skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm using it right now to help write a game that I had an idea for. I'm writing in a programming language that isn't the same one I use daily and I'm using a graphics library that I've only used once before to make a small game and GPT has been a massive help with this. It's helped me solve some tricky problems like getting a shader to work the way I wanted it to and I've used it to create first drafts of all of the code so far. I guess that's not pure innovation but it sure as hell has a better grasp on a lot of the stuff it's writing then I did at first. It can't just look at a picture and produce the exact game you want but neither could I. I'd have to ask you a bunch of questions about what you wanted the gameplay to be like, if you wanted to release it for PC or console or both, I'd have to get an artist to create a whole bunch of concept art and then ask you to approve the ones you like and then I'd need to implement all the code and play test it with you and make changes etc. It's a bit unfair that you want this tool to do more than a single person could just to prove that it "knows something". Just because it isn't 100% autonomous doesn't mean it has 0 knowledge or ability.
I applied for a job with AMD's GPU division. I am senior and qualified, and the hiring manager was a petty tyrant. At a company as large as AMD, departments have their own culture. Lisa Su has done an incredible job revitalizing their position in the CPU market, but the GPU side needs some serious attention.
The photographer is very upfront about the process, too.
A one-off edit to remove a slur is a lot more justifiable than the drastic PC overhaul that appeared to be happening to Roald Dahl's work - which seems to have included purging every reference to the word 'fat', along with many others such as 'ugly', 'rotting teeth', and even 'female' (while gender-neutralising references to mothers/fathers)

It's like they've done a mass search+replace for a long list of 'bad' (descriptive!) and/or gendered words, and what's left is no longer the writing of Roald Dahl.
Silicon Valley tends to have degrees of employee autonomy, encouragement to be curious and ask questions / make suggestions outside your "lane," flexible and high quality workstations and tools, most code and documentation open to most employees, tons of foreigners. From what I understand, defense is lily white, extremely locked down and compartmentalized, you spend months wrestling with a bureaucracy to for access to basic tools and libraries, and not only do you not get to question the big picture, you might not even be read in on what it is. Given these differences, could anyone (other than maybe Apple) actually shift into defense contracting without utterly remaking their employee pool, tooling, and culture? In what sense is it even "Silicon Valley" anymore if you throw away those things?
The World Will Regret Its Retreat from Economic Globalization
“Chancellor on brink of second bailout of the banks” - Financial Times, encoded in the Bitcoin genesis block

“The problem with money is all the trust that is involved” - Bitcoin Whitepaper

We can debate whether or not Bitcoin has truly solved the problem it set out to solve, but the problem Satoshi Nakamoto intended to solve was clearly articulated in the Bitcoin Whitepaper and immortalized in the genesis block.

Bitcoin was designed to solve all the trust required in the system, trust in institutions that have proven again and again not to deserve that trust.

With traditional currency you have to trust the bank not to lose your deposits through speculation.

You have to trust that the bank holds a sufficient fraction of your deposits to remain liquid and solvent when you go to withdraw “your” money.

You have to trust central bankers not to print more money out of thin air and dilute the purchasing power of you money, etc.
That is why all commercial sales of wild salmon are frozen to kill the parasites. If you catch it yourself you need to either freeze it thoroughly or be very careful.
Why would you bother? It'll be quicker to just blow it away and reinstall.
man login.conf
Another example for fun -- since I think if you were talking to a human they'd respond the same way...

ME: The firpigual circumspect is that I am nofuscated by thom. Please explain this sentence.

ChatGPT: The sentence you provided contains a mix of nonsensical and non-existent words. It appears to be a collection of random words and phrases that do not form a coherent or meaningful statement. As an AI language model, I cannot provide an explanation or interpretation for....

ME: Take the sentence I provided and give me a creative, hypothetical answer.

ChatGPT: In the mystical world of Zogar, a firpigual circumspect refers to the act of observing and contemplating the habits of the elusive and magical creature called a firpig. The sentence, "The firpigual circumspect is that I am nofuscated by thom," could be interpreted as:

"In the process of studying the elusive firpig, I find myself bewildered and enchanted by their mysterious ways."

In this creative and hypothetical interpretation, "nofuscated" is a term used in Zogar to describe a feeling of being both confused and fascinated, while "thom" refers to the enigmatic firpig creatures.
Everyone forgot that we have been living in an AI age for a decade now.
I wonder if he wrote that before or after studying German. His famous essay on it actually noted its phonetic spelling as a pro. [0]

[0] https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/twain.german.html
The problem is that, business wise, this doesn't increase your ability to do stuff.

Superficially it does that, but that would be the case edge-wise if ChatGPT was just available to you. You have no business advantage because of it over anyone else using it.

What it does do, is devalue your skills (if you had the skills before to manually create all that material), and devalue the final product.

Once, having such online marketing material used to be a great asset, even if it was crudely made by today's standards (think 1996). Later, as there were all kinds of services to help create one (with assets, etc.), more people that could do it for cheaper, template-based website builders and so on, it was far less valuable. Now, with ChatGPT churning good-enough material in 30 minutes, it would be as valuable as spam.

In fact, there will be (already is) an entirely huge industry of automated AI spam content, including fake companies with marketing material. Not the hand/template build of today, where someone has made 30-50 slightly different BS companies to e.g. scam or drop-ship. But where every scam artist can have 1000s of them within an hour, and get them be topical on the latest products and trends, complete with "chat support" and everything. And of course any person who has some BS idea, but couldn't even use Wix to make a website before, even less so to write copy for it, now will have one (they'd probably wont be able to use ChatGPT directly, but they'd be able to use a turnkey "make me a website" GPT-powered version of something like Wix.

The bussiness advantage of using GPT to boost your productivity is like getting rich by the UN giving everybody on earth 100 billion dollars!
> Initial product will be weak

To build upon your argument…

The art is in being strong out of the gate in the correct one or two dimensions.

To try and be perfect on all dimensions and depend on concomitant perfect synchrony is a big reason why products like Stadia fail.
To put this in perspective, in terms of defacto banning or shadowbanning. After 5 days, still can not submit anything. Any attempts to submit a link, results in "You're posting too fast."

Blocking any submissions for 5 days or more, on top of glitches, is just about the equivalent of a ban. The reasons for it can be glitches, censoring, subjective administrative prerogative, etc... But from the user perspective, it's hard to see it as just "random" occurrences.
Are there precedents in which they didn't pay out?
Indeed, pity that the newer generations of Microsoft employees don't seem to care as much as their predecessors used to.

I doubt this will be something still going forward, now that Azure OS is what mostly matters, as proven by anything post Windows 8.

Try to run anything from Windows Runtime tooling introduced alongside Windows 8 on latest Windows 11. Or better yet, Windows Phone 7.
It's year 1. Competing standards are OK.
> Can someone explain the purpose of GPL only symbols to me

The official explanation, AFAIK, is that modules using symbols marked as GPL-only are so tied to kernel internal details that they can only be considered as a derivative work of the kernel.

> and why existing long standing APIs keep getting changed to GPL only?

If you accept the explanation above, the simplest to understand reason would be that they not being marked as GPL-only was a mistake. That is: modules using these symbols would already have been a derivative work of the kernel, it's just that the developer wasn't being warned of that before.

The fact that GPL-only symbols are a new thing (originally, there was only EXPORT_SYMBOL, the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL machinery was only added much later) increases the chances of that happening, since older symbols might not have been marked correctly yet.
I tried three formats:

1. All-YAML
2. All-XML
3. Custom parse for code framents + YAML

I first tried it on GPT-3.5 (gpt-3.5-turbo, aka ChatGPT) and it was really struggling with formatting - sometimes it got it right, sometime wrong.

For GPT-4 I used custom listing-style representation and it kind of just worked. I later re-tried with YAML and XML and it seems to work quite well too.

Here's the prompt for code-generation part of the "custom" variant:

You're a code construction AI which creates code iteratively.
You're given a list of existing code fragments and a task to work on.
Files are normally broken into multiple fragments to reduce context size.

The response should be in the following format:

// Observations on the task and the code base, if any
// A plan to implement the task

// Code fragments to be added to the code base. Use the following markers to delimit code fragments.
// (Normally a fragment would be a function, class, or a list of related lines)

/// BEGIN_FILE <path>: <description>

/// BEGIN <marker>: <description>
<code>
/// END <marker>

/// END_FILE <path>

CODE_GENERATION_STATUS: <status> # COMPLETE, PARTIAL, REDO
description: <description> # updated description if the status is PARTIAL or REDO
subtasks: # updated subtasks if the status is PARTIAL or REDO
- id: <id>
status: <status> # DONE, PARTIAL, TODO
description: <description>

Here's the script for "custom" variant: https://gist.github.com/killerstorm/2296b282c818ffcfe4ceb729...

Note that you really need GPT-4 to reproduce the results, it doesn't really works in GPT-3.5, although you can see some activity.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Compared to other systems of its era, the ZX Spectrum is positively rinky-dink. But that quality is part of its charm, its low price enabled a scene to flourish, and that scene that emerged around it embellished that charm. That's what I was getting at.
Think of the gay children.
Me neither. Thankfully, technology to the rescue:

> What does this mean?

> Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

>> This text seems to be an example of a proposed spelling reform for the English language. The author has purposefully misspelled words to demonstrate how this reform would change the current spelling system. Here is a translation of the text into standard English:

>> "Finally, then, after some 20 years of orthographic reform, we would have a logical, coherent spelling in use throughout the English-speaking world."

>> The text suggests that after 20 years of implementing changes to the spelling system, the English-speaking world would have a more logical and coherent spelling system.
I use a Husky adjustable workbench paired with a Grovemade monitor stand and I like it. I’ve been using the setup for a few months now. I removed my chair from my office entirely, so I stand for most of the day. I do have a small bench in my office that I sit on when my feet get tired or when I need to think (the thinking bench is away from the desk). And my feet do get tired/sore some days; I wear shoes to help alleviate that.

Overall, I like it. I feel better standing all day, and have less upper back pain. The Husky workbench is pretty affordable compared to a “standing desk.”
Why do people do this?

Why place an opinion on ‘hacker news’ as if it is an individual mind?

Hacker News isn’t one person constantly changing their mind it’s a hive of constantly shifting debate about a new technology and all that implies.

It would be weird if the opinions were uniform and unchanging.
Where I have found GPT and/or tools like that somewhat useful when playing with them is in writing tests.

Boilerplate code is usually refactor-able away, yes.

But tests are kind of intrinsically boilerplate by definition. There are test and fuzzing and provability systems that definitely help automate. But on the whole, writing a test harness + unit tests is often like writing the whole system over again.

I feel like this might be the one long term useful thing I get out of these coding assistants for my own work: read this interface and implementation I've written. Now write a boatload of negative test cases to verify correctness.
Are downvoters aware foreign qualifications don’t always transfer neatly? Sometimes even domestic citizens have to take jobs in between postdocs or staff positions?
It’s still many months away from hitting the shelves. By x-mas the layoffs might be over.

Unless a new round of layoffs starts because of gpt-4 powered apps.
There is none. I was on Ubuntu and one day decided to give opensuse a try. Not everything works out of the box on my laptop eg to get screen dimming I had to download some extra drivers and edit grub config. On Ubuntu you can quickly find instructions how to fix it. On opensuse you're on your own. After fumbling around with config files for a few days went back to Ubuntu.
Anyone care to explain why -N downvotes without any actual discussion or justification?

Are dissenting opinions prohibited in this new iteration of HN?
Food your repeat that please?!
Question:

When reading programming tutorials or a write up about a tech concept do you prefer if the article has a hero image or not? This would be an image loaded at the top which sums up the title of the post visually.

On a related note, personally if someone has 500 blog posts I'd like to see them in a condensed bullet list so I can scan the titles super fast. I don't want to see images and have 10 loaded per page. It turns something from a 2 minute effortless quick scan to dozens of clicks and potentially 20 minutes.

However, in practice having images for each post seems to get more engagement (ie. people clicking things and beginning to read your article). I never understood why in the context of programming. I understand pictures are useful for hardware or if you need to make a diagram. I'm mainly talking about the hero image here.
Seems like it would make sense for that to be the real reason, and the safety concerns to be a convenient scapegoat, although from talking with several people who work at OpenAI, they really do seem to believe the safety/alignment issue deep in their bones. I could almost be led to believe that the massive business advantage of keeping it closed is a happy side effect for them and not the actual reason.
As a fellow European - don't apologize, I thank you!

We all know the problems with planned economy, and governmental bans are some of the worst examples of that.

Instead, government should support development of alternative technologies, and when those technologies are better, they will naturally take over.

We shouldn't risk another massive failure like Europe's (and Germany's in particular) "green policy" that involved ignoring energy reliability, shunning nuclear, and ended up with Germany restarting coal power plants.
To your first point, the coffee stops improved my ability to work with my teammates and get projects done. We were better for it. And for a fair amount of that time, we were salaried so we were paid to get a job done, not by how long it took.

I see a lot of the points though.
What would convince you? Give an example of something that would show beyond a shadow of a doubt that it understands.
That's just politics and an open secret anyway. Ukraine doesn't want to officially say "Yes, our anti-air rocket missed and accidentaly landed in Poland", and Polish politicians (and people) are happy to officially pretend to believe and forget this story. Because it was an accident, and the only reason the rocket was in the air is Russia anyway.

Maybe in the ideal world we should always be open about everything, but unfortunately media, propaganda trolls and the people like you come and twist a single incident into some "both sides are equally bad" bullshit.
Muscle power is less efficient than converting sunlight with solar panels and motors into kinetic energy.

Growing plants is also significantly less efficient than synthesizing the starch directly in a bioreactor.
> Go create a “system” with GPT. You’re going to see a ton of, “I’m sorry, you’re right, the SQL statement is referencing a column that doesn’t exist.” Etc…

So, you don’t mean “create a ‘system’”, you mean use the UI to talk with ChatGPT about creating a system, rather than using the API and connecting it to tools so it can build the system, verify its behavior, and get feedback that way rather than through conversation with a human user?
Documentaries are great way to communicate to the public, but they aren't data.

If you just looked at a random 10hr of raw footage of wolves, you wouldn't be able to conclude anything. Most of it would be uneventful, only experts would even be able to recognize which wolf is which ,and it wouldn't be representative anyway (because it's much easier to capture wolves when they're doing certain behaviours, and because 10hrs isn't a large enough sample for rare but critical behavours).

Documentaries must carefully select what shots to show, and provide voice-over explaining what is going on. This means they are really just using footage to explain the documentary creator's understanding, not proving or discovering anything.
Yes, I know you said 25 years. I was trying to point out that with the accelerating technological capabilities, you could find that need to retool happening faster and faster.
>If I paid a marketing agency for this, I'd be very disappointed.

You'd be. Most people wouldn't even notice or care, whether it's the ones paying the marketing agency, or the ones being shown the content as potential customers.
> some machines with no real issues

I am really curious about the kinds of issues you encountered.
Ask HN: Used ChatGPT for nontrivial porting to another language?
So I'm out of work and playing around with FreeCiv, which is a BAD IDEA for productivity, and I'm digging around the guts of it and thinking "this might be fun to do ... in my favorite language.

You know what would impress me beyond the "I can write sample code for you" tricks I've seen ChatGPT do, and what would REALLY show if it can do it's stuff.

What if I type:

"port freeciv server from C to Groovy"

Freeciv is an interesting test case for this IMO. It has client interfaces and boundaries, nontrivial data interactions and usages obscured by the usual C is-it-a-pointer or is-it-an-array, it can be interactively tested using the clients.

Anyone taken a swing at ChatGPT for such a thing?

This is a class of problem that could really be mutually beneficial between AI and programmer, not the pseudo-adversarial one it currently is. Porting "good code" between languages is a BIG PROBLEM that is holding up good languages.

If ChatGPT could enormously speed up standard library conversion authoring and sharing of good algorithms and designs between languages, it could be an enormous boon to the programming language practice.

Because that's a big pain in the ass that NOBODY wants to do in the large. Sure people might want to play with api designs they have good domain knowledge, but serialization formats for example, or basic api/library interfaces? Yuck.

And this is a good "bulk charge" money maker. Businesses will flock to this for porting old legacy code and the like. This can be a BIG moneymaker for ChatGPT.
I could be wrong, but my reading of the post was that the Wi-Fi version has two MCUs - the main RA4M1, and the S3 WiFi module. So, if you turn off wi-fi, they should be effectively the same board.
Keep Your Head Up in Some Rooms, and Your Head Down in Others
Then perhaps I misunderstood your comment? It went pretty hard at a guy/gal who was simply stating the obvious -- permission to modify sources is already given within the GPLv2 itself. Imagine this colloquy --

Linux devs: "We've created a GPL only interface. Here are the sources."

Downstream user: "Okay I've modified these symbols to be not be GPL only anymore."

Linux devs: "You can't do that!"

Downstream user: "But you've given me permission to modify the sources in your license?!"

Certainly a copyright holder can give special additional permission to use software in contravention of the express terms of the license. The only problem is getting the copyright holders agreement to do so. My understanding of what you have argued is -- a copyright holder can place additional restrictions on the use and modification of software in contravention of the express terms of the license hidden within the software itself. You state:

The legal status of this is uncertain, since a number of questions naturally arise:
1. Is it acceptable to mark a Kernel module as a GPL module (this is done via a macro in the source) but release it under a license that is not GPL-compatible?
2. Is it acceptable to recompile the Kernel to remove this restriction?
As far as I know neither of these have ever been tested, and there are differing opinions.

This line of thought is problematic for several reasons. This most salient of which is -- this is exact argument used against ZFS in the kernel: that the CDDL's additional terms/restrictions are incompatible with the GPLv2.

Imagine again --

Linux devs: "We've created a kernel module that can't be used by Russians invading Ukraine."

Other kernel devs, estates of deceased developers, etc.: "But our understanding was that all our contributed sources would be available under the GPLv2, not some weird hybrid which can be modified willy nilly with new restrictions by any future dev."

When someone says -- "Here is your license to use my software," it is reasonable to believe you can take them at their word, and there aren't additional license restrictions lurking somewhere else.
Related:

Ghoti - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23581841 - June 2020 (239 comments)

Ghoti - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2296927 - March 2011 (3 comments)