skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Most merchants do _not_ send level 3 data. For the most part it’s only sent on travel related transactions or for government vendors.
On seconds thoughts, interestingly, that difference between "wealth" and "power" also becomes relevant when quantifying your "most" in They can do without MOST of the "we".

Like, how many people do the wealthy/powerful actually need? What level of automation will allow maintaining their lifestyle, including:

1. Biological needs: Food & a sufficiently diverse pool of mates for themselves and their children.

2. A social hierarchy large enough to flex their power beyond mere biological survival (very important to primates). I'd expect this number to be strictly smaller than for 1), so likely not a concern: as long as there are enough people to biologically sustain a population, there are enough people to subjugate.

3. Technological scaffolding to produce, maintain and bootstrap (in case of calamities) said automation. Currently humans are a necessary physical substrate for the continued inflow of energy that automation needs. I don't have the numbers but the footprint to run even a single power plant must be tremendous: a large and complex society, once you include 2nd order effects. Without energy, the machines don't go "VRRROOM" and neither does AI.

And if the human population drops too low to interfere with any of these points, the automation was self-defeating. It doesn't matter how rich or powerful you were.

I mean, I'm sure someone somewhere ran the numbers and has a plan ready, while the rest of us wax lyrical about "just find a new job LOL" and UBI. Although to be fair, there are also preppers, who've taken the above analysis to its logical conclusion.
I was surprised by the argument about the distribution of space leaks. In particular, it feels a lot like the kinds of silly arguments C/C++ people make about various safety features – that bugs are unlikely / easy to catch / only made by the inexperienced. Those arguments are silly[1] because evidence from the C/C++ programmers who try hard to write correct programs that avoid these bugs is that they cannot be totally avoided.

The existence of these kinds of space leak (and lazy evaluation in general) mean that it is hard to predict the performance characteristics of a program in advance. They mean that it can be easier to dos servers by causing them to do slow things which the programmer didn’t realise would be slow. I think that this is (at least sometimes) a safety issue that a language which cares about safety and correctness should care about.

Perhaps it is true that worries about space leaks or surprising performance are overblown. But I think that any apology for lazy evaluation in Haskell should attempt to understand and argue against the reasons that someone like SPJ would say ‘the next Haskell will be strict’. (I’m not totally sure what the reason is; maybe it’s just that lazy evaluation is unpopular)

[1] more compelling arguments can exist but they must concede points regarding safety.
> Even the curvature of the earth, which thankfully is relatively easy to prove to yourself.

Do you test it each time someone claims that it's flat? I doubt it.

> Why are shame and insults fair game for flat earth but not Christianity

Where have you been living the last 50 years? Christianity is absolutely fair game, at least in the West (or maybe the Western West? you'll have different reactions in Poland). Best to reach for Islam if you want a religion you're in theory allowed to make fun of but not in practice. But even there, it's not society that punishes it, it's a small number of extremists that the mainstream tolerates for political reasons.

And you're not allowed to criticize capitalism? One of us really must've jumped dimensions recently.

> Everyone is ignorant in many ways.

But it's not really the same. There's a difference between "I have no clue how DNA works" and "gravity does not exist and we're just not falling into space because the government has people with invisibility cloaks holding us down".
LinkedIn has started pushing generated content it would like me to edit, I think they said they use ChatGPT. All of the content is "okay" but there's no depth, out of the handful of articles I read they both had a section that repeated an earlier idea but with different buzzwords.

I agree, it's impressive how it can generate readable text that provides an overview of an idea. But the overview misses key points, or highlights things that aren't really central. For a lot of things, doing something simple like reading a Wikipedia page is likely more productive.
What does proven in combat even mean? Win a war against China?
An updated systemd package that includes a fix [0] is in progress on getting rolled out, currently on the pvetest repository.

With that the following reproducer is fixed:

TZ=Europe/Dublin faketime 2023-03-26 systemd-analyze calendar --iterations=5 'Sun *-*-\* 01:00:00'

[0]: https://git.proxmox.com/?p=systemd.git;a=commit;h=e7eb2b5864...
(just noticed that I wrote Ireland/Dublin instead of Europe/Dublin in the commit message)

[1]: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Package_Repositories#sysadmin_t...
Show HN: Pangolier – Write UI tests for the web platforms in YAML
I made this as a toy/proof-of-concept. This is a port of [Maestro](https://maestro.mobile.dev/) but for the web platform. Uses [Playwright](https://playwright.dev/) under the hood.
> One difference between humans and LLMs is that humans have a wide range of inputs and outputs beyond language.

I share ability to move around and feel pain with apes and cats.

What I'm interested about is ability "reason" - analyze, synthesize knowledge, formulate plans, etc.

And LLMs demonstrated those abilities.

As for movement and so on, please check PaLM-E and Gato. It's already done, it's boring.

> it's not because I'm predicting the words "I'm hungry". It's because I'm predicting that I'll be hungry.

The way LLM-based AI is implemented gives us an ability to separate the feeling part from the reasoning part. It's possible to integrate them into one acting entity, as was demonstrated in SayCan and PaLM-E. Does your understanding of the constituent parts make it inferior?

E.g. ancient people thought that emotions were processed in heart or stomach. Now that we know that emotions are processed mostly in the brain, are we less human?
Is Jernau Morat Gurgeh the Player of Games, or a mere pawn moved by Minds beyond his comprehension?

The Culture appeals to me, but there are literary critics who find even The Culture, let alone the grander environment beyond it, to be dystopian. And I definitely don't want to wake up dead with my mind in one of Joiler Veppers' simulations.
Exactly. It’s similar to someone saying Google can do a superhuman amount of work.

“All I had to do is search for a sample product launch email and POOF it appeared! Just had to fill in the company name.”

It’s the same thing with the minor code snippets being “written” by Chat GPT. Any real programmer knows that Google could give you pretty much the same thing. And they also know how complicated their actual job is that goes well beyond the simple prompts people are using that everyone has been googling for over a decade now.

It’s all hyperbole. This technology is just an evolutionary improvement on Google.
Paula Kennedy on Platform Team Responsibilities, Patterns and Anti-Patterns
At least I think it might be a good idea to question what we individually mean by "intelligent" or "very smart" when we see people that we think harbor these traits behaving in a way that we strongly dislike. The definition of intelligence is not a completely uncontroversial subject.
What I would just love to see is the out come of the following:

1. Train Chat GPT on human stuff.

2. Make Chat GPT spit out libraries of knowledge by random walk.

3. Train Chat GPT on its own stuff.

4. Do this a few times.

5. Ask it some questions.
Meta: I noticed that the date near the top of the linked page (under the title) briefly flashes "Mar 24" before switching to "Mar 23". What's happening here?
Speaking from my own American perspective, with both progressive and conservative friends, the answer to your question about whether it is a common perspective, is "yes". For the last several elections, whichever side loses thinks the election was stolen.
> OpenAI is pushing for JSON rest api

Which is probably one of the easiest types of code to autogenerate.

In fact we already have tools to generate apis from a model. And a model could be produced by ai given human (language) inputs.
You mean, do your own research?
I don't understand this perspective, the only way it makes sense is if you haven't bothered to really try to use the tool to get something done. There are literally a hundred million+ people out there using it to get shit done. I didn't sign up until the GPT-4 release because I had tried 3.5 and thought it was ok but limited, I had more luck using the API and custom prompts with GPT-3 but GPT-4 converted me. I've been using it daily and for increasingly more stuff. It's so good that I'm actively trying to break the habit of using search engines to look up docs, error messages, and SO answers. Mandatory disclaimer: it doesn't always produce perfect output that works on the first try but you know what? the old search result method doesn't work on the first try either especially if I have to read bad or limited documentation, parse a somewhat related SO answer into the solution I need or search through miles of issues about the error message where everyone is just complaining and no one has found a solution. The big difference is that GPT is a hundred times faster, provides better explanations and even when it's wrong it gives me enough information to figure out the problem on my own.

Sorry but it's just frustrating seeing "how can we know it's better?" when it's right f-ing there in front of you. Maybe you don't want to spend $20USD to try it out, fine whatever, wait until it's free to use but don't make lazy negative remarks from a place of ignorance.
Genuine question: I wonder why you didn't think to disclose your relationship with the product? I notice this a lot, and it ruins my perspective of the product. Haven't you seen people start their comments with "full disclosure, I made this" type sentences.
They are selling it online

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/17/the-fight-against-stolen-pro...

>Amazon
, eBay
and Facebook are the places where these stolen goods are being sold, and critics say they’re not doing enough to put an end to the racket. The companies disagree.
Basic concepts on building a recommender system for search in ecommerce
Thanks for sharing this. It’s exactly what I was curious about, how to get in the head of a good prompt engineer.

Because I’ve been playing with it and in some areas been blown away, and others (like help me organize my week) underwhelmed.

But I know where ever I’ve been underwhelmed, it’s extremely likely I just gave it insufficient input.

Using this, I want to help it organize my day, week, month.
Elixir doesn‘t have support for static types built in.
This is why "prompt engineering" is going to be a legit job, still requiring the knowledge and sensibilities of an engineer/programmer. A jack of all trades problem solving gig. Maybe even constaultion businesses will build these glued together tools for bigger companies.
That's a philosophical argument, whereas people are implicitly denying that ChatGPT can have higher level abstraction at all as if it were valid to claim that Stroustrup's contribution to C++ was ultimately just a way to write a lot of assembly code, so let's forever only think in assembly terms.

(As a separate tangent, I don't accept the philosophy that abstractions are merely human niceties or conveniences. They are information theoretic models of reality and can be tested and validated, after all, even the bottom level of reality is an abstraction. The very argument used to deny the primacy of abstractions itself requires conceptual abstractions, leading to a circular logic. But then, I'm not a philosopher so what do I know.)
The lecturer perceived it to be “personal” implying authentic and genuine, but in truth the essay was the opposite of these things, that is ironic.
But it applies to AMD in every way. I could understand that pre-ryzen when they were really cash restricted and had nothing to compete anyways. So you don't throw money at software devs. but the software side apart from (Windows) gaming is still a shit show with AMD today.

We wanted to use MI50s at work because it was promised they can do SRIOV, but we never got any further with AMD support than "it should work". They took ages to respond, and could not tell what was wrong from the extensive logs and hwinfo we provided them with.

Also the PCI reset bug that plagued multiple generations. There's a guy maintaining a kernel module that works around that issue in a whacky way. According to his research and reverse engineering, AMD could fix that with a firmware update to those cards. Even got in contact with AMD engineers briefly and outlined what the problem was. Then radio silence, and a couple months later AMD added a very similar workaround in their kernel module, the amdgpu driver. It's just that a fix in there doesn't make any sense whatsoever, because you need that fix when you do PCI passthrough, in which case you explicitly do not load the amdgpu module, as you don't use the GPU on the host machine but, well, pass it through to the VM.
That tends to happen because military procurement is always a set of compromises, so there lies a tremendous amount of room for basically arguing about how to weigh the different requirements/criteria/mission sets.

Also while the article vindicates Sprey's want of having a lightweight fighter, the reality is that while lightweight fighters did come, they quickly became exactly what Sprey would not have wanted (once the F-16 entered service, it quickly gained BVR capability for example) because the mission that Sprey envisioned (pure within visual range air combat) wasn't nearly as significant in the 90s and onwards.
Just to be clear, the word has already been used for at least 11 years in the game industry. (ex see https://youtu.be/Fy0aCDmgnxg), and it is very frequently used. There is absolutely no sense in which it is the “not the right word”, especially not at this point, where it has a very clear meaning in that field.

I don’t know where the term originated, but I’ve always thought of it as having to do with fruit. An apple is good, a juicy apple is better. The two may have the exact same flavor, but the juiciness improves experience of eating the apple.
Sure, but they are made by machines.
Speaking personally, the fate of Docker, Inc. was clear to me when they took their $40M Series C round in 2014. I had met with Solomon in April 2014 (after their $15M Series B) and tried to tell him what I had learned at Joyent: that raising a ton of money without having a concrete and repeatable business would almost inevitably lead to poor decision making.

I could see that I was being too abstract, so I distilled it -- and I more or less begged him to not take any more money. (Sadly, Silicon Valley's superlative, must-watch "Sand Hill Shuffle" episode would not air until 2015, or I would have pointed him to it.) When they took the $40M round -- which was an absolutely outrageous amount of capital to take into a company that didn't even have a conception of what they would possibly sell -- the future was clear to me.

I wasn't at all surprised when the SVP washouts from the likes of VMware and IBM landed at Docker -- though still somehow disappointed when they behaved predictably, accelerating the demise of the company. May Docker, Inc. at least become a business school case study to warn future generations of an avoidable fate!

- Bryan Cantrill, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28460504
>It is frequent that news reports say "attacked with a hammer purchased by the defendants credit card earlier the same day". So it appears the facility to search card payments is fairly widely used.

Not really, because the search could have happened in the opposite direction (eg. they ask the store for a list of transactions that were made with the suspect's card). I doubt they're asking visa/mastercard to give them a list of all hammers sold in the past month.
What is oddest about this one, which I have not heard before btw, is that Russia claims (boasts) of bombing Ukrainian cities, especially the electricity infrastructure.
The GPGPU situation is absolutely ridiculous. Imagine if you couldn't run code for an Intel CPU on an AMD chip, who would buy them? But somehow we accept that our GPUs, small super computers that often cost 50% of the total computer cost, can only run games and vendor proprietary code. I thought we would have this figured out a decade ago.

I can't even blame Nvidia, of course they're gonna do what's best for them, and it has worked. I blame AMD for completely dropping the ball on the GPU compute segment, and I blame users for preferring Cuda libraries instead of OpenCL.

I hope Intel and maybe AMD can get the GPGPU market to something that resembles something open and most importantly interoperable. But Nvidia has a big head start.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (...) As is most conspiratorial claims regarding Covid, and so on ad nauseam.

Most conspiracies theories are extremely implausible. However there is a conspiracy theory about Covid that is so extremely plausible that it's the claims that it's not that should require extraordinary evidence.

That theory is that the perfectly pedestrian hypothesis that a lab studying dangerous pathogens could have experienced an industrial accident resulting in a pandemic was covered up by both a totalitarian government and other individuals with a personal interest in the matter.

Where am I going with this? Well, I posit that years of throwing around accusations of "conspiracy theorism" and promoting dodgy "fact checking" that typically involves mere opinions rather than incontrovertible facts has made downright demented ideas like Ukraine bombing itself more palatable. In other words, "they lied to us about Wuhan, they must be lying about Ukraine" or something.
That's absolutely right, it just predicts the next token. One of the discoveries that led to GPT was the concept that "token prediction is universal" in the sense that all other natural language tasks are a sub-task of token prediction. For example translating between one language and another is just predicting what would continue after you say something then say "and here it is in french: ".

There are levels to token production from generating complete jibberish, to generating very shallow nonsense sentences, to generating gramatically coherent sentences that dont really say anything, .. and so on. They've pushed the depth of its token prediction to a new level that makes it more impressive than anything previous.
But still, what does it mean to know something?

And your point about humans lying about knowledge only to be found inexperienced is quite the opposite of an LLM (albeit there is the hallucination problem, but GPT-4 is a massive improvement there):

These models do have “experience” aka their training data. And I would argue with most every one of your examples of things that GPT doesn’t know.

You can ask it about performance implications, side effects, costs. It’s quite good at all that right now even! Imagine the future just a few years out.
I mean when teens/children congregate in large numbers anywhere they get unhealthy. Like it or not, the digital realm is part of life and they have to learn to handle disagreements, toxic people, etc. at some point. If their adults won't supervise them/help them, that's on the adults. If they can't, then our society needs to start educating adults on how to parent in the digital age. But that would be slow and cost $$$ and possibly empower the populace, so we won't do it.
I checked this tool on some of my comments. Mostly it reported around "100% real". However https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35259575 this comment was generated by ChatGPT and it was also reported as 97.6% real. And this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35286822 was reported as 88.79% fake but I wrote it myself. So I wouldn't trust this tool too much, even from my very limited testing it wasn't very reliable.
> Ts is dynamically typed unfortunately

What do you mean, specifically, with this statement? The point of TS is to give JS static types.
> companies are going to continue allocating a similar percentage of their budget to tech

I think your argument requires a paradigm shift like teletype -> web to soak up the new productivity. I don't think we have that today. For how many purposes have we reached peak consumer software capability? i.e. global reach to publish text, images, video and make purchases is the entire use case of most media and commerce businesses. If you gave every company double the amount of dev resources tomorrow, do they even have anything to build? Even for those with deep feature roadmaps, how much of that stuff is just nice-to-have things that won't move the revenue needle anyway?

Maybe we will get that new platform from AR or direct brain interfaces... but without it, the situation looks more like how the human role of "computer" just vanished... sure we then got programmers, but they weren't necessarily the same people.
> single (treatable) disease from crippling debt.

This sounds a lot better than being a single (treatable) disease from guaranteed death?

Which many, many, historical monarchs experienced.

At least some fraction of such monarchs would have gladly taken the opportunity to swap places if they had known in advance.
According to the article, rule based patterns are already used, but inverse lithography is required in more unique or problematic cases. Ideally they would use it in all cases, maybe we end up with slightly wobbly but tolerable features for the more generic or less esoteric features that use the heuristics based approach.

> Even a change to the thickness of a material can lead to the need for a new set of photomasks

You can imagine the light spreading out through the other side of the mask, diffracting and interfering with neighbouring features through some radius. That it's not trivial to compute suggests the number of combinations within this radius is large enough to not be highly cacheable.