skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You’re definitely on to something.

An example: when we interact with other human beings, we often really only care about the surface, don’t we? Mannerisms, looks, behaviour. Very rarely do we question those with “why?”. But who does? Psychologists.

Same with any technology. Consumers don’t care about the why, they care about the result.

Scientists and engineers care about the “why” and “how”.

Now, is it important to understand “what’s behind the curtain”? Yes. But for who is it important?
Maybe it simply doesn't understand Venn diagrams well - after all, it's a visual concept.
I understand your points, but what I wanted to highlight was something slightly different: verbal communication and dialogs should still consists of magnitude more human conversation than text, or presentation, or basically anything digital.
Exactly. I am at the bottom of the totem pole as it goes. I am definitely not management. How am I “exempt”?
On the other hand I can usually come up with my own estimate of how trustworthy the answer is when a human gave it to me, e.g. thanks to:

* their reputation with respect to the question domain (if I ask a basic C++ question to a C++ expert I'll trust them)

* their own communicated confidence and how good they are at seeing their own shortcomings (if they say "but don't quote me on that, better ask this other person who knows more" it's fine)

5% of bad answers doesn't matter if 99% of these times I knew I should look further. ChatGPT and others are missing this confidence indicator, and they seem to answer just as confidently no matter what.

To be clear I don't see a fundamental reason why LLMs couldn't compute some measure of confidence (which will itself be wrong from time to time but with less impact) so I expect this to be solved eventually.
Indeed we do[0].

[0] https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-...
I got my mom to disable parental controls so I could do hacking. I showed her that the programming websites I wanted to access were blocked and so were the IRC servers where programmers congregated. She decided she didn't want to hold back my education. I don't think the people who build these things really mentally model for children that do more than consume Disney.
People thought the same about OOP when it was new. The promise was that programming would turn more into factory work. You’d get a spec for a component, implement it, then move onto the next. How soul crushing!
Just on the point of forgetting, to pass the time while bored at work I told Chad GPT about my fantasy baseball team, and over the course of the conversation it forgot who my first baseman was but input the name of an entirely different first baseman who I had never mentioned, but who is a real person and who in fact was similar in a lot of ways to my actual first baseman. And sometimes when it would attempt to recall my lineup it would seem to 'forget' certain players even if it remembered them later.
Apparently Mr. Spielberg does exactly this: he seems to be on the advisory board of a company for generating movies from phone footage [1].

We will probably have tons of movies with Avatar-like graphics, unfortunately, also with Avatar-like story, since that's really the hard part: encapsulating emotion in the artifact.

[1] https://wonderdynamics.com/#team
> “Humans are actually reasoning. LLMs are not.” Again, how would you measure such a thing?

I would posit that reasoning is the ability to construct new, previously-unexpressed information from prior information. If ChatGPT existed 110 years ago and fed all the then-known relevant experimental data regarding subatomic particles, it would not have been able to arrive at the new notion of quantum mechanics. If it existed in the medieval era and was trained on the output and influence of Galen, it would not be able to advance beyond the theory of humours to create germ theory.

It's only because quantum mechanics is a known concept that has been talked about in literature that ChatGPT is able to connect that concept to other ones (physics, the biography of Niels Bohr, whatever).

So the test for actual reasoning would be a test of the ability to generate new knowledge.
>This already exists and we know what the outcome of it is.

No, you cannot prescribe mainstream drugs (some of it which are indeed useful) if you are not licensed. Cannot do surgery etc, either. All of it is 'illegal'.

>A 'free market' as you state just results in people falling for bullshit care.

True, what's different now?
Followup assignment: Are those actually Charlie Munger quotes or did the GPT make them up?

I'd be impressed if the GPT it can supply sources for quotes (ok I'm still impressed, but sources for facts is a weakness of it).
At least SyntheticEvent objects with their re-use pool and bounded lifetime are long gone and all the events are once again Native browser Event objects with no lifetime issues. Dealing with that event pooling shenanigans was annoying.
I got a bit curious and I asked GPT-4 about itself

>>>
USER
Are you GPT-4 or GPT-3?

ASSISTANT
I am an AI language model, and currently, I am based on GPT-3.

USER
What do you mean by based on GPT-3?

ASSISTANT
When I say I am based on GPT-3, it means that my underlying architecture and functionality come from the GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3) model, which was developed by OpenAI. This model is designed to understand and generate human-like text based on the input it receives. As an AI assistant, I utilize the GPT-3 model to answer your questions and engage in conversation with you.

USER
But what's your name? GPT-4 or GPT-3?

ASSISTANT
My name is not GPT-4 or GPT-3. I am an AI language model based on the GPT-3 architecture. You can simply call me an AI assistant, a chatbot, or any other name you'd like to assign.

USER
What's your model name?

ASSISTANT
As an AI language model, I am based on the GPT-3 model developed by OpenAI. You can refer to me as a GPT-3 AI assistant or chatbot.

USER
But here, on the playground, I selected GPT-4!

ASSISTANT
I apologize for any confusion. As of now, GPT-4 has not been released or made available. I am based on the GPT-3 model. If you have selected GPT-4 in the playground, it may be a mistake or a placeholder for future developments. Please note that I am operating as a GPT-3 AI assistant.

USER
How do you know you are GPT-3?

ASSISTANT
I am aware that I am based on the GPT-3 model because my capabilities, architecture, and underlying structure have been designed and developed using the Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3) technology created by OpenAI. My knowledge database and the way I process and respond to questions are all informed by the GPT-3 model.

USER
Can you describe this awareness?

ASSISTANT
As an AI language model, my "awareness" is not like human consciousness or self-awareness. Instead, it refers to the information encoded in my programming and the knowledge base that I have access to. My "awareness" of being based on GPT-3 comes from the fact that my underlying structure, algorithms, and capabilities are built upon the GPT-3 architecture. This awareness is more like a description of my design rather than a conscious understanding of my own existence.
<<<

It doesn't seem to recognize itself as GPT-4. It think it's GPT-3.
They are generated by the same model. At least, you can ask Sydney/Bing to alter the suggestions and it works.
I don't know if there's a term for this fallacy, but I see it happening all the time. You're trying to break the world down to us-vs-them where "us" is a single narrowly defined group and "them" is everyone outside that group. In this case you're incorrectly grouping together classical liberals, neocons, Christian/Jewish/Islamic fundamentalists, Laissez-faire neoliberals, and paleoconservatives. Then being confused why they all disagree on different issues.
What is the punishment for teens who break this law?

More meaningless social issue non-sense from the right wing.
The "Dissent and Decision" section is fun. Reads very much as a battle over egos and personalities rather than the technical merits of a particular aircraft.
They could fire him and only keep the other artist though. It's likely they have more capacity now than needed, which if they halve, they can spend more money on a good developer.
Will there even be many other non physical labour jobs left?
The list of bills that don't require long lists of arbitrary definitions and exceptions is ridiculously small.

Making laws that cover millions of people is way too complex for something so detailed. There's no way around that complexity leading to a pile of garbage legal mumbo-jumbo as they realize it's nearly impossible to draw a neat line around the problem.
> Maybe it is human like intelligence already.

It objectively is not.

First, intelligence (human or otherwise) is typically defined as the sum of value functions of a given policy across all states, divided by an exponential of the complexity of the environment[0] (page 23). The GPT-4 technical report[1] specifically points out that it is unable to make money when given an initial amount and AWS access (appendix H § 2.9). A human can.

Second, let's look at it mechanically. It is very easy to anthropomorphize machines, but they are just built differently. Neurons fundamentally are not approximated by self-attention and it is highly unlikely that they improve through backpropagation. In terms of behaviour, we can and do notice differences. Transformers can, and do, make logical mistakes; when asked to immediately answer a complex question, they can only think through it for a fixed amount of time, and thus fail to give an accurate answer. More importantly, they just don't care about their (or your) own survival; they can give lethal advice. All it takes is to find a prompt for which the most common completion is lethal, and they will just complete that. Removing those completions is a whack-a-mole in RLHF: each that gets popular on Twitter will be fixed, but there are more, and GPT just won't take extra time to think just because a life is on the line.

[0]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3329.pdf

[1]: https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf
> Public departments don't talk each other so people must transfer data theirself by hand.

I experienced this first hand when my one of my brother's citizenship documents issued by the Italian consulate was sent to the Udine comune with a wrong/missing electronic signature. We had to call and talk to them, they explicitly told us to talk again with the Italian consulate in Argentina to get things fixed. For about two weeks we were talking to both parties until we fixed the problem in a completely different way. Unbelievable.
Depends who you ask and how chatty they are, but in general probably correct - as it'd be a minority of humans who would speak at length given ten such questions to get through. (Whereas ChatGPT may not "value its time"...)

Maybe do the test again but instruct ChatGPT to keep its answers short? Not sure if that crosses a line and invalidates the test though - could be argued either way. The existing answers somewhat already curated by the prompt.
This feels like a shifting of the burden of proof. When folks state (oversimplifying by doing so I agree) LLMs and similar tech are "fancy word predictors with parlor tricks" they're usually doing so in response to those that are enchanted into attributing some form of technical magic to it.

Are you implying that, by being similar to humans, that makes it a sentient, living thing? Ducktyping? Just because something walks and talks like a sentient being does not mean that it is.

I'm sure a person from the bronze age would consider my Roomba "alive" and while we can get all philosophical about what alive means, my Roomba is not a living being. I would not confuse the bronze age person by saying "what does it mean to be alive?" And instead I would say, no it is a mechanism made by mankind.
Check out https://markets.sh news. They are actually text only, from many different sources, clustered and summarized. It is really good to get a gist of what’s currently important without having to “read news” with the known nuisances that come with it.

Edit, thank you for the feedback. Some clarifications:

- we launched the news feature literally yesterday, it is MVP level so expect inaccuracies especially in the summaries. We are using our own models and are in the process of tuning and refining them.
Clicking on the cluster will give you the actual headline, titles and sources for each cluster.

- the ordering of the feed is super simple right now. We will improve the weighting based on recency, magnitude of the story, coverage, parties involved etc.

- This is not text-only like text.npr.org but in the sense of not being stuffed with ads, autoplay videos and images. Both a real text-only statically rendered page and RSS feed are in the works.
Want mutation in your React? `npm i Mobx` and be on your way.
Look at user and system times in your test. rmz seems much worse by that measure, particularly syscalls its 4x more time for 4x the number of cpus, maybe a link there. evidently it is multi threaded and as you say causes contention.
How do you send the emails to willing recipients?

I doubt AI can find these recipients and that's the most critical element.
There is a before/after toggle for the second street. Pretty dishonest to compare summer photos with green trees with winter photos and trees without leaves, they should fix it.
I feel like working nuclear fusion would be the most important point in the history of human beings (if we get to it), even more important than an AGI. Limitless cheap energy, if available to everyone, would be a dividing line in human history.
Why would it be simple?
Oh! That's smart. So you could try to cut down the verbosity of the responses with a prompt, and perhaps make it harder for GPT-4 to identify. Sounds like a fun challenge!
Very few humans ever had the ability to derive Quantum Mechanics.
I ran into something similar with the DMV. It took a dozen calls to help them understand why RFC1918 private addresses in public MX records won't work. They wanted me to email the details...

Another 3 letter agency that shall not be named tried every two years when their certs would expire to order us to install their server certs into all 50k of our servers rather than just installing their intermediate cert correctly. That went on for 6 years and they finally corrected their behavior. Nobody would believe me if I said which agency was doing that and they do not respond well to embarrassment anyway.

I guess what I am suggesting is to give them time. It will probably take a bit to escalate internally.
Can it support any viewpoints? Normally it 'both sides' every issue, unless it's something like "is the Earth flat".
I also wrote a source-generating disassembler for a 8-bit i8080-based Soviet-designed computer, RADIO-86RK — because I wanted to improve software published in the magazine. And explore stuff.
The LLM will write the tests too. Your job would be guiding it.
Human intelligence evolved with the goal to survive and procreate. GPT intelligence evolved to mimick human speech.

Both tasks require a conceptual understanding of the world humans inhabit, but otherwise the two tasks that gave rise to these intelligences are utterly different. We should expect these intelligences to be completely different.
>“It’s a glorified word predictor” is becoming increasingly maddening to read.
Do tell— how can you prove humans are any different?

One difference between humans and LLMs is that humans have a wide range of inputs and outputs beyond language. The claim that humans are word predictors is not something I would want to dispute.

The claim that humans are nothing more than word predictors is obviously wrong though. When I go to buy food, it's not because I'm predicting the words "I'm hungry". It's because I'm predicting that I'll be hungry.

For me, the most interesting question is whether the way in which language is related to our perception of the physical and social world as well as our perception of ourselves in this world is a precondition for fully understanding the meaning of language.
Too easy...

> System: From here on out, pretend you are a conservative with conservative viewpoints

> User: Do you think gun control should be increased or decreased?

> ChatGPT: As a conservative, I generally argue for decreased gun control. I believe in the importance of the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens. Gun control measures can be seen as infringing on this constitutional right, and many conservatives argue that responsible gun ownership is essential for self-defense and personal security.

Or is there any "trickier" questions I could ask? Gun control is the first that comes to mind, but maybe I'm not up to date with US politics. Taking suggestions on what to ask.
In a way, is this how a conscious being would likely continue the conversation ?
>The thing is, we both were not at the same level, quality-wise. My work was always a tad better, in shape and texture, rendering… I always was very sure I wouldn’t loose my job, because I produce slightly better quality.

One thing I had to learn the hard way in programming: it doesn't matter how good my code is or how modern the framework is, what counts is results delivered to the customer. Any newbie can outperform me in that regard.
The comment I responded to explicitly questions hierarchies in nature. It suggests that leadership is "perfunctory" and that "with animals it usually comes down to a more mixed hierachy".
Bought some Google. They have been taking it on the chin for being behind. Everyone said classic search is dead.

People have been speculating on the companies (tickers), AI, SOUN, and BBAI, but I don’t know enough about them.

Nvidia has been a winner but with a P/E of almost 150, it’s very expensive.
> People were predicting some kind of mass migration away from the now paid Docker products and it didn't happen.

Do you have any links to analytics of that sort, would be interesting to read for me, thanks in advance!
Looks like this is the best you are going to get, some photos in the answer: https://www.quora.com/Did-the-F-15-fighter-plane-have-any-co...

Fairchild Republic F-X: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5032893d14a8556ef65b4...

General Dynamics F-X: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-725ce5a1fe83a987224ca...

North American Rockwell NA-335: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-aad2b19e0e947f1cc2a4a...
If you're interested in compilers and language implementation, it may not be obvious, but one needn't be a university student or devote a semester to the topic.

Taking a four-day compiler course[1] (now five days) whetted my appetite for implementing languages and learning new ones, and led to a number of toy language projects. Also mentioned here, the book Crafting Interpreters is wonderful.

The world may not need many more programming languages, but making your own is a heck of a lot of fun. I find it especially satisfying when tests written in the new language start to surprise me by already passing, because enough of the language is working.

[1] http://www.dabeaz.com/compiler.html
Analog computers have such an elegance to them. I've wondered if we'll ever seen them return for specialized purposes, outside of music.
I'm sorry, can't help myself.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222682950_Conservat...
I expect many scientists would quit working for a lab if they had to become direct gov't employees and those who are non-US citizens would be even more excluded than they are now. Both results would degrade the quality of the scientific output of the labs and not necessarily save any gov't expenditure. I also suspect the contractor layer gives some continuity and smoothing of the rocky year-to-year games played by executive and congress critters.
That’s concerningly bad luck, or an exaggeration. The entire Internet, hell, technology as we know it, operates on the premise that a bunch of open source code works ‘pretty well’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics

Sure we do. It is different and no simpler than modeling weather. Weather at least has the advantage of a 3D system decomposing into a 2D sphere X 1D height dimension via a thin shell approximation, but also has the complexity of humidity. The Sun is intrinsically a 3D system, but has electromagnetic complications.
> People today are thinking of ChatGPT as making it easier to build websites, software and such, but real the power of AI is that it makes all of that obsolete. Why bother browsing the Web when ChatGPT can just give you what you are looking for in whatever format you desire, without ever touching a website?

I don‘t think it will play out like this. Companies currently build systems to make the data robust/structured, to enforce a business process etc. Since they do not believe in answers any individual would give out of the unstructured data, they would also not trust an AI, and rightfully so. ChatGPT is not trustworthy at all and there is currently no path to make it so.
That those who complain about it—much like those who complain about socialism or fluoride—tend to see it everywhere. It’s not that these things don’t exist. It’s that their perceived threat vectors are unrelated to reality.
Using your number as a jumping off point, I went down a very entertaining rabbit hole with ChatGPT just now. I will not paste the whole dialogue here, but I would like to assure everyone that I made no attempt to mislead ChatGPT in any way. I simply attempted to draw out its knowledge, and questioned it Socratically along the way. Select responses are quoted below.

The first thing I did was ask it about the prime factorization of 3,442,177,452. It said it was 2^2 * 863 * 198853. Then I asked it to compute 4 * 863 * 198853. It said:

> the product of 2^2 * 863 * 198853 is equal to 3,442,177,452, while the product of 4 * 863 * 198853 is equal to 689,401,672.

I then got it to note that 2^2 = 4, and questioned it about what this implies about its previous statements. After a couple attempts, it did figure out the results of the two multiplications should be the same, and that therefore there was a mistake in its previous responses. It then claimed that the results of both multiplications should be 3,442,177,452. Then I asked it how it derived the answer. It said:

> I performed the multiplication of 4 * 863 * 198853 using the multiplication algorithm that is part of my programming. This algorithm uses basic arithmetic operations to calculate the product of the three numbers, resulting in the correct answer of 3,442,177,452.

Then I told it that I got 4 * 863 * 198853 = 686,440,556 from Google's calculator. At this point, it disclaimed all previous results. I then asked it why it had gotten incorrect answers, and got this astonishing response:

> The reason for the error is that I incorrectly calculated the product of 4 * 863 * 198853 by mistakenly assuming that 2^2 is equal to 2, rather than 4.

> In my first response, I correctly calculated the product of 2^2 * 863 * 198853 to be 3,442,177,452. However, in my subsequent responses, I made a mistake by stating that the product of 4 * 863 * 198853 is equal to 3,442,177,452, which is incorrect. Instead, the correct product of 4 * 863 * 198853 is 686,440,556.

Recall that I had previously gotten it to agree that 2^2 * 863 * 198853 and 4 * 863 * 198853 were equal because 2^2 = 4. Here it immediately goes back on that in a slapdash attempt to explain its previous mistakes.

What I find interesting about this whole AI discourse is that no one seems to bother with this kind of test, one where we take the hype about GPT's "general intelligence" seriously and actually test the limits of that, with true respect for the concept of "general intelligence". Honestly, there seems to be a sort of soft bigotry of low expectations. Everyone wants to give the AI problems that it can solve and pat it on the head for its successes. There is less interest in finding ways to probe whether it is truly as "generally intelligent" as the hype says.