skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Show HN: Generate your guided meditation (with human-like voice) using GPT-4
I don't know what GP did, but you don't need to write a complete parser. You can write a subset that can find the patterns you're interested in, which is much easier.
> Heck, for some of us, the web didn't exist yet!

Haha...I learned when the web was mainly AOL. MSN at the time had pretty good forums which helped a lot. But the main place I was learning programming from was books, but they were expensive - especially for a college kid. When I would run into problems I couldn't solve I would head to the book store with a pencil and paper and copy bits and pieces that I hoped would help. Then head back home and try again (talk about a long debug run loop). Luckily this was around the same time of the rise of big bookstores where they encouraged hanging out so no one ever questioned me.
Keep saying it. Whatever China does is ridiculed and laughed at only to be quietly adapted into Western democracies 10 years later.
But we get to vote on it so that makes it better I guess?
Russian missiles that came from Poland, and Ukraine had to shoot in direction of Poland?

If that’s the official Ukrainian version they are up to something really big.
...which in no way grants GPT sapience, nor would it prove that it has it.

The human is still providing the capability to post, the timing script to trigger posting, and the specific heuristic to be used in determining how to choose what to post.
Sadly I stopped paying attention to that conflict when I learned there is an elephant in the room that no one seems to notice - huge oil and gas pipes going from Russia to Europe through Ukraine which at the beginning and during the war gave Russia $1 billion USD PER DAY making it Ukraine/Europe the biggest sponsor of terrorism.
This. Let me know when AI can write sales emails that convert better than emails written by the world's best copywriters.
I personally wouldn't want to ship mediocre content that looks like that, so for me all he did was waste 30 minutes prompt generating marketing BS and weird looking images. Don't get me wrong, I think AI can definitely be a productivity and inspiration boost in the right hands, but it's going to be being abused so much, I don't know if in the future I'll be able to read a long paragraph on my screen without wondering if it was written by a human (or even read by one prior)
The irony of your statement is thick.
I'm not surprised to see your comment be downvoted, but I have yet to see a single coherent answer to this.

I wish people would be more clear on what exactly they believe the difference is between LLMs are actual intelligence.

Substrate? Number of neurons? Number of connections? Spiking neurons vs. simpler artifial neurons? Constant amount of computation per token vs variable?

Or is it "I know it when I see it"? In which case, how do you know that there isn't a GPT-5 being passed around inside OpenAI which you would believe to be intelligent if you saw it?
It cannot, encode base64 it only remember, see this conversation:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34322223
This is not completely true, though. We expected GPT and LLMs in general to be bad in tasks that are not language-focused, exactly because they are large LANGUAGE models. Mathematics is one of them. Though it is also true that one may not have expected that GPT would be so bad as it is in extrapolating, nobody should have expected it to any good in any involved mathematical argumentation.
I owe my entire professional career to the Megatokyo forums and the associated IRC server.
I feel that the article is arguing against somewhat of a strawman. Not the idea 'chatGPT isn't a general AI' but the idea 'general AI is impossible'.

I think I see more serious arguments against chatGPT not being general AI, which the article seems to ignore. It almost seems to argue 'general AI isn't impossible, thus chatGPT is general AI because it is impressive'. I agree with that premise, and the article argues it well. But I don't agree with the conclusion. Which is frustrating because I find the limitations that keep chatGPT from being general AI a very interesting topic. We should understand those limitations to overcome them.
Did it? How do you know it didn't confidently miss important documents?

My experience so far has just been asking chatgpt questions and then researching it myself to confirm what it says, so maybe I'm missing something. But, it has been confidently wrong on important details a large enough percentage (right now) to make it absolutely not a fire and forget tool.

The worst part is the confidence: it's like having a coworker that just straight up lies to your face randomly. Even if it's only 5% of the time you basically can't trust anything they say, and so you need to double check all of it.

This doesn't make it useless, but it means it lends itself to "hard to do but easy to verify" tasks. Which afaict your example is not: you can verify the documents it picked out are relevant, but not that the documents that it didn't, weren't.
> HTML ... Anyone could invent this, including most CS undergrads.

Yes, For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. I'm aware of articles saying "I was skeptical but now I understand this is a gift from the Gods. I'm so rational".
Why not just... Use ChatGPT and get the work done
This factor is dimishing in importance with the absurdly increasing wealth gap.

Who cares about this big majority of people that can’t afford stuff?
and soon "Humans are moody and emotional" but Sydney tried to marry and threatened a couple of guys here.

If you had attached legs and arms to it, it could be a very interesting companion.
When rich rob poors, it's called business. When poors rob rich, it's theft. /capitalism
Out of pocket, diagnostic vs preventative… settle for genetics… billing codes…

So basically how to make sure you aren’t running afoul of your medical insurance. (Think u-scan but medicine!) Which should be the first thing on your mind when considering your health. Since you can’t afford living if you mess this up.

Hang on, that doesn’t sound right…
Also my experience. And since Qdrant has now cloud service, it is the choice number one. Best of both worlds. Just missing the GCP support.
So I think there's a distinction between wealth and happiness. Amongst the aristocracy I'm sure there is a lot of misery. I think we've got a good chance of ensuring material abundance for everyone on the planet. Whether those people will be happy is a different question.
Is more like human than copy paste. Read about how it works first please
Utah passes law requiring parental approval to join social media
History of adults masquerading as church leaders for purposes of pedophilia.
1. It was a fair assumption to make, not a false flag.

2. Because they lost all contact with them and the ship started shooting at the island.

3. Because the concept of the Ghost of Kyiv went from one pilot to represent the entire airforce.
Yep, but that’s true for HN and almost every new piece of tech. The general reaction is always “meh, it’s not 100% perfect so it should be trashed”.
Interfacing with APIs does not solve any fundamental issues about what LLMs "understand" or not though. At most they will be more accurate in arithmetic tasks, but that's it.
I do say the same about architecture, but with added nuance: the Sagrada Familia is creative in form, but not in function. It functions as a regular cathedral (or at least an art museum). The creativity is there, but it is subservient to the basic functional goals of structural integrity and fitness for humans to visit it.
Then you are in the wrong space of programming if you want to continue working. AI will improve over time and the scenario I described is going to be a thing of the past, but it won't go as fast as people expect because it is a question of trust and saving that hypotetical money by actually doing the work or at least understanding the output of AI.

I've experimented with both Copilot and GPT and I've gotten some nasty UB and even known security issues. Just looking at some of the GPT output lacking exceptions and errors checking that is clearly trained on tutorials. It will improve over time but currently it is not as good as people say it is.
> no-one's telling you to just throw the AI output up on to a website unedited

Is there a genuine problem that we're solving here?

"Quickly and cheaply create a large volume of mediocre content" will definitely appeal to certain entrepreneurial types, but were we actually short of mediocre content?
What genuine problem are we solving?

Apart from a further lowering of the bar for certain entrepreneurial types to get rich(er) faster, that is.
ChatGPT and similar do seem to make new things, arguably they do it more freely than the average adult human.

Art generators are the most obvious example to me. They regularly create depictions of entirely new animals that may look like a combination of known species.

People got a kick out of art AIs struggling to include words as we recognize them. How can we say what looked like gibberish to us wasn't actually part of a language the AI invented as part of the art piece, like Tolkien inventing elvish for a book?
There are good arguments for open source LLMs, but "safety" is not it. How does being open source make the model safe at all?
Fascinating, this reminds me a lot of a conversation I had about 4 years ago with a translator, they were working at a translation company which just introduced AI. And their initial implementation of AI looked like this: We give you an initial translation and then you modify it. The thing is this turned the translator from a "creator" to an "editor" and they absolutely hated it. Back then, the power was in the hand of the labor (not the company) so the company actually modified it in a way such that it was completing and recommending things for you but gave you the control of the whole thing. This is much easier to imagine with text, but there might be a way to give people the creative control, even with these new tools.
>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".

And I'm of two minds on this, because I find that to be a respectable position, and in fact, for this reason, I hope you show up to continue debates on this because your voice would be helpful and counteracting what I believe is the less reasonable position. Depending on how long you've been following debates on the topic, which have raged from essentially the 1950s through now, I would guesstimate that "you literally can never get to the moon" has at least at times enjoyed dominance as the majority position, and when not the majority position, is at least credited as being a respectable one.

And even in this dressed up reasonable version, it still feels wrong to me in an important way: if you did have a tree that was 328,900 miles tall, you could reach the Moon. There are so many opportunities along the way to mentally short circuit, and slip into practical considerations and lose sight of the principle. Of course no such tree exists, but it has critically illustrated that the entirety of the space from here to there is in principle traversable, and it's the insight into this principle that ultimately will get us from here to there.

It does mean you need to shift your focus of research from arborism to jet propulsion, and that is the important point made by your version of this argument. But it amounts to joining the 'arborists' in championing the possibility of getting there rather than being a skeptic of the possibility, and I feel like most people making this point imagine themselves to be taking the sides of the skeptic.
Natural language is not the optimal AI interface
Generative models can create single use UIs.
Each problem might generate a use case specific UI for us.
You point out the flaws in the argument perfectly.
coworkers give me wrong answers a lot more than 5% of the time.
Mungers investing style is normally not in fast moving fields but buying good companies at a discount that tend to be on the more boring side. Things like Coca Cola or geico were bought when the companies had short term issues that brought the stock down. They are easier to identify than fast moving fields. In 1999-2000 when there were very fast moving fields and tons of companies look at how many survived to today - a lot less than were around. This style looses out on potential 100 badgers for sure but the history of the investing style so far has evened out with the ups and downs of the market.
And then industrial revolution didn't take out jobs, rather created more.
So did computers in the 80s and 90s.

I remember typesetters in our locality were protesting in the 80s that computers were taking off their jobs. They started something like "burn the computers" movement.

More people were later employed as composers than there were typesetters.
It totally can (try it if you don't believe it).

In your message you say it is gibberish, but I have completely different results and get very good Base64 on super long and random strings.

I frequently use Base64 (both ways) to bypass filters in both GPT-3 and 4/Bing so I'm sure it works ;)

It sometimes make very small mistakes but overall amazing.

At this stage if it can work on random data that never appeared in the training set it's not just luck, it means it has acquired that skill and learnt how to generalise it.
If I produce a song and sell 1,000 copies for $1 each, but 1,000 copies are stolen by people who don’t pay me $1 for their copy, I get $1,000 instead of $2,000.

That’s just how the math works out. Same as any other form of theft.
the "intelligent design advocates" doesn't refer to creationists in this context, it refers to GOFAI people.
I mean you say that but this is the kind of shit work that 99% of the population does.

Look at the reddit UI, do you really think that it’s better than something GPT could toss out in 10 minutes?
It is a confluence of a great many things.

Here is Bertrand Russell on his meeting with Vladimir Lenin in 1920:
https://youtu.be/6TK9c-caEcw?t=65

Lenin: Oh we're not establishing peasant proprietorship, it is, you see there are poor peasants and rich peasants and we stirred up the poor peasants against the rich peasants and they soon hang them from the nearest tree. *cackle*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iskra

It predates modern day Russian, Soviets, or even Bolsheviks. It goes back to Mensheviks who initially developed such psyops to get into and hold power. They had their own inspirations of course but this is really where this evil exploded. It isn't some big secret - the ends justify the means, so lie, make false equivalencies, get people all stirred up and questioning reality and sow distrust as much as possible. Once you get in power you'll put things in order what could possibly go wrong? Things are dire and can't get any worse, so get in power by all means necessary.

With the backdrop of the Cold War they turned it outwards, if you aren't familiar you can get a good feel for the vibe from any Adam Curtis documentary, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

The problem is that once trust collapses and nobody believes in the media, the institutions, and everybody is aware that people lie -- the trick really is to get you to lie also, even a little bit -- a society can get completely untethered from reality.

> It's absolutely fantastic to me how people can just suspend reality and start believing the most absurd notions.

A lot of conspiracies do end up true, coverups are a thing, who can you trust? What even is real?

It is not that your friends are bad people or lack critical reasoning skills. They got shaken out of solid ground and now are in a question-everything mindset.

Very effective. Tragically so.
Super cool. I wish he'd posted more of the prompts, part of what makes so impressive is how simple they are, like the chess example.
So what if it's electrical signals. It's not really 1s and 0s is it, they are grouped together into floating point numbers, right? And at some point there are enough ones and zeroes that you can effectively simulate just about any analog state. So why should we assume it's not possible to simulate the states of neurons? And why do we assume that the brain's structure is the only way to produce intelligence? Surely - like other biological systems - they are a specific implementation of what nature allows, but not necessarily the only one.

> nowhere near capable of doing the impossible, e.g. predicting the weather with fidelity substantially into the future

Why is it that people keep telling us GPT isn't capable of being conscious or having understanding because it's unable to perform tasks that individual humans can't do?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the competing designs to the McDonnell Douglas design before. Were these public at the time like with later aircraft competitions? I’m thinking of the YF-17, YF-23 and X-32.
That's such a simplistic attitude. Piguvian taxes aren't magic. And a sin tax doesn't help the people who live close to the airport.

Yeah great you have terrible living situation but at least the government has money for new F-35s.

And the reason this isn't done is because very often you couldn't pay those things in the first place. So companies that depend on not paying them will just lobby it away or die.

Sometimes its better to just make it illegal so no company actually starts depending on these things.
I think it varies case by case. Sorry, I don’t believe in a equal and just relationship between the biggest economy in the world and economies that are few order of magnitude smaller. As well as I don’t believe in a relationship between 40 years old man and 17 years old girl.

But let’s imagine that this is a win-win relationship, say between Estonia and NATO. I understand that Estonia is getting from them, but what USA is getting?
Is this a serious question? I'm not from the US, and though I follow your politics I of course have a limited perspective - but is it really a common perspective to draw an equivalence between the claims regarding election integrity for 2016 and 2020?
I feel that misses the point. This is a demonstration of what these systems can potentially do.

The website doesn't look great. The emails are a bit generic. But we are in the very early stages of these models. I think the fact that a website can be generated from text prompts is remarkable.

I wouldn't scold my toddler for not walking very steadily.
GPT with tools, a scratchpad for memory and an iterative loop already seems like it could create something that's quite "intelligent" at solving various tasks that humans usually do with computers. I hope it's all being put together.
Keyword search doesn’t understand the context of what you’re asking for.
We all evaluate factual claims and determine whether or not we think they are true or plausible. Each of us is an arbiter of what constitutes and extraordinary claim in the same way each of us is an arbiter of what is moral/immoral.

A kook can be spotted by the way they talk. They have knowledge others don’t. They don’t say, “I’ve read that…” or “It seems like this might have happened.”. They speak with certainty and argue by assertion. Making one claim after another all without evidence. They link together facts by claiming some cabal or powerful person is behind things and a refusal to agree means you are a victim of propaganda. The thinking is disorganized. They have a need to evangelize their ideas and tend to think coincidences can’t happen. Correlation is causation.
This is a ripoff.

They can handle just the bureaucracy for a small fee. Some of them refuse to do so, but they totally can.
The Artificial in Artificial Intelligence
Has somebody compare-able DMips/Mhz numbers for:

* Intel i7-4600U CPU DMips/Mhz (I found about 10 DMips/Mhz)

* RISC-V VRoom = 10.3 DMips/MHz (still in development)

* RISC-V XiangShan = ?

* RISC-V others ?
For many languages there are mature parsers out there that can be reused (e.g. Google's Closure compiler or babel for JavaScript, or the Soot framework for Java that also simplifies more advanced code analysis). In the worst case, it's sometimes possible to interface with the standard compiler for the language directly (for example, the TypeScript compiler provides TypeScript APIs for its parser/type checker/etc.). I believe for C++ for example, a Clang plugin (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangPlugins.html) would have been a plausible way to implement something like this.
It sounds like you need a language that supports stronger types and concurrency.

There are many good programming languages that might work if neither Go nor Typescript individually would meet your needs.

I recommend examining the following to see if they would work better for you:

Ada: https://learn.adacore.com/courses/intro-to-ada/index.html

Elixir: https://elixir-lang.org/

Java: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/

Rust: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/

All of them have excellent support for concurrency and strong typing to various degrees that help you to write complex logic quickly.
I would be careful with the extrapolation... - https://xkcd.com/605/
What, no, this comment is a complete fiction!

The article is a kind of true crime story about a British antique weapons enthusiast who sold weapons and self-made ammunition to a guy who turned out to be supplying a criminal street gang.
Well, okay. I'm a pilot from a family of pilots, too. I am looking at a plane landing and taking off in a stiff head wind and finding nothing remarkable about it.

A Cub running with little fuel and cargo on a cold day at low altitude has a pretty low stall speed. Something like 40mph. It doesn't take an extraordinary wind to do a short take off roll.
Are you ready for 13.3 or 9.1? (2001)
Finally the war has been won. This wunderwaffe will destroy the front-end developers once and for all.

“ChatGPT, please update the website to the latest meme framework”

And with that they were all obsolete
You can ban social media as a parent today and damage your child's social life.

If it's banned for every child equally, they will have to meet up irl or call each other like in the 80s or whatever. Whatever the alternative, it shifts the dynamic and doesn't isolate your child.

Regulations for kids is not simply about bad parenting but can be about prisoner's dilemma-like situations where everyone needs to work together for a good outcome and, unless a decent percentage gets on board at more or less the same time, it's counterproductive for individuals.