skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is massive investment happening in green steel production. There is a high demand for green steel from car manufacturers among others.

It's easy to dismiss anything out of ignorance, but it only amounts to misinformation
I'm a little curious, is there a reason why the ultra rich, once they've cashed out, create foundations that hand out grants? Is it because they suddenly find themselves wanting to do something good for society with the money or just because that is what everyone in that situation does?
Is there a ranking of what foundations have done the most good work? Is that ever evaluated?

Anyway rest in peace Gordon Moore, a true captain of industry.
> Digital democracy, on the backs of open source production economies running on the latest AI for highly-accessible/affordable data processing / labor.

Politics is the set of activities associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals.

Throwing technology at these human affairs isn’t an answer.
Encouraged by the comments here, I tried a few prompts for it to do something useful for our company. Most failed, but it's apparently great at improving our documentation. Here's the prompt and the result as an example:

> Can you improve the following text for clarity: "When deploying into the enterprise, there is a lot of flexibility when it comes to deciding how you structure the deployment, whether you want to run supporting services on premise, and which ones (if any) you choose to deploy. The decisions depend on how you plan to use our software and your security requirements. We’ll be happy to discuss these with you at [email]."

Result:

> "When deploying our software into your enterprise, you have the flexibility to decide on the structure of the deployment, including running supporting services on premise and selecting which ones (if any) to deploy. Your decisions should be based on your intended use of our software and your security requirements. If you need help with these decisions, please feel free to contact us at [email]"

It did indeed improve clarity and readability without screwing anything up. I just want to run this thing on our whole website/repo now, and I wonder how.
Judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it. You can't hope that the judge takes your side because then the judge could just as easily take the other side. There is of course an element of interpretation which the judges can use to decide in different directions over the same thing, but that again is an example of a broken law.
Silly wabbit, colons are for WEPLs.
What page builders are any good these days (let's assume the use case is your nephew example)?
“Can we ban iPhone in retaliation?” Chinese internet reacts to TikTok hearing
Compare "poor" America with poor (insert geographic area here).

There's no comparison. It's hugely, vastly better in the States. The only other places that have large backwater areas that can compete are maybe Canada and Australia. This is due to investment by rich people in rental real estate and businesses such as Walmart, Costco, Amazon, etc.

When a family like the Waltons have a net worth in the 100's of $Bn's, this money isn't kept in gold bars in a safe. It's actively deployed in a variety of businesses. So the poor don't get a cut of the 100's of $Bn's, but they do benefit from the investment. And in very equal countries, the opposite is true. Everybody's OK, but there aren't really any systems that stand out as being amazing.
Correct. This is a place where regulation could play a role if the market is large enough. For example: If the Netherlands would prohibit coal for steelmaking, it would just bankrupt the 1 steel mill they have. If however, the EU would prohibit coal for steelmaking, _and_ introduce a carbon tariff/tax on imported steel that was made with coal, it would be a significant enough market for companies to still compete for.

It would likely kill the export market for basic steel from the EU, as well as raise steel prices across the continent. Long term benefit might be that the EU could position itself as a technological leader on coal-free steel.

No easy options I suppose.
It's only one of the tests, but in legal terms and precident it is a very strong one that HN frequently underestimates.

It's not impossible for a case to win when competing against a licensing scheme, but it is very, very, very hard.
> but could be fixed

How? The problem is known for a while, for example this article [0] mentions it (as Chain of Thought reasoning). You could think that just having a scratchpad of tokens is enough - you can arguably plan, backtrack and rewrite there [1], right? But this doesn't really work, at least yet - maybe because it wasn't trained for that - and maybe ChatGPT massive logs (probably available only for OpenAI) can help. But the Microsoft report [2] suggests we need a different architerture and/or algorithms? They mention lack of planning and retrospective thinking as a huge problem for GPT-4. Maybe you know some articles on the ideas how to fix this? Backtracking, trying again seems to be linked to human thought - and very well can give us AGI.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/120fi8e/chatgpt_4_...

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712
A decade ago, activists made a difference protesting SOPA and PIPA.
Imho Its a really good book, i think the first novel written by a non-noble, or something like that.

Its over 100 years old but still very relevant today. Understanding how things have not changed in that time was powerful in helping me form opinions on what should change.

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ragged-Trousered_Philant...
I’m unfamiliar with gpt and tokens, what would “skip prose” change?
Common Lisp Quick Reference (2018)
mean is totally inappropriate here (but good that you provided median)
> Because the way Tesla operates

But he demanded it for Twitter, which had a permanent WFH policy before the acquisition.
It quite clearly is not a repeat of 2008.

It is a repeat of the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s and 1990s.

I am not sure they can write and publish that piece however
For those interested in Edelman's ideas in more detail, I recommend his book "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire". Thought it has been ages since I read it, I at least have retained a very positive impression.
mysql database, with a column to store the embeddings vector (yeah i'm not so fancy to be using pinecone :P)
I find the whole idea of specific animals being an issue rather arbitrary. Some are more intelligent than others sure, but it strikes me very much as a spectrum with no obvious place to draw the line.
Ironically, if we built a lord-of-the-flies society (based on child "morality") we'll have an arbitrary concentration of power that'll make our IP rules look like a picnic.
That's exactly right. It can see what it's returned but can't edit it.
> I'd hate to come out and say "NPR lies"
> their reporting is, at best, slanted and spun

Do you see the cognitive dissonance/double speak? You are asserting NPR is "manipulating the truth" (read: lying directly or by omission) for ideological (read: bad faith/dominance hierarchy manipulation) purposes.

Just because you disavow the words that best describe your belief, doesn't mean that those words don't most accurately describe your position.

If those words aren't most representative of your beliefs, then I have failed to understand the nuance you were trying to communicate.

> immediately starts the us-vs-them dynamic.

Do you see that you are disavowing responsibility for being half of the "us vs them" problem despite invoking the idea of "them" yourself? You created us vs them the instant you asserted NPR's bad faith instead of trying to figure out why we can't seem to reach consensus about what "the truth" is.

Don't you understand that you are basically saying "I don't want conflict with people who find NPR credible, but they're definitely wrong.”? "People who find NPR credible just aren't experienced/smart enough to see they are being lied to."

You recognize there is conflict, but fail to realize you are half of the conflict. You are putting responsibility for creating an "us vs them" situation on the people who disagree with you. "I'm not wrong, they're wrong. They're creating an us vs them dynamic, not me, I know the truth and they are denying it.”

“Other peoples hackles are up, not mine, I'm just unemotionally stating the truth.”

> is absolutely a one-sided hatchet job

You pre-suppose your own correctness. I don't see how your position is materially different than: "It is as simple as I am right and they are wrong, people who don't see it my way just haven't understood they are wrong yet."

Of course you will get an us vs them response, because you go into the conversation with the axiom that you are right rather than a desire to understand why someone disagrees so you can help them understand why they are wrong by asking questions that are hard to answer given the set of beliefs you assess that they have.

> actual truth, without the agenda.

Don't you understand that you have defined neutral to be "things that have the same agenda I have, and things that see the same truth I do?"

The truth is intrinsically not neutral. The truth picks a side every time. All conflicts involve two parties that think they know the truth.

Neutral is a measurement of distance from your beliefs. To Chinese people, “Taiwan is part of china“ is a neutral statement. To express something else is to not be neutral.

Your subjective truth is the stick you are using to measure neutrality. Your agenda is the origin of the measurement.

There is only one way to assess truth and that is to look at internal consistency.
It depends a little on how you arrange those files, but with UnixFS (the standard way to arrange them?) the files contents are arranged into a merkle DAG, so any shared files (and indeed chunks thereof) between the two versions would remain the same and thus still be ‘seedable’ by the parties that have it. It’s similar to BitTorrent in that regard.
The root of content would get a new content address, but all the identical data below it in the merkle DAG would have the same content address as before
”Have the Communist Party grill the Apple C.E.O?“ in response to the TikTok C.E.O.'s grilling.
However warm & fuzzy the current pop culture image of octopi might be - the reality is that they are very short-lived, and even in a (theoretical) completely human-free natural world, 99.9+% of young octopi will be eaten (by natural predators) before they reach adulthood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Lifecycle

Orthogonal to that - the article makes a huge deal of "plunge them alive into freezing water". Octopi are cold-blooded, and cold water is the natural habitat of many species. Does anyone know if cold is actually painful for octopi?
Getting involved locally is a very non-specific guidance. Part of the problem with “local involvement” is that a lot of folks are in very very gerrymandered areas. Either you’re hopelessly outvoted or preaching to the choir when trying to affect local politics.

But also, I think we are well past affecting change through voting and so forth. Not that you shouldn’t vote. But if we want to see actual change in the United States, we need to start taking some cues from the French and other countries where they go on strike aggressively until they get what they want.

As long as we keep getting fucked and showing up for work anyway the powers that be are just going to keep fucking us.
> We don’t actually know what “thinking” is

How about: thinking is to make sense of the world (in general) and decide how to respond to it.
Obviously there are lots of jurisdictions and you have to hit a broad brush with answers, but generally, no. Your reproduction is only considered to be reasonable by law while you retain the original.
I have rebuild a dozen of ewaste atom laptops into smart home controller displays with 3d printer. Hardware wise it went fine. But make them working reliable is next to impossible. Lots of problems with linux gui/wifi drivers. Anything graphic and gui related is a mess. Updates just not worth it because they can kill the boot. In order to get stability you need router style firmware with Squashfs blob . With outdated kernel that at least let you have hardware accelerated output and no wifi dropouts after 2-3 days uptime, and you can reset it without fear of bricking. I can’t tell people to admin and google for linux problems daily.
So these devices will die under Linux quickly anyway as kernel development direction is to make painful, by wasting time of backporting, fixing and recompiling old drivers, to use any old hardware.
Is it not possible to write a script which repeatedly attempts to run the code, then sends the errors back to GPT to be fixed? Then it changes the code based on GPT’s requests and runs it again, refining it until some test condition is met
GPT-3 was released less than 3 years ago and it was far from capable of this.
> Is AI generated content even copyrightable.

Its simple did you have substantial/significant creative input? If so you probably have copyright.

AI content is not meaningfully different from procedurally generated content.

Take a Minecraft world. If you generate a random one do you have copyright? No of course not.

If you take a generated world and review and edit it substantially. Do you have copyright over the result? Probably.

There is a grey area where ever you don't start from scratch. Copyright is over the creative aspects of a project.

If I make a large printout of the letter A in Arial typeface just filling an A4 page on word, do I have copyright? No. What if I spend hours editing it in Photoshop? Yes probably if that involved substantial changes.

What if I generate thousands of samples and pick one? You probably do have copyright.

What I'd the prompt was empty? Probably don't.

This not to say that copyright itself is simple, just that AI generated works are not much more complex than the already subjective world of copyright.
Funny, I was just cleaning up dinner thinking how if I was a program manager hiring a bunch of PMs my interview question — which I would advertise ahead of time to weed out the chaff — would be simple.

“Here’s an engineer/architect, a scope statement, and a whiteboard. Show me how you’d create your initial high-level migration plan.”

For organisation, Johnny.Decimal. :-)
...or it could be the usual "plausible deniability":

* Offer X, Y and Z. But if it ever comes to light, you weren't speaking for us.

Personally I find it difficult to believe that someone would be allowed to "go freelance" on something this important. It's typical British government spin. They have to keep up the 'We never negotiate with terrorists' front. Even though everyone knows they were in direct comms with the IRA / UDA etc. for decades.

And, if such things do eventually come to light, it's much better to spin it as 'One of our spies went freelance without permission' than to admit to carrying on secret talks a couple of days after the Warrington bombing --which wouldn't go down well with your electorate.

There's also the question of who pulls the strings; the party in government, or the security services. The Prime Minister can stand up in parliament and make all the populist soundbites he likes. But if the "power behind the throne" is working along different lines, they're not going to pay any heed.
It is worth noting that Libraries in the UK have to pay authors/publishers to loan out books on a royalty basis with the Public Lending Right payment of course. Even physical books.
There is also Lexman Artifical. (https://lexman.rocks/)
Since it's a transformer model, I use it to... "transform" the data.
- Change raw citation into bibtex entry
- Fix spelling mistakes
- convert csv file into json (though you can do it without employing trillion parameter model)
etc.
A bit of digging found what I think is the right technical data for the "siderwin" process based on "ulcowin": https://energy.nl/media/data/Ulcowin-Technology-Factsheet_08...

A couple of other side features to raise the feasibility: using waste as input "the most promising material tested was mill scale, a waste product from steel processing" and "Part of the Siderwin concept is the idea that the technology can be used as a flexibility option in the electricity market."

(i.e. get demand-flexibility payments from being able to turn off a large electricity sink easily)
Product descriptions are a good example of info that will still be published, because people will still by buying and selling products. The problem is with writing where the writing itself is the product, such as news.

The LLM relies on free access to that writing in order for it to be informed about current events. The news publisher relies on readership to pay writers. If LLMs are too useful to the point that people rely on them alone for news, then ironically they will become worse products over time as the publications they draw from go out of business.
This is awesome. I like being able to see the reasoning for the choices.

Seems that the card shuffling doesn't always work correctly (sometimes all red, all blue, all innocent will be stacked in order)

Experienced some pretty awful hints from GPT with hilarious justification:

"
Both Turkey and Mercury are planets in our solar system.

Both Turkey and Mercury are elements on the periodic table.
"
If young individual later flourishes, same individual obviously has some skill (and/or talent).

> for every single individual.

I didn't write "every single individual", and for good reason. Note the story in the second part of my comment...
Comparative advantage has assumptions in the model that don't get mentioned because they're "common sense", and unfortunately "common sense" isn't generally correct. For example, the presumption that you can't rapidly scale up your workforce and saturate the market for what you're best at.

A 20 watt AI, if we could figure out how to build it, can absolutely do that.

I hear there are diminishing economic activities for low IQ humans, which implies some parts of the market are already saturated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35265966

So I don't think that's going to help.

Second, "having better things to do" assumes the AI only come in one size, which they already don't.

If AI can be high IQ human level at 20 watts (IDK brain upload or something but it doesn't matter), then we can also do cheaper smaller models like a 1 watt dog-mind (I'm guessing) for guard duty or a dung beetle brain for trash disposal (although that needs hardware which is much more power hungry).

Third, that power requirement, at $0.05/kWh, gets a year of AI for the cost of just over 4 days of the UN abject poverty threshold. Just shy of 90:1 ratio for even the poorest humans is going to at the very least be highly disruptive even if it did only come in "genius" variety. Even if you limit this hypothetical to existing electrical capacity, 20 watts corresponds to 12 genius level AI per human.

Finally, if this AI is anthropomorphic in personality not just power requirements and mental capacity, you have to consider both chauvinism and charity: we, as a species, frequently demonstrate economically suboptimal behaviours driven by each of kindness to strangers on the positive side and yet also racism/sexism/homophobia/sectarianism/etc. on the negative.
Tech is a cargo cult. They all tend to think the same, act the same, follow the leader. This was clear with the SVB run.
> With torrent, you'd have a completely separate download

That sounds more like a limitation of your bittorrent implementation. You think seeders have dozens of identical copies of each release hanging around on their drives just to be able to share it on separate trackers through separate torrents? :p

Or is there some new feature in IPFS that's an actual differentiator here? It's been a while since I was fully up to date on protocol development.
As the old saying goes "don't buy upgrades, ride up grades"
it isn't a repeat it's just another crisis with different causes
> Judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

That's not the right characterization of the argument. Judges are there to tell legislators that they can't make certain laws. The abortion dispute is not about judges making abortion legal, it's about judges telling politicians that they cannot make abortion illegal. Without that, politicians would literally have the ability to do anything they want.
Car manufacturers at the moment are happy with "100% recycled with carbon free processes" for their steel.

That means you take scrap steel, put it in an electric arc furnace, and power that furnace with matching wind/solar contracts.

So far, carmaking uses less steel than comes into recycling plants, so it hasn't really caused any change in the market.
While I agree with you in principle, but I think the courts have give themselves a lot of wiggle room with concepts like "substantial/significant creative input".

I'm not taking a position at the moment. Hell, I'm barely qualified to take a position. It just feels to me that the courts have given themselves so much wiggle room to change their minds in a second that we're back in the wild west.

As an aside, the first version of the GPL was released more than thirty years ago and it's hardly had a chance to "stand trial" in most courts. How long is it going to take something substantially more complex than a "simple" matter of contract law to make its way through that convoluted system?
And don't forget the short lived line of breakfast cereals!

https://www.samsclub.com/p/kellogg-baby-shark-cereal-26-4-oz...
He asked an interesting question, that I've been thinking about: "What’s going to be the “Linux” of this era of large-scale neural network models?"

Can huggingface, for example, train the next gpt 4?
Not in the public domain, no, but some countries such as the Nordics have mandatory schemes for orphan works where a collection society is able to authorise their use and has legal protection to do so, and will pay out said royalties should someone come forward to claim ownership at a later date.

Most of Europe was going to do this at some point but the photographer's unions pushed back in very strong terms so they were often watered down.
Sure and it is impressive but the upper bounds of AI products are hard to predict. That said things are changing fast I don’t know what tomorrow will bring.
Bounties are 500 calories
GPT is better than Google for something like, 'how do I implement nested blog post comments in Flask'

And much worse than Google for, "site:miguelgrinberg.com nested comments"

Unfortunately I don't know the equivalent of Miguel for everything I need to know, so on average I suppose GPT is better. However it also means that you may never discover the Miguel of your domain!
Backtracking to edit the response is theoretically easily solved by training on a masked language modeling objective instead of an autoregressive one, but using it to actually generate text is a bit expensive because you can't just generate one token at a time and be done, you might have to reevaluate each output token every time another token is changed. So I expect autoregressive generation to remain the default until the recomputation effort can be significantly reduced or hardware advances make the cost bearable.
Interesting question. Migration are key problems.

btw, our messages crossed, so asking here:

have you ever searched about high speed / high perf teams ?

How to metaprogram your team workflow to optimize processes on multiple layers so everything is soft and fluid.
These kits were awesome, BTW. I had one too. I know you can find them still on Amazon, but I never got my kid, who's otherwise into computers, interested in them.
Isn't "guy" a de facto catch-all?