skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure, but the system should then be able to show its working and explain how it derived the incorrect result. If there is other evidence that ChatGPT 'understands' the concept of a prime number, then let's see it.

If wrong answers still count because humans sometimes make mistakes, then I guess it won’t be too difficult to construct an impressive mathematical AI.

It's very tempting to give these systems the benefit of the doubt, but that tends to lead to hugely inflated conclusions about their capabilities. Remember that something as simple as ELIZA was perfectly capable of fooling humans who were predisposed to believe it was intelligent.
Wait, are those supposed to be input suggestions, like you click on them and it pastes them in? Sydney is not supposed to give coherent 3-part messages using them, right?
> But nobody knows how GPT works. They know how it was trained, because the training scheme was designed by humans, but the algorithm that is executed during inference was not intelligently designed but evolved, and it is implicit in the structure of the network, and interpretability has yet to mature to the point where we can draw a symbolic, abstract, human-readable program out of a sea of weights.

Nobody knows how the human mind really works either. And we’ve been trying to understand ourselves for thousands of years. I suspect we will take a while to figure out how the “mind” of GPT works too.
The license in case anyone was wondering:
https://spdx.org/licenses/MulanPSL-2.0.html
Seems BSD-ish and it is approved by OSI:
https://opensource.org/license/mulanpsl-2-0/
It's an oversimplification but as far I understand it's not wrong at least with past/current projects.

Efficiency for a given aircraft is nice but it's not the point. I believe Concord was most efficient at cruising speed (~Mach 2) but it does not change the fact that it burned like 4x more per seat/km than a b737 (Cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft). Of course Concorde was only first class but that's part of the point of the parent.

As for boom, some guesstimate are around at least 4x too (https://theicct.org/new-supersonic-transport-aircraft-fuel-b...). No idea how biased this is but I believe it's quite telling that there is only mention of SAF on https://boomsupersonic.com/sustainability. At best in some 2017 article they compare themself to a lay-flat bed in subsonic business class, but since they only manage to secure an engine maker last year it was firmly in the guesstimate too.
Yeah, that seems like a bad design choice. If you look at the spec [0], you can see that they only use "23456789CFGHJMPQRVWX" in the codes. They apparently scored the letters based on how well they can spell 10000 words in 30 languages, without thinking about character similarity. If they had involved actual humans instead of counting letter frequency, they might have noticed that the letter W looks similar to VV, and that its English name is "double U". And tried a letter like N or Y, which would be much harder to confuse.

[0] https://github.com/google/open-location-code/blob/main/docs/...
On an abstract level, it's obvious that intelligent design, symbolic representations etc. aren't needed to build a mind, because we _evolved_ and evolution is a blind optimizer.

But concretely, all the machine learning approaches had many obvious limitations (the volume of data, lack of generalization) until they suddenly didn't, and past a certain scale features of intelligence began to emerge.
Show HN: GPT-4 Reverse Turing Test
Agree. "But it can't be intelligent because we're special."

And if ChatGPT and its ilk can nail shut the coffin that is the Chinese Room I couldn't be more happy.
Destroyer, the new open source virus v0.0.2
You know the old saying "familiarity breeds contempt"? I believe the opposite is true as well. People who don't code think coding is typing. People who don't manage think it is as simple as forwarding emails from executives to subordinates.

I myself have often wondered if what doctors do couldn't be automated. You have the primary care physicians who seem to run on a loop of "listen to symptoms" - "order tests" - "prescribe medication" - "refer to specialist". And the specialists themselves seem to follow their own loops. Many surgeons for example, perform the exact same procedure day in/day out for decades. Surely well-trained robots, not prone to fatigue or loss of dexterity as they age, could produce superior outcomes.

But they haven't been replaced yet, just like I haven't, so I assume there is more going on there than what looks from the outside like repetitive manual labor.
Nothing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmkfQtlr67k

Life is returning back to normal after a horrific battle that did not need to happen. Most civilians don’t care so much under which government they live, they just want health and safety first and foremost. Governments and states create the problems, in my opinion. Politicians should serve the people, not create war.

In an ideal world, the states would be replaced with agencies that compete for yearly contracts from neighborhoods. Instead of killing civilians for a flag, the civilians would renew contracts for roads, police etc. from competing agencies and none of it would be bundled together in “a state”.
China outproduces by a factor of 10.

You mean Chinese steel, which is terrible, barely passable junk?

Yes, great for mission critical stuff.
With the warning that I am not an expert, see my answer below. While there is obviously thematic overlap between the Tractatus and Gödel, Wittgenstein himself viewed Gödel's work as fundamentally nonsensical. Now why the "nonsense" of the Tractatus is ok, while the "nonsense" of Gödel is not, is admittedly not clear, and we are under no obligation to respect it, but that would be (early) Wittgenstein's opinion.
Its been like that forever. Factory workers had to adapt when the jobs went to Asia. I don't see how comfortable office guys should get any other treatment.

It used to be learn to code then maybe learn to weld or plumb it something that is harder to automate away.
Of course Mac running Safari is a glorified boolean circuit. It's programmed in a way to show the pixels on the screen in a way that you understand, and take inputs from your mouse and keyboard in a way you understand
It's pretty much the truth. What the ChatGPT is good at is "keeping in mind" various associations between words that occurred in the session so far. To keep those associations some internal structure bound to get conjured. It doesn't mean the transformer understands anything or can do any kind of reasoning, despite the fact that it can mimic a bit how reasoning output looks like and even get it right sometimes if the context is fairly close to something it seen in the training data.
> US imperialism

Is US handing out passports here in Europe? Are they deporting kids to US, invading countries to make it their own territory? Poisoning politicians that alignn with Russia? Sorry but I haven't seen that. However, we've seen plenty of that coming from Russia.

And you wonder why countries like to join NATO (under agreement, begging them to accept), and not Russia (under force). Strange right?
Somewhat related to this:

We seem to operate on the assumption that sentience is "better," but I'm not sure that's something we can demonstrate anyway.

At some point, given sufficient training data, it's entirely possible that a model which "doesn't know what it's saying" and is "stringing words together using an expansive statistical model" will outperform a human at the vast, vast majority of tasks we need. AI that is better at 95% of the work done today, but struggles at the 5% that perhaps does truly require "sentience" is still a terrifying new reality.

In fact, it's approximately how humans use animals today. We're really great at a lot of things, but dogs can certainly smell better than we can. Turns out, we don't need to have the best nose on the planet to be the dominant species here.
> But nobody knows how GPT works. They know how it was trained, because the training scheme was designed by humans, but the algorithm that is executed during inference was not intelligently designed but evolved, and it is implicit in the structure of the network, and interpretability has yet to mature to the point where we can draw a symbolic, abstract, human-readable program out of a sea of weights.

I object. ChatGPT executes in computer logic and is ultimately electrical signals in gates representing 1 and 0.

ChatGPT is vast and impressive, sure. Emergence[1] may get it past a Turing Test, fine. But it remains discrete logic.

In contrast, natural intelligence has not been reproduced organically, much less, fully understood. There is no repeatable experiment going from inorganic matter to self-aware, self-replicating life.

In summary, ChatGPT is impressive, but nowhere near capable of doing the impossible, e.g. predicting the weather with fidelity substantially into the future.

Nor can I bring myself to fret that Skynet is immanent.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
> Downloads Linux Kernel 5.4.3 source and compiles it with a minimal configuration

Haha, good luck booting such a kernel.
That depends on the state. Voter rolls are sometimes public.
The main use of an ADR isn't to arrive at a decision, but to record the choice that was made and why. Filling out an ADR and gaining zero benefit while doing it seems plausible - the hard work of arriving at a certain artefact is already done (hard work isn't a requirement).

In my solely own opinion:

an ADR documents a strategic choice and ties accountability to it's author. The quality of the document (and the content) should work in their own best interest.

Another kind of documentation could be used to record e.g. details of implementation or describing APIs. The latter is focused on building a knowledge base for co-workers, onboarding or end users. edit: I call them REFs.

edit 2: Filling out superfluous forms which ends up of no use to anyone is a waste of time. Cut back on documentation until people starts asking for more of it.
Maybe nothing is being done because there is no mechanism which could make sure the stakeholders benefit from better overall health of population? Let's be honest: virtually any business thrives by making people sicker both physically and mentally and reducing their quality of life. I struggle to even imagine a way to make money by bringing benefit to society, and plenty of ways of making money by damaging it. And somehow, that doesn't work in Europe. Society just resists. There is almost no way to profit off custom software development in Europe, for example - i even stopped trying.

Simply put, if people becomes healthier, no one who has any impact on anything, will benefit from it, and a lot of them will lose money.
I think what would be even better than the next GPT being able to get that question right, is for it to correctly identify that it cannot solve this problem itself.
> one could also proactively attempt to improve their community for everyone.

Sure. I'm just saying attempt effectively. And don't forget everyone is not everyone you like/agree with.

> The author of the article, could have included a more inclusive preselective

Eh? You want the article to better reflect that bisexsual dudes might want to think twice about moving to Saudi Arabia? One would assume that is common knowledge or at least the responsibility of the reader to further research. By the same token, some of the readers are conservative muslims. How does one simultaneously editorialize the article to be more inclusive/cater to them?

I hope my point is clear. I don't believe a more inclusive preselective is logically possible in every situation, the broader the subject the less chance you have of pleasing every possible reader.

Consider not spending your inclusivity tokens on every single thing you encounter simply because you'll run out. Spend wisely. :)

P.S. - Please don't shoot the messenger.
It's statistically unlikely if this rule isn't specified before. It's statistically likely if this rule was
Human mind can perform actual reasoning, while ChatGPT only mirrors the output of reasoning and when it gets output correctly it's due to mixture of luck and closeness to training material.

Human mind or even something like Wolfram Alpha can perform reasoning.
> something new based off of that

But where do you draw the line? If AI imagines 3 people around a business table in front of a flip chart, is that copyright infringement on similar stock photos? Note that in the AI created image, the people are unique, they never existed, the business table is unique, the flip chart is unique, and in general you can't point to any existing photo it was trained over and say "it just copied this item here".

If so, why isn't it also copyright infringement when a human photographer stages another similar shot?
> Until you have to debug something that straddles DST changes.

I will perhaps consider doing it at that point, but in ~20 years of being a sysadmin I have never needed to, so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Therefore I optimize for the common case: looking at logs when events do not straddle DST changes.
> Of course people who actually know how ChatGPT works don't expect it to be able to magically solve mathematical problems

There is a causality inversion here.

The only reason people know it can't do this is because they have tried and seen it cannot do this.

We do not have very precise bounds a-priori what GPT can and cannot do. We only learn them from black box testing.
This kind of 'training' is not at all equivalent. There's a reason copyright places value on the expression of an idea (i.e. taking the photo) - image-making is difficult and was a valuable skill, even for a stock photo.
For a supposed smart group of individuals who are good at leaning into the latest innovations, I feel most HN comments as of late are completely , ignorantly dismissive of LLMs simply because LLMs aren’t “amazingly perfect” in their current state .

Yet… we are are talking about a tool that came out literally FOUR MONTHS AGO. And the huge advancement on that came out TWO WEEKS AGO.

Yet everyone here continues to proclaim, “it’s not even that good , honestly.” As though no progress will ever be made from this current moment in time.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
Rebellious Teenagers of IT – still playing with themselves
Rebellious Teenagers of IT - still playing with themselves, but now in tribes of "professionals"
The fact is, almost nobody uses Bing, and normal people don't care or even really know about ChatGPT. Just like you'd get the impression that Twitter is super-popular and used by everyone from reading MSM, you'd get the impression that everyone spends all day on ChatGPT from reading HN, but it's just not true.
It is not illegal for a human to look at something another human created and learn composition, strokes, lighting, etc... and then apply it to their own future creations. This is all the AI is doing.
Yes this is not particularly great aesthetically. But visually it is much better than what a lot of "full stack" (i.e. backend) developers can knock up, no matter how long you give them, as a lot of developers have no interest in making things look nice or even making them useable as long as they get to tick off another story point. It is definitely better than anyone without any experience of development could produce. It is also better than what an experienced designer could knock up in 30 minutes. It is also rapidly improving. I genuinely think that five years from now almost all developers front or backend will be obsolete, in the same way that buggy whip makers are now.
I meant: Worrying about the feelings of those ghosts.
This is a good point. If you ask GPT about much more conceptual advanced mathematics it's actually very good at conversing about this. That said, it does 'hallucinate' falsehoods and it will stick with them once they have been said. etc. You have to double check everything it says if you are on unknown ground with it.
Interesting insight.

For me, the (tree) analogy is that of an illusion of progress: while the treetop is closer than the ground, there is no tree that can ever be tall enough to get the rest of the way.

So, it isn't supposed to be used to say "you can't do it at all", just "you can't do it like that".

But metaphors get mixed as soon as they leave the bottle of text and enter the cocktail shaker of other people's minds, so I am unshocked by the usage you are criticising here.
I would like to follow up on "Universal UI" where with Microsoft including this stuff in Office 365 it will kill all kinds of apps/plugins.

This is huge and as a software developer I am now not worried that GPT or AI will write code instead of me.

Big change will be that big companies/small companies/average people won't need as many applications anymore. Software devs as I read various comments fixate on "AI writing code" too much, where real threat will be that lots of code will never be needed anymore.
Things that restrict competition, such as government protected monopoly like copyright or patents, or licensing such as certificates of need for hospitals or even the residency process to become a doctor (in the US), or land with advantageous properties that other land cannot replication (i.e. location).

Or simply doing something that requires so much expertise that it requires tens of billions of dollars and decades for others to catch up, such as what TSMC/ASML/Apple/etc.
Right, over the totality of things that it reasons about, to some degree it will make inroads to correctly answering these kinds of questions, and in some ways it'll make errors, and what's interesting, is it'll make errors because the way in which it's attempting to answer them bears a lot of the hallmarks that we associate with conceptual understanding, rather than the mechanical operations of a calculator which truly is blind but always correct. In a way, being wrong can be a better signal of something approximating understanding under the hood. It's like if it was shooting a basketball, and it takes numerous shots, and most of them go in but some of them go out, but even the ones that miss bear the hallmarks of proper shooting form that lead to correct answers.

I do think that this specific moment we're going through, in early 2023, is producing some of the most fascinating, confidently incorrect misunderstandings of chatgpt, and I hope that someone is going through these comment sections and collecting them so that we can remark on them 5 to 10 years down the line. I suspect that in time these misunderstandings are going to be comparable to how boomers misunderstand computers and the internet.
Ukraine doesn't need artisanal, hand crafted shells. It needs 10x more than it already has.
Can you explain your proof of that?
Yeah, but recruiting agencies suck. Anything that causes more reliance on recruiters is bad for both employers and applicants.
But it's much worse than that for ChatGPT. A person would know that their mental math division of large numbers is unreliable, but if you ask ChatGPT about the reliability of its answers, it is uniformly confident about almost everything. It has no grasp of the difference between the things it "knows" which are true and the things it "knows" which may be false.

And this is the error I notice people very consistently making when they evaluate the intelligence of ChatGPT and similar models. They marvel at its ability to produce impressive truths, but think nothing of its complete inability to distinguish these truths from similar-sounding falsehoods.

This is another form of the rose-colored glasses, the confirmation bias we are seeing at the peak of the current hype cycle, reminiscent of when Blake Lemoine convinced himself that LaMDA was sentient. A decade ago, techies were dazzling executives with ML models that detected fraud or whatever as if by magic. But then, when the dazzling demos were tempered by the brutal objectivity and rigor of the precision-recall curve, a lot of these models didn't end up getting used in practice. Something similar will happen with ChatGPT. People will eventually have to admit what it is failing to do, and only then will we start up Gartner's fabled Slope of Enlightenment to the Plateau of Productivity.
No, everything, absolutely everything must be ascertained with a critical eye, backed by evidence. Even the curvature of the earth, which thankfully is relatively easy to prove to yourself. Nevertheless, it does not have special status compared to any other piece of knowledge. You can excuse people for mistakenly believing in falsehoods like flat earth when the wool is being actively pulled over their eyes in a dozen other ways, from religion, political propaganda, corporate lies for profit, and predatory employment practices. Why are shame and insults fair game for flat earth but not Christianity or unquestioning patriotism or support for capitalism? Shame and insults only cause people to dig in their heels deeper. If your goal is to raise the veil of ignorance you are failing. Everyone is ignorant in many ways.

And your point isn't even relevant. Scientific facts and politically charged events aren't even remotely the same when it comes to ascertaining truth value. Never in history has there been a war where only one side spews propaganda.
Before we get too excited, does anyone know how the input suggestions are generated?
>On an abstract level, it's obvious that intelligent design, symbolic representations etc. aren't needed to build a mind, because we _evolved_ and evolution is a blind optimizer.

This is playing pretty fast and loose. First of all, I wouldn't lump intelligent design together with the claim that symbolic representations are necessary to account for certain features of human intelligence (such as the classic Fodorian triad of compositionality, systematicity and productivity).

Second, I just don't think the logic of your sentence works. Why does it make any more sense than the following?

"It's obvious that fingers aren't needed to build a hand, because we _evolved_ and evolution is a blind optimizer."

Maybe you can build a functional equivalent of a hand without giving it any fingers. But the mere fact that we evolved doesn't tell us anything about whether or not that is possible.
How did he/she get it out the door - just run out with it? A dinette set isn’t easily concealed :)
Why not go further, and just use Haiku? Then you're not even using anything as mainstream as Linux!
> Minsk agreements were basically abandoned from the start and no one enforced them

Why would Ukraine follow Minsk when Russia won't even follow the Budapest Memorandum?.

Russia never follows agreements when it doesn't suit them and only uses them as leverage or as way to freeze conflicts for them to restart in the future.
It does plug a big hole in ChatGPT. ChatGPT math skills are mostly non existent (e.g. it can not factorize a medium size number), but it can easily generate python code to do almost all such things. There might be many more things ChatGPT can not do, but can generate python code to do. This brings it more in line with a normal human (not someone familiar with LLMs) expectations. If it can do a much broader set of things, the queries it can serve will benefit enormously.
If that happens, I'm sure regulators will intervene and force OpenAI to stop giving medical advice.
>The author cites the pew study [0] that claims less than 10% of the "US black population" is foreign born.

Yes, when I saw that it was clear to me that being "foreign born" said very little about the population. For example, English can still be a 2nd or 3rd language for recent immigrants with US born children, especially in California and Texas.

>I figure that answers your question and implies your nuance likely wouldn't change anything.

I disagree, immigrants are most likely unevenly distributed.
Doesn’t the fact that drugs, alcohol and tobacco (which are already illegal for kids) are available in this way illustrate how useless a ban would be?

If you want to protect your kids from these things then you need to educate them and get them to enforce the rules themselves.