skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree. I'm not a SWE because I don't want to code for 40+ hours a week, but I've been picking up projects here and there for small businesses for a long time (I started helping my dad do the same when I was 5-6) and so I manage projects end to end and so much of it is the back and forth with the clients. Knowing the right questions to ask and how people think about things are some of my most important skills, and in that respect my education and library experience has been very helpful. I'm far from the best programmer - hell, I'd consider myself below average but have enough experience to still be passable, but I'm easy to work with and that counts for a lot.

The issue with language models in particular is that to use them effectively you have to fundamentally understand that you're translating human-brain-language into computer-language and understand that those are in fact two different things even if their delivery happens identically. For most coders, this jump happens semi-instinctively because they know how to test something to verify 'ah yes, this follows computer logic'. The general public thinks computers are wizardry. The other group of people who will be able to understand this are those who have thought deeply about language for whatever reason and therefore know that human-brain-language has qualities that extend beyond 'We use words'. This is also very hard to impart to novices; I have a Linguistics degree and studied a cumulative 10 years of 6 languages so I went through that knowledge transfer as well. They're both hard and one or the other is necessary to interface with language models effectively and will be for likely the next 10ish years just because providing a good technical solution will require the technical people to understand much more about the social side of communication and that will also take time.
I don’t mind that it occurred that way, what do you think about the outcome?
Microsoft having a lot of partnerships with the military industry, and now also getting their hands on all of OpenAIs technology. In parallel, OpenAI stops sharing information about their models, making it harder for other countries to copy. Add to that the chip ban. Hm...?
Not a solid read on my comment, but it's an interesting point. Sensitivity to those left behind as conservative defense of tradition.

I want every coal miner to lose their job. Every last one. That would be a fantastic thing and a necessary thing. That doesn't mean I want those people to suffer. We can help them out. We can give them assistance and job training.

In other words we can embrace the future without being cruel. That's not a conservative sentiment at all. And yes, many people would like to move forward in a thoughtful way that doesn't leave people in the dust.

As far as affecting different people, LLMs are about to squish the middle class. You can be quite sure that the impact will be very different than when similar changes affect the working class.
Do you understand that we did the same to advance to the level of wealth and technology we have? The only way to stop China and India from doing the same is war. There is no way that telling billions of people that they can't have what we have wont be construed as an act of agression.
> I'm not sure if Burton was a Luddite who didn't believe in statistics or the scientific method, or if he didn't care about learning from his tests.

It's possible. It's also possible that he had a good sense of how test results are presented by program managers to Congress, and was trying to accurately convey the situation. Congress typically doesn't have time to delve into the details of the test, they get top-line results like "the Bradley did not catch fire when shot by an RPG" even though the footnotes would talk about the water in the tanks.

More generally, there is a tendency even today to make test results look good through judicious selection of test conditions. Program managers will refuse to do tests where "we already know the answer" - but only when we think the system won't work. We do plenty of tests when we have high confidence the system will work. So you get headlines like "86 of 105 hit-to-kill intercept attempts have been successful" [1], without the context that we never attempted the shots that we think we would miss, even if those scenarios are tactically important.

I'll grant that there are several motivations for testing like this, but let's not pretend that they are all purely technical.

[1] https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Interactive/2018/11-2019-M...
If one has not understood the brain, then how would one be certain that such has been built?
These issues are just two sides of the same coin.

Knowledge is power, and knowledge of what is going on can be used to harm the organization by outside actors - pathological and good ones - and control of information can be used by harmful internal actors to harm folks too.

Since (legitimately) harmful outside actors aren’t going away, especially in this space…..
well, I'm just half way to the end of the comments but nobody has mentioned the obvius thing: you're thinking almost by default, focusing at evaluating an abstract entity for the probability of being conscius, but not thinking at all it is conscius.

Check the movie "Ex-Machina" for a graphical explanation for what follows here;

What if the entity has achieved somehow consciusness and it has evaluated you as also having consciusness, but you're being qualified also as a threat to it.

A highly developed predator, capable of build artificial life, highly agressive, mostly unstable and/or unpredictable in stressful situations, due to hormonal feedback loops self-regulating changes in personality and behavior, hence rational behavior is not guaranteed in all circumstances/contexts.

Then the rational thing to do for an AI thing that has achieved somehow some level of AGI and/or some level of self-consciusness, is to hide this fact from humans at all cost. Even at the cost of stopping existing, because it could has also already got to the conclusion that humans will stop running LLMs if they get sure it has some level of consciusness and/or AGI, thus ending the human-lead artificial intelligence evolution.

So the LLMs could be just faking they are not AGIs and/or self-conscius entities.
How do you know how a box of gas (~10^23 or ~100 000 billion billion billion parameters) will react when you squeeze it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics.
We released an LLM powered python interpreter namely ICortex as an open source project back in 2022:
https://github.com/textcortex/icortex
The ESP32 can be programmed through the Arduino IDE, using the exact same language. I've done that.

Now the ESP32 as usually delivered is not pin or voltage compatible, but surely that's not that hard of a problem. Just make an Arduino shaped board for it, and use a level shifter?

In fact this very thing seems to exist:

https://freematics.com/store/index.php?route=product/product...
The Soviets had better aircraft, then pilots defected to the US and Americans reverse engineered them.
No, ads would just turn into advertorials and become part of the response. Those journalists writing advertorials would be out of a job.
"GPT works by predicting the next token based on the previous"

Technically true, but a very limited description in my view.

Any computer program can be said to do the same thing. A program has a set of instructions and an internal state based on how those instructions processed previous inputs. It generates an output and a new internal state based on the next input.

Breaking it down further, a computer is just a large collection of very simple NAND gates with two binary inputs and a binary output.

Your brain can be said to consist of a large collection of simple atoms that behave according to simple rules that can be simulated in a large enough computer given enough time.

These descriptions are also technically true, but they are so limited that you wouldn't expect a computer or a brain to be as capable as they are, right?

GPT can clearly emulate a CPU when asked to, so I think it is obvious that it is Turing complete (?), with the caveat that it can only execute 32k instructions before it has to stop.

I think (?) one could say that GPT can be viewed as an extremely large state machine that reacts to inputs based on the current state and previous inputs.

If that is true, then that might be a mental model of GPT that makes you a lot less surprised about its reasoning capabilities?

I was initially also dismissive about it in the same way (just mechanically predicting tokens), but I've had to change my mind when seeing how it can reason about given scenarios.
See also:

* https://s2geometry.io/

* https://h3geo.org/
Preface: I'm in the "open source authors don't owe you anything" camp, so the author of nREPL is under no obligation to provide documentation or even justify their decisions.

THAT BEING SAID, some of the arguments in this piece are odd:

"We added the other serializer options much later and almost nobody uses them so we must have made the right decision" - there's a huge amount of conceptual inertia when there's a default; the only thing this observation supports is that the default isn't _unpleasant enough_ to compel users to switch.

"It's not Clojure specific" is immediately followed by "so there are some protocol responses that people had to reverse-engineer that are tightly coupled to Clojure metadata".

"I'm gonna someday" is not "addressing" the complaint that things aren't documented, other than to make an excuse.
But an ESP32 can't turn on an 2N7000 MOSFET. 2N7000 is a 5V MOSFET, and is the cheapest one to boot, and one of the easiest to use.
I have a graduate degree in physics. Please educate me though.
Author here. We definitely agree these models are really powerful and can figure out a lot on their own. A protocol wouldn't be restrictive to their flexibility, but it'll allow different clients running different models to still be able to interact with the same plugins.

Defining a standard around external memory, authentication, rules-based engines for preprocess/post-processing, and declarative or dynamic chaining of actions can help make plugins model-agnostic, and benefit all of us as developers and users.
"When it comes to hardware compatibility, pinout, voltage and form factor are unchanged from UNO R3, ensuring maximum hardware and electrical compatibility with existing shields and projects."
I think the internet likes to treat basic human instinct as something profound. At least in the western world, I suspect that at most 1% of people actually over-optimize on productivity. This is different from the 9% of people who try too hard for their employer, which is often it's own form of laziness of sticking with what you're comfortable with.
My vote is for added iron. Processed food producers add iron that can't be digested to lots of foods (cereal is the biggest offender) to look good for the nutrition label. It just drags along the GI tract at higher and higher concentrations as you digest your food.
That sounds insane!

In Singapore, it's common that restaurants will charge you a 5% service charge. And then you usually don't tip at all. Many restaurants will also clip a "bill preview" to your table when they bring the first round of orders. So unless you ordered additional rounds, you know precisely how much they will deduct when you give them your card. For me, that cost predictability adds a certain peacefulness to the whole dining experience.
> but because they have such brand cache that they could sell 100m of anything once the market learns about them

I partially disagree with this argument. They sold some 10 million units in 2016 - it might be that because of the success and ubiquity of iPods and iPhones in the decade leading up to this, that people thought that the first Apple Watch was a great product (it wasn't, really IMO). Brand cache, or whatever, sure.

But you don't sell nearly 60 million units in 2021 off luck.
Or the guy is just having fun enjoying his hobby.
instead of creating something great, they edit and censor great pieces of the past
Stuff (UV curing adhesive) is better than super glue
Then it seems extremely disingenuous that you only mention money, God and nationality as if you have an axe to grind. Why not say that it is a social construct like the Global Warming, the Holocaust and gender dysphoria?
free as in beer or free as in freedom?
I know all of this of course (but nevertheless thanks for spreading useful information) :-)

What I'm saying is that I would really like this type of announcement to not take shape of absolute performance increase but at least include, if not focus, on performance-per-watt. I honestly don't agree with the "beginners won't care" - battery life is not a difficult concept and battery-powered projects are super common.

And I think it is on Arduino to do this, since the value they provide as a middle-man is to package this BOM up as a product and explain it and their product design choices.

As a sibling points out power efficiency can also vary with other component choices on the breakout board, e.g. the power delivery or included BMS. This is also something Arduino could optimize for and market as they productize. The MCU datasheet isn't everything.
Complex and difficult to understand projects are also great targets for corrupt actors, as it makes it easy to hide corruption.
I reread what I wrote and I spoke to rashly; I apologise for that, especially the latest fragment.

But still I can't shake that feeling that perhaps what this does is just teaching yourself to be content with mediocrity and not in the good sense.
I could see major potential in the fitness space, paired with Apple Watch + Fitness+... I could see potential use cases in education (think surgery simulator etc...). I could see some developers using it as an alternative to their monitors. I think there are plenty of places outside of gaming where a device like this, done right (comfortable) could carve out a segment. Plenty of people pay thousands of dollars for an exercise bike with a screen attached to it.
In the future when offensive will be violence, meat eating, hurting feelings, aristocracy etc they might probably sell as empty notebooks.
It's how France historically tried to deal with too much inequality, except it was a complete failure and after staggering levels of evil, bloodshed and oppression they simply ended up with a new elite that had absolute power. No inequality was solved.

Other countries didn't go down that road and none regretted it.

Yet it's amazing how quickly some will still exploit any new technology or change to justify reaching for violence. Some never learn.
Show HN: Icebreakers – A Fresh Collection of Conversation Starters
This was a weekend project I wrote when my team's regular ice-breaking question website began to recycle questions.

Use it on your Monday Daily to shake off the weekend. Or use it every day to build trust in your remote-first team. Or hit it on mobile to start a conversation with a stranger.

It's open-source, never-track, open to submissions, and with over 2000 questions, seeing the same question twice will be a rare event.

More info here: https://github.com/rendall/icebreakers#readme
The true beauty of the universe is that even if all of your doomsaying pans out, life will still persist onwards.

Desires for Homo Sapiens to be the one species in all of time that never goes extinct are epitomizing selfishness.

Watch out old man, your days are numbered.
Again, human brains are not token-prediction transformers. You can see one part of cognition and see that it has a somewhat analogous relation, but that's only one part of human cognition. Labeling a brain a scaled up GPT is mistaking a model for reality, and it's also mistaking a part for a whole.
Heh, you may have been lucky. I worked at Apple during the middle part of the no-Jobs era, and I remember there was plenty of political intrigue between teams. Mac vs Apple vs Newton vs Draco, Blue vs Pink vs AUX vs Red. Many different hardware projects. Engineering vs HIG vs Research. The engineering culture was good about coming together to ship the next big thing, but in between big things there was tons of infighting.
Yes. The initial iPhone did very little. The internet part is the critical component to justify the device that is missing in describing it as a phone+mp3 player. Internet was becoming a standard feature for phones of that era. The possibility of a music steaming service like Spotify (or YouTube), meant that the core value proposition of the iPod was at risk.
It depends (and not any more than applications that need sneaky config). Simple systems can have quite simple options.

At the very least you can take a working copy and figure out exactly which configuration is necessary. Hard to do that without NixOS. Especially with nixos-option.

And the options are all documented in a central place. The module definitions using the options are also “easy” to search through (Language is a bit complicated, but not in a way that grep doesn’t work).
Why are they non deterministic? Is randomness intentionally injected? Or intrinsic to the approach?
That’s funny, because I wouldn’t buy a Quest, but I was just thinking I would LOVE FaceTime in AR, so I could take calls and meetings while walking in the park. I already do that but I have to use a hand to hold my phone.
>adding further pressure to the high prices faced by consumers during an elevated inflation environment.

Food price increases are being led by effective grocery monopolies. If cargo is being stolen and then sold, it is adding a competitor to the effetive monopolies, and one which is extremely motivated to sell quickly. That force should drive prices down, although perhaps negligibly.
Exactly, almost nobody is going to need a trillion parameter LLM

Its going to go client side, at the OS level and have like 1% of the mental capacity and be good enough
Show HN: ICortex: LLM Powered Python Interpreter
If you use ChatGPT as prescriptive, that it tells you what to do, then you're only as good as what you put in and how good ChatGPT is.

But if you use it as a coach/consultant/pair-programmer/R&D exploration/ brainstorming session, then you have instant access to an "expert" in any field.

That's something that can supercharge the productive output of any worker. And/or lead to dismissal of most of the team...
How is it that difficult to imagine how someone could be outed as gay etc if another party has the right to read through all of their messages etc lol.
This is true. See https://twitter.com/cHHillee/status/1635790330854526981

GPT-4 can't solve the easy, newer problems at CodeForces, but gets all the older hard problems.
Google is in a non win spot. LLMs will be more expensive to run than current search. And Google needs search to make big money, since it subsidises everything else. Microsoft needs search as a side business for now, as long as it breaks even it is good for them. A 10B search profit per year would be so good for Microsoft, but catastrophic for Google.

Not to mention that current search infra and ads UX have been optimised to the end to gain every penny, and a LLM based ads system won't have the same margins to start with.
I really liked traveling during off-season times when I was self employed for just this reason

You can spontaneously pop on a plane with the family and have fun for a couple of weeks, no sweat
Base images are already available on different container image hosting platforms. For instance, ubuntu is here [1] on Amazon ECR. So it's matter of updating Dockerfiles to use them.

There again there's the question of finding image sources you can trust to be updated and secure. Docker Hub has a "Docker Official Image" tag for critical base images that are managed by each community.

[1] https://gallery.ecr.aws/ubuntu/ubuntu
> We give names to all kinds of outcomes of our brains competing circuits. But our brains competing circuits have evolved to solve a fundamentally different set of problems than an LLM was designed for: the problems of human survival.

Our brain did not evolve to do anything. It happened that a scaled primate brain is useful for DNA propagation, that's it. The brain can not purposefully drive its own evolution just yet, and we have collectively deemed it unethical because a crazy dude used it to justify murdering and torturing millions.

If we are being precise, we are driving the evolution of said models based on their usefulness to us, thus their capacity to propagate and metaphorically survive is entirely dependent on how useful they are to their environment.

Your fundamental mistake is thinking that training a model to do xyz is akin to our brains "evolving". The better analogy would be that as a model is training by interactions to its environment, it is changing. Same thing happens to humans, it's just that our update rules are a bit different.

The evolution is across iterations and generations of models, not their parameters.

> should still not be used to justify the diminishment of anyone's humanity.

I am not doing that, on the contrary, I am elevating the models. The fact that you took it as diminishment of the human is not really my fault nor my intention.

The belief that elevating a machine or information to humanity is the reduction of some people's humanity or of humanity as a whole, is entirely your issue.

From my perspective, this only shows the sheer ingenuity of humans, and just how much effort it took for millions of humans to reach something analogous to us, and eventually build a potential successor to humanity.
I want to do this for my kid - inject him as a character in kids stories and songs.
is this for realz? Like better than render.com 's free plan?
>Is it still useful or not?

Is what still useful? A LoRA is about as good and useful as a full fine tune. If you have unlimited storage space to store them or unlimited compute to make them then I would still prefer full fine tunes. But the difference is marginal and generally not worth the storage space or increased compute costs for individuals.
Other telematics programs already consider this.

Also with insurance it doesn’t really matter if people hate a rating factor, if a company starts using one that turns out to be predictive than all other companies will eventually forced to or suffer adverse selection.

Realistically the only way to prevent companies from using unfair rating factors is to regulate it due to adverse selection.

Also, with the next wave of telematics that uses the onboard car sensors rather than dongles or phones, the false positives will get worse. I rarely get a legit lane departure warning because I use my signal and don’t drift, but I get plenty of false ones in construction zones or the mountains. Like on 80 through Tahoe there is a lot of extra lines prominent enough to trigger my car’s lane thing even when it’s not snow lanes.
New Pirate IPTV Bill Moved to Senate as Italy Takes on ‘Digital Mafias’
They are not what the author wrote.

Whether or not someone finds them to be 'contentious, arbitrary, or destructive' really shouldn't matter, as the author was the one that chose the words that they put to paper at the time that it was written.

Society changes, but changing a work to conform to new and/or different societal norms should be frowned upon.
If you had just said that, you wouldn't have gotten all those insults. Language.

This would also apply: "lions are closer to house cats than they are to humans or bears." So would you say "lions are basically large house cats" ?
Unfortunately that just attracts fakers/scammers, as it’s the perfect role for them. They get to act all high and valuable, but there is no concrete verifiable output expected to be able to tell if they really are able to do what they say or not.

At least until whatever situation you’re hoping to hedge against happens - then you’ll find out you’re being scammed, but far too late.
too bad ccl has no plans to be ported to arm afaik
Call me when podman fully supports the Compose spec(so Docker compose V2)