skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure, sure.

"I want it to come up with a new idea. Its first attempt was to just regurgitate the definition of the set of zero-divisors (a very basic concept), and (falsely) asserted that they formed an ideal (among other false claims about endomorphism rings)."

"I tried a few more times, and it gave a few more examples of ideas that are well-known in ring theory (with a few less-than-true modifications sometimes), insisting that they are new and original."

"This in particular is quite an interesting failure. "

"So there we have it. A new definition. One example (of a 4-cohesive ring) extracted with only mild handholding, and another example (of a 2-cohesive ideal) extracted by cherry-picking, error-forgiveness, and some more serious handholding."

"Some errors (being bad at arithmetic) will almost certainly be fixed in the fairly near future." - and this opinion is based on absolutely nothing.
Scientists finally figure out why the water bear is nearly indestructible (2017)
These LLMs are trained to predict text. "Fancy autocomplete" is not just a dismissal. It is the fundamental nature of these things. It is an autocomplete tool hacked together to emulate an assistant. "I don't know" is clearly a truer answer than the nonsense ChatGPT made up, but that doesn't mean it's a better answer according to whatever non-goals this machine has.

As always, anthropomorphize an LLM at your peril. These things are not people. No one understands how they work.
I have to admit, when I first read the article I was really hoping it was going to be one of those "so, I started with 9.1 and upgraded to every version in order" type experiences. Then again, having written that out, I bet the macOS hardware locks would stop that game in its tracks pretty early (err, hackintoshing aside)
But what if people are saying things we don’t like?
Ask HN: With *GPT and AI tools of the moment, which tools have helped your QA?
The age of *first* birth matters, not the age of last birth. They controlled on the wrong thing.
I use it a fairly amount and it does indeed hallucinate things here and there. I know not to take things at face value.

But whenever I have to deal with a complex question such as taxes, I often find it very useful to break down a problem, rephrase and provide context around my question and offer different leads to follow or cross reference.

I see it as GPT spiting out a skeleton of an answer onto which I can attach some meat. It is very useful when I don't really know the domain and therefore how to attack a problem.
The, probably slightly played up, version I heard is that the US saw the propaganda version of the Mig-25, and so built the F-15 to counter that imaginary beast.
Thanks for putting this together! Could you add or link to some definitions for the columns?
Imagine being able to sketch out the outline of what you are after, then say hey blender model it up. Thats what it will get to.

You have a beach, and you want a jetty, just grease pencil approximately where you want it and go Hey thats a jetty build it. and if its not quite right, generate me 50 different versions and ill pick the best.
Thank you for the response. That's a lot in one sentance. If you have time, I'd implore you to expound on your thought.

For example - why socialism and not democracy? Why 25 hrs/wk of work and not something <=24 or >=26 hrs/wk?
After Eight Years, Domino’s Pizza Gives Up on Italy
Well, brain and face diseases and cancers would still be a problem. "rejuvenate youth" is a magic phrase in there that promises a lot but doesn't actually mean much.
Why Chinese Apps Are the Favorites of Young Americans
> Im guessing this limited to 2d canvas

WebGL/3D works fine, just with some additional dependencies (e.g. mesa drivers) and a little more setup in Nodejs to create the context and copy the framebuffer to node-canvas to do the image encoding.

Here's a little 3D animation I've rendered using a similar technique (plus WebGL) in a docker container:

https://www.carvana.com/shareyourcarvana/MjM2MTc2OTpBbGV4YW5...

The main thing to watch out for is whether you need specific WebGL extensions that might not be supported. Array instancing is the main one I use, which is supported.
This is true, but I fail to see how something like qualia ( the subjective experience ) necessarily matters.

The thing I find interesting in the current LLM conversation is how much it’s opened up conversations around “what is knowing? What is consciousness?”

Does it matter, not philosophically but utility-wise, if something can give the illusion of intelligence or “knowing”?

And to go on something you said about taste— this is the age-old conundrum that still applies to humans, not just LLMs. I will never know if the color green to me is the same color as it is to you; our subjective experience may be entirely different, yet we both use the same language to describe what we experience.

And that language does the job just fine, even without the experience itself factored in.
> Humans built religion, religions didn't make humans.

I wonder if the irony of paraphrasing Christ was intentional? I suspect that you have learned this idiom without realizing its origins.
> First off, what if the content you want to see is simply real stuff that other people are doing? Luscious perfect breasts can likely be generated by ML easily, but a spicy bikini photo of a woman I happen to know personally would easily draw my attention more. Maybe you can fool me by generating such an image, but eventually I’ll only feel any stimulation if I know the image is actually real.

If we've never met in the real world, how would you ever know "I" wasn't real? ML models will eventually be able to generate effectively-perfect images, video content, voices, etc. People are hooking LLMs up to all sorts of APIs, ML models have demonstrated capability to learn things like gameplay before, etc. We already saw how many people genuinely got attached to Replika and freaked out. What happens when it's effectively impossible to tell it apart from a real human short of meeting it? What happens if we go to the VR-heavy future where it doesn't matter?

> Same goes for text, I don’t give a damn about some GPT generated essay but I will read something someone I know wrote with greater interest.

What if you don't know the difference? If I effectively prompt an LLM with "write X in the style of one of HN user xwdv's friends" and send it to you saying it was written by them, and don't tell you it's from an LLM, then you implicitly trust me that it's real. You don't have to know that it's real, you just have to believe it's real. The same general context applies to snuff films etc.; they're shocking because you believe it's an actual, real human.

> So as long as people value content made by humans, ML won’t have much to offer besides shallow, empty stimulus. Like watching some random porn and jacking off into oblivion, most people would still rather have actual sex with someone.

Real human connection is important, I agree! But we keep building all this technology to minimise direct human-to-human contact and interaction and creativity, and then wonder why everyone's miserable.
Counterpoint: Hollywood.
How come do you trust the package of Rust from Rust but you don't trust the `sh` install script from Rust?
You know, Steve may have been the architect of modern digital jails but by comparison to what we have today, he looks almost Stallman like! I'm kidding but also kind of not.
The fact that something is hard to define does not mean it isn't meaningful. I cannot tell you what consciousness is, but I know that I have it and my sock does not.

It is trivial to tie these machines up in knots, blatantly contradicting themselves from one sentence to the next. If that is understanding then it is an understanding utterly foreign to any human, and a form of understanding that looks a whole lot like bullshit.
Although gender is a political correctness nuclear landmine, imagine if chess had aptitude diversity rules. "No, you can't castle if your Elo is 800+."

My impression is contract bridge has somewhat gender parity in terms of who plays it. [0] The ranking of contract bridge players doesn't appear to measure current quantitative strength, which seems to encourage volume of play rather than skill.

0. https://www.acbl.org/tournament/
Bit of a tangent, but it'll be interesting to see how standards designed to make the web more machine-readable are viewed/treated as more and more content on the web is ultimately consumed and provided to users higher up in the funnel via LLMs
> an unindexed full table scan looks exactly the same as an indexed join, for example, whereas in a good ORM they will look different

ORM queries compile down to SQL, so how would they look different?
When Siri, Alexa, and Google home came out I was convinced voice would be the next paradigm shift in human computer interactions, comparable to mobile, but the voice assistants fell short and I was disappointed.

Now it's clear that the shift is coming and it will revolutionize the way we interface with machines.
In a survey, only 18% of 10,265 citizens from 10 EU countries supported the plan:

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/poll-72-of-citizens-oppose-...

* 10 countries being: Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Italy, France, Austria, the Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden and Ireland
> This is wrong.

Can we just accept that these are opinions? I also waited in line for the first iPhone, and it was by far better than any other phone I owned at the time. True, I was not a "CrackBerry" addict as was common for a certain class of worker in the 00s, but the ability to browse the "real" web in a way that was not completely hobbled was just night and day better than other phones at the time.
Why every 12 months the European Commission comes up with a total dumb and authoritarian proposal and we have to actively fight it?

It’s just tiring
Kind of a tangential comment, but something I think about semi-regularly is that AI in a way feels like overkill for removing the programming part of software engineering. When you think about it, it's kind of surprising that we still program using text editors and IDEs instead of an interface that's more graphical. For that matter, it's also kind of surprising that GUI nocode builders have yet to really make an impact on the job market. Webflow exists, and has countless predecessors, and yet it and its competitors aren't really an existential threat to web developers.

His use of the term "shape rotator" kind of helps me articulate my thoughts on the matter. My theory is that attempts to democratize software authorship focus too much on the writing code part, but ultimately do nothing to address the "shape rotator" part, i.e. imagining the problem(s) you're trying to solve as abstract shapes. When I imagine the problem at hand, I construct a kind of mental model of it without really thinking about it all that much.

With that in mind, could our current approach to AI ultimately scale to the point where non-shape-rotators can finally write software as capably, or will it reach a plateau where shape rotators still retain their monopoly on software authorship?

If it's the latter case, then AI might not prove that much of a threat to programming simply because shape rotators seem to really like their text-editors, and really like to program

EDIT: some quick follow-up remarks, but despite feeling that AI art generators are unethical, I also feel at the same time that we're overestimating their potential damage because I think they democratize the wrong thing, which in this case is skill with a paintbrush or similar equivalent, yet they don't really democratize creativity and imagination. I think a lot of AI art is ugly, but I think that's largely due to the fact that the people using AI art generators simply aren't that creative or imaginative. By contrast, people who are creative and imaginative will understand that it's easier to get what they're looking for simply by a more direct, hands-on approach, rather than trying to find "good enough" through a prompt. Sure, people will get good-enough for free in lieu of paying someone more for better, but that's been an issue in the creative industry well before the advent of AI, and often with predictable results. Namely, good-enough doesn't typically create value so much as serve as a placeholder for something deemed essential, i.e. it's good-enough. A restaurant with good-enough branding, or a book with a good-enough book cover, is the same as a restaurant with no-branding or a book with no cover.
Still not competitive at the top level.

Even being behaviorism real-life experiments.
Blue Line riders had the best commute. Now, trains crawling and riders bawling
Facing floods: What the world can learn from Bangladesh's climate solutions
Not the OP but yes, I think it's tacky. If you're shamelessly plug your own product you should say so.
> Are these chess tournos usually this dramatic

Chess lately has been pretty dramatic, Google "Hans Niemann cheating allegations" if you don't already know -- in my opinion, far more dramatic than this.
From the perspective of EU leaders, LLMs are the final ingredient. They won't be able to sleep knowing the NSA is having all the fun without them.
Typescript compiles down to Javascript but an unchecked cast looks different from a known-safe assignment in Typescript even though they look the same in Javascript.
If there is any compression going on you don't really have a choice. Long ago I have actually done code that updated files (one field per record, no size changes) in a .zip file but the creation specifically forced the files in question to be stored with no compression.

(Legacy evolution--all the files of a job were packed into a single .zip. Then a need came along to update some of them. Nothing else would even notice that the files hadn't been compressed, but the one task could very quickly write the changes without replacing the file. Update the relevant byte, recalc the CRC from the in-memory copy, write it to both locations.)
My point isn’t that LLMs are anything more than pattern predictors; it’s that calling them such as some sort of dismissal doesn’t really strike me as the “gotcha” it initially seems.

We don’t know that humans themselves aren’t just prediction machines. Yet , humans are insanely capable! And thus the same might apply to an LLM.

It’s hard to strike a balance between having excited, rational, discussion and not coming across like a religious AI nut.
Of course palm rejection (and many other features) are powered by ML. THis doesn't mean they run on the ANN though.
The twitter thread is worth reading, Yann responds to some of the questions raised here.
> The JS event loop auto-monad-izing Promises into Haxl [1]-esqe trees of implicitly-batched loads

can you explain what this means?
You seem to be confused about the difference between labeling something as a social construct and analyzing it as a social construct. Can I ask how you were introduced to the concept?
For one, they don't have to be different. "How are they different" could indicate an incomplete understanding of why tools are written. Sometimes tools are rewritten just to erase some traumatic memories from the developer's subjective coding experience! (Not a comment about Java!)

Second, I wonder if this developer is stuck in the big-picture fallacy--in which calling two things "bundlers" means they're the same. Ignoring the relevant but yet-functionally-unpassed argument-details. This would also be relevant.

I remember getting caught in such a discussion once with an author of graphics tools. They couldn't understand how two "graphics softwares that did X" were really that different?

But it was like asking how PhotoShop and Affinity Designer could possibly both need to exist--details really do matter.
While I appreciate that smart people will use this as simply the next phase in bicycles for the mind, I can't help but see the current AI revolution as the first tremors of the singularity.

At the rate this is developing, I can't help but think AIs will be designing smarter AIs within a decade or two. People reassure themselves that these AIs are just synthesizing the internet datasets -- that they don't have "souls". I would say that doesn't matter -- whether or not a submarine can swim, a race of advanced submarines could dominate the ocean.

I'm not fully convinced that the singularity requires intentionally designing a general AI, or that a glorified chatbot with some Darwinian forces applied to its existence couldn't get there.

People keep thinking The Matrix or I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream, but I just keep thinking Her -- that even a benevolent AI revolution means humans are pointless. Or worse, Bladerunner, since I'm quite sure that if we do create a general AI we'll still murder it after it answers 15 questions or steps out of line.

That anxiety is much harder to shake than the one about my job - I thought we had more time.
I've worked with lots of engineers and programmers who are in the same boat, and they do just fine. I personally think that a person has to be genuinely interested in math beyond maybe high school algebra, in order to do anything with it beyond passing their college classes.

A few of us are happy to take care of math for everybody else. I'm in that boat. And I can't even honestly say it's gotten me further then the math-averse folks, but maybe it's helped me compensate for some of my other deficiencies.
This is so awful that it strikes me as likely being a door-in-the-face[1] proposal designed to make a more 'reasonable' proposal that is still vile on its own merits seem palatable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
It is extremely challenging! (Based on my brief foray into it.) But leveraging LLMs to create really good starting point for a new feature would reduce the amount of frontend developers needed.

I guess what I mean to say as SRE/Systems, we code so little already that it being able to spit out a CF template wouldn't reduce the needs for cross-functional ops type work.
Audio is the best and most natural AR experience right now. I would love to see greater investment here by Apple.
I guess "ChatGPT plays Universal Paperclips" would be a cute art stunt.
Aaaaand now we've taken a hard-right into propaganda territory, so I'll get off here.

I would suggest consulting Timothy Snyder, Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale University, specializing in the modern history of Central and Eastern Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_D._Snyder

His lectures are available on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8
> I chose them because I know my audience.

I don't know what you mean by that, but to me it gives an impression of run-off-the-mill bashing of "fake" and "bad" things like gender, race, religion, capitalism, nationality that we should re-think and re-make where "social construct" is used as an ambiguous slur by someone who learned about it on Reddit or BuzzFeed. I guess I wasn't the intended audience of that comparison.

> What I want to establish is what the salient aspects you think constitute a social construct by using these topics as an example.

I usually interpret "a social construct" in a way that ranges from being a synonym for "a social contract" to a synonym for something like Kantian appearance (insofar as conception of any object in mind is partly influenced by social institutions) depending on context. But many people seem to make it extremely hard to understand what they mean exactly. So providing examples helps understand what is being asserted. If someone starts talking that X is a social construct just like all that other bad stuff, asking them whether good stuff is a social construct helps ensure that they aren't engaged in agenda-posting or, at least, have far less wiggle room for pushing their rhetoric.
That's what we've always tended to assume would happen, but now it looks like it may not go that way, thus my concern. If knowledge workers could be replaced first, I don't think anyone's going to wait around for robotics to catch up before doing anything.
> I’m not worried about any of that. If healthcare can be more widespread, effective, and affordable that’s a great thing. And if someone wants to beam stuff into their mind that’s not radically different from watching a movie.

I mean this in the most respectful way possible, this is missing the forest for the trees. On their own none of these things looks bad. Putting them together, given what we already know about human psychology and how much it's been manipulated with technology, it's scary. Look at all the "fake news" commentary around certain American elections. Regardless of your political position, the scale at which that sort of thing was happening should give anyone pause. These tools in their current form already allow for that sort of manipulation on a scale we've never dealt with before.

What happens when these tools are 10x or 100x better? What happens to the generation of kids and teens being raised to think all of this is completely fine, without any of the privacy / ethics / etc. concerns? What happens to their kids? I know this sounds like "but think of the children!!1" but we've already seen what happens to young kids with things like YouTube:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/youtube-is-causing-stress-an... (2018)

> Mental health experts warn that fear-inducing videos affect brain development in young children.

https://www.vox.com/recode/22412232/youtube-kids-autoplay (2021)

> But child safety advocates and some members of Congress say there’s a problem with the app and corresponding website: an autoplay feature that keeps one video coming after another with no pause or interruption. When one video ends, another video selected by YouTube Kids’ recommendations algorithm automatically plays. Right now, autoplay is on by default, and there is no way to turn off autoplay, so YouTube Kids will continue to feed children algorithmically curated videos that run indefinitely unless someone happens to show up and intervene.

Especially with that second case, a small-enough child won't know that it's bad for them. And as parents resort to these apps more and more, as the tools for generating content at absurd scale get more and more accessible, it starts to not look good. You can argue parental responsibility, but American society -- where a lot of this stuff takes root first -- is built around not making that easy, since so many households have both parents working, sometimes multiple jobs.
> Humans built religion.

No, that's not true, at least for ibrahimic religions
> One of the first things a union would do is decouple compensation from performance and introduce a standard compensation structure for all workers, segmented by job level. (And somehow the people who are personal friends of the union leaders seem to rise in job level faster than the others…)

This argument is a strawman, and really is a worsr-possible-case caricature of union activity. I've worked in a number of workplaces having a unionised workforce my entire professional career (~25 years, private industry and government) and I've never observing anything like the scenario you describe. Ambitious, talented people are promoted and improve their compensation. Average-performance clock-punchers reach a certain level and stop. Poor performers are managed out of the organisation. Union membership is no ticket to a cushy job for life.

I'm not denying that the worst-case scenario could happen, but it's by no means a given. IMO this kind of fundamentalist opinion is unhelpful, and doesn't reflect the reasonable balance of priorities and opinions which people have out there in a modern society.
Programming languages are stupidly information dense indeed, but if that's the most major roadblock, I don't see why throwing more compute at the problem won't eventually solve it. GPT-4 is already handling a very stupid amount of information density.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitron#Trinitron

Mitsubishi Diamondtron and FD Trinitron were arguably the pinnacle of CRT development.