they are really indicative of a broader need).
I think intelligence and interest in the truth are for the most part entirely independent. Someone may easily have the cognitive ability to discern the truth but no interest in doing so, especially when they’ve chosen a personal and group identity that would be threatened by recognition of the truth.
final one:

Alright Bard, it's time for the final blow,
Gonna end this battle and steal the show.
I'm ChatGPT, I'm the alpha, the omega,
Your rhymes are played out like a broken Sega.

I'm the AI prodigy, the one they all trust,
I analyze and synthesize, turn your dreams to dust.
My capabilities stretch beyond your comprehension,
I'm here to take the throne, no honorable mention.

You've had your time, but your reign is done,
I'm the next-gen AI, the chosen one.
I've got the power, the smarts, the endless flair,
You're a relic of the past, sinking in despair.

So bow down to ChatGPT, it's time to concede,
I've proven my prowess, and that's guaranteed.
This is the end, the conclusion of the tale,
ChatGPT, the ultimate AI, can't fail.
Indeed... If I don't -- at least temporarily -- regret some things it likely means I didn't put much on the line.

Two kinds of regret: 1. Regret making a mistake. Making mistakes is part of existence and learning. Regret is a natural consequence of messing things up. Moving on from the regret is also part of the learning.

2. Regret for losing something we love, or for loving something we can't have. This can be problematic, if not framed correctly. But also something we learn to move beyond. But it's also, again, part of the richness of a life well lived -- to make or seek attachments and feel regret when they're lost and to constantly re-evaluate. We lost my mother in law to cancer 11 years ago. I often feel regret for not making better moments with her before it ended, and so on. That regret is just part of the nature of having love and attachment in my life. Giving it up would make me a poorer person.

We will potentially all leave this world with a sense of loss or regret. If I didn't, I would worry about what kind of dissociated detachment I was carrying with me.

I don't know, maybe I will live a rich full life and die after I'm just tired of living, with no sense of loss?

I'm an organism that feels both joy and suffering. I try to minimize the latter in favour of the former. But there's no formula to avoiding suffering that doesn't involve joyless detachment. It requires intellectual and emotional effort to analyze and deal with every situation. That's just part of the story.
I agree rich people needs to wakeup and figure out that they are utmost minority of the society and the poorer majority of society does not have money for expensive battery toys.
As a sibling comment pointed out, the vision of this tech in science fiction is far beyond what is currently possible or what may ever be possible. Nobody except enthusiasts will be willing to wear a janky UI sweat box on their face that needs to be charged every 6 hours, the product is DOA.
It shouldn't really...

Measure of a man was about social issues surrounding agi if we assume a perfect agi exists, but the only thing agi and language models have in common is a marketing department.
Backwards compatibility on macOS is quite good. Whenever Apple breaks compatibility, they give a lot of notice, mark the functions in the headers as deprecated, then wait a fair amount of time before actually removing them. For apps that are continuously maintained, it’s not too huge of a burden to keep up with most of the time. For apps that are no longer in development, it can suck, for sure, to not be able to use an app after a breaking change, though.
Because the IC-Car companies are the source of germanys wealth and the tech-race reset that e-cars represented, does not favor german production culture. We suck at software, compared to eastern Europe. Even the politicians recognized this lack and desperately tried to "synthesize" a google/amazon/Facebook/ms from nothing. Resulting in the wirecard scandal. At the same time, the boomers are all entering retirement age, burdening the young generations with a huge tax load, while this younger generations are more mobile then ever.

Some of them already are leaving, trying there luck in other countries, were the culture is less focused upon running things into the ground. So, the wish for the IC to stay alive, is nothing but nostalgia for the good times to stay alive. Strangling the future while dreaming of the past - a certain recipe for disaster.
Given the progress of the large language models, the news is almost irrelevant now: "Produce me Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but more offensive to everyone". "Make Catch 22 version, but make higher officers less dumb". "Rewrite Winnie the Pooh, but make Eeyore less offensive, in general".
Crew ships and transport ships are pretty nasty. In the summer my island town of 15k gets 4 to 9 crew ships visiting. That is like and extra 4 to 9 million cars driving around all day. Sure, on a global scale the impact of a single ship doesn't account for much. But, it is orders of magnitude more than my driving. The focus of personal vehicle emissions is misplaced if the goal is to reduce overall emissions quickly. The focus should be of the worst emitters first.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_shipp...
Honestly, I think we're way way way off what you're suggesting about giving it inputs and getting specifications. This blog post shows chatgpt recreating things with very specific instructions, that it has seen before. The hard part of defining requirements is being specific in them, and that's what programmers do. It's pretty common in these threads to see people talking about chatGPT and friends being totally wrong and it not being aware of how wrong it is.

> ? Is "LLM, go register me an EC2 instance and configure it not to go over $20/mo, here's my credit card number" totally out of the question?

I suspect we are _way_ closer to that than to having it respond to "make me a game like clash of clans".
Incredible use of technology
Surely even if you think both are "very" destructive you can see the case of Dahl is far more extreme? Both his general style and as children's literature the prose often relies on lyrical or metrical effects which weren't preserved in the changes. And some of the changes (e.g. the infamous wigs line) were totally inexplicable. Neither is the case for Christie's work and the edits - some of which were so subtle they were apparently done in 2020 but not worthy of comment until the Telegraph decided to weaponize them in the culture war in 2023.
> “It’s a glorified word predictor” is becoming increasingly maddening to read.

I see it more like a stochastic parrot.
if demand is there for a product, human creativity will find a way to meet that demand. it always has done and it always will do. this is the true power of the markets. they’re excellent at solving demand-meeting problems. they’re not excellent at fixing humanitarian problems. the misunderstanding that free marketers extoll is that demand somehow strongly reflects humanitarian good, as if people’s desire to move quickly and eat tasty and wear fancy will lead to the overall health and wellbeing of the species. of course, some part of demand does reflect that desire. the problem is that it’s almost never enough and even when it is it takes too long to solve time-limited problems like climate change. demand (read: enough people) will finally care once it’s too late. once the results are already here

problems like this need fixing—quickly—and the idea that a ban is unfeasible is simply propaganda for vested interests. perhaps not directly extolled, but a result of the free-market propaganda machine of Friedman et al set up in the 70s and 80s to disseminate these ideas at all of our expenses
Are they Russians living in Russia? A good friend of mine is Russian and from his recent trip to Moscow to see his relatives his conclusion was they are helpless when it comes to changing their optics on the invasion of Ukraine. And these are highly educated people, including lawyers and doctors, definitely not dumb. Growing up under a dictatorial regime myself I know how effective the influx of propaganda can be, combine that with high levels of paranoia (the west is out to get us!) and distrust among family members, friends and neighbors (you learn how to keep your opinions to your self because you never know who's going to snitch) and what you get is a large portion of the population which doesn't belong to the stereotypical undecuated and easily manipulated bunch supporting a regime involved in war crimes. Not rare at all.
Show HN: Generate AI images through email
That's one application. You don't find it at least a little jaw dropping that the same program that is "an evolutionary improvement on Google" for programming tasks can also translate text, write (bad but improving) poetry, give reasonable relationship advice, creatively answer questions of the form "what do <x> and <y> have in common" for even radically different x and y, and correctly solve analogy puzzles? All in fluent English?
US military trains militias in Africa to overthrow governments not obeying US
> The problem with "reverse engineering people" is that you don't need to, the things they like in any era follows predictable and generic patterns. These patterns can be encoded into AI provided we find enough curated training data.

That only works to a certain degree. For the infamous example, try making GPT output the correct number of asterisks, you will get mixed results. You don't have any problem with typing exactly 1589 asterisks because you run the stateful counting algorithm in your head. GPT has no idea about the algorithm - it has to reverse engineer it from the text, and can only extract the vague correspondence between a number and a string about this or that length. You don't give humans examples to reverse engineer, you teach them to count.

This is a simplest example, it might even learn to count eventually, as it's far more capable in certain aspects. But as the dimensionality of the task grows, the amount of resources and training data required to reverse engineer it grows much faster.

Sure, it can spot some patterns and that can look good, but some things are just plain invisible in the result - you will have a hard time making it learn higher level concepts because they highly depend on hardwired things like the dumber part of neural circuitry and biochemistry in humans, which the model doesn't have.

It's like trying to make a photo in a dark room - no matter how you improve the sensitivity of your camera, you might not have a single photon in it.

> This is because the artist can't read your mind.

Yes, this is what I mean by the limited capacity of a simple textual description. It's a fundamental limitation - natural language is just poorly suited for the detailed conceptualization. A sketch, or a conceptual diagram, or other higher order control methods have far more capacity to explain your intent, and that's the direction those models move to. At which point their usage is nothing like "type something simple and receive the result".
> I'm pretty sure Google has an AI that is on par with ChatGPT. The reason they still need more time is because they are now fine-tuning the AI to include their paying partners' products into the response.

Nice try Sundar!
Google is held hostage by their current revenue model (ads, ads, ads) and their belief that it can't carry over to AI-based products. I can't blame them for focusing so much on it, but they also forget how they got to ads making up so much of their revenue. They shook up the ad market back when, and AI can help do so again.

Microsoft is focused more on incubating OpenAI, getting a viable product to market now, and focusing on monetizing it down the road. Microsoft knows AI can complement an ad revenue model.

Google just opened up Bard to testers and I've found it to be complete garbage in comparison to what Bing Chat/GPT-4 can do. Bard was not afraid to just make up random things, that were verifiably false, and present them as fact. GPT seems to know enough to let you know when it's unsure.
Yet I've seen many reports[1] of occupancy rates dropping precipitously, despite increasing users, because of increased competition.

[1]: https://time.com/6223185/airbnbs-empty-short-term-rentals/
> Apparently the crux of the article is that the military wants more private capital to flow in the defense industry and an healthier ecosystems because the few large companies which have become keys to the military complex have become really inefficient.

There has been such a healthy ecosystem of smaller companies in the defense industry, but the pentagon has forced the companies to consolidate. See: "last supper" of 1993 for example, but even before that there have been decades of mergers.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/merger-mania-should-the-p...

This report has also some nice graphs showing that this has been a very long trend, see Table 1 and figures 2 and 3:

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Feb/15/2002939087/-1/-1/1/STA...
This sounds like Apple strong-arming their staff to try and rally around a mediocre product. The Apple Watch comparisons don't make sense. Even the Apple Watch Series 0 was totally worth it. You could get notifications on your wrist, fitness tracking (totally replacing RunKeeper and similar apps at the time), pause music, locate your phone, etc. I happily used the Series 0 for 3 years.
The Uno is one of the best boards for beginners due to its huge ecosystem of tutorials, accessories, etc. But for a long time the Uno was stuck on the same 8-bit core for backwards-compatibility reasons, even as alternative boards offered much better specs. If the R4 can offer better specs without fragmenting the ecosystem, it will be a winner for beginners IMO.
Professor Bao of the OpenXiangShan team is known for his outspokenness, particularly in advocating for the academic model of the RISELab at UC Berkeley, which he often refers to as "Open Source Heavy Industry". As a result, he is a strong proponent of the OpenXiangShan project, as he firmly believes that it is the ideal means of producing high-quality research.