skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not the poster you asked the question to but:

I think we are going to be building and using 'sub-AGI' models for a very long time, probably well after we (probably achieve) full AGI. I think these 'sub-AGI' models are going to radically change the way we think about intelligence in the sense that we are going to be better able to nail down what we find special about human intelligence while at the same time discovering that it is a narrow and somewhat arbitrary subset of what we consider advanced intelligence.

ChatGPT seems to me like a very advanced Markov chain, which isn't to denigrate it, the surprising part is how useful and effective it is which to me shows we have been thinking about intelligence the wrong way. IMO an important portion of our brain probably works in a very analogous way but you could build as advanced a version of ChatGPT as you like and it wouldn't become 'sentient' or go HAL9000 on us.

There is definitely a danger of someone taking ChatGPT9 and telling it to create you computer viruses to take down digital infrastructure or telling it to trade in a way to crash the stock market but that's going to happen when all the zero-day exploits are detonated in the lead up to WW3 anyways and all things considered that has a higher chance of happening sooner than ChatGPT9 or the equivalent is used to do it. Instead of getting worried over rogue AI we should probably just harden our infrastructure.
How is reinforcement learning without a single human in the loop not non-trivial?
Custom Shaped CD-ROMs (2002)
>>Are we going to preface the Bible with this kind of warnings too? I’m all for it, but be consistent.

Outstanding idea!!

>>warnings like that are cheap ways to evade liability and do not actually solve the issue which is people being stupid.

Yes, the all-too-common generic disclaimers and warnings to cover asses for liability are usually so broad and vague as to be useless. And generally with ordinary well-tested consumer products, the problem is user stupidity.

However, I think this is different - it is an entirely new level of tech that has never before been seen by anyone, it can be amazingly useful if used with a good skeptical eye, but also truly dangerous if it is trusted too much. And you've seen the level of anthropomorphization that happens here on HN, so there is a real psychological tendency to trust it too much. So, I'd say tell 'em.

Anyway, fun conversation, hope you're having a great weekend!
A Look into the History of Machine Learning (1958-2023)
It looks interesting, honestly. Shame the RTS market is relatively small.
Let’s not forget:

„1. Let’s replace all cars and vans with electric. 2. Let’s make housing unaffordable by requiring removal of old heating systems and upgrades to insulation when a property changes hands. Let’s make it cheaper to build new houses than renovating old while making demolitions and recycling prohibitively expensive. All of that while we have a shortage of labour and material, and a difficult situation on the energy market.”
This is assuming PRC hasn't made formal requests - been asking for extradition rights / treaties since mid 2000s (before Xi) to host of western countries where big grafters were fleeing. And been given the cold shoulder. Naive to believe polite or none polite fuck off is end of story to west harbouring PRC criminals consquence free, leading to these grayzone methods. "Typical" is reserved for "like minded" relationships, reality is it is political suicide in west to send even criminals to PRC, hence it won't happen no better how sufficient the evidence and faith.
You are incorrect on this point. A spacetime interval is defined as:

ds^2 = c * dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

If ds^2 > 0 then the interval is timelike.

If ds^2 = 0 then the interval is lightlike.

If ds^2 < 0 then the interval is spacelike.

Let's just focus on an object moving strictly along the x-axis faster than the speed of light, this results in a spacetime interval as follows:

ds^2 = c * dt^2 - dx^2

Since the object is moving faster than light, the dx^2 term would exceed the c * dt^2 term, resulting in a ds^2 < 0 and hence spacelike rather than timelike curve.
To be honest, maybe it's on to something. Glazing on the glass would indeed be raised. I speculate in the absence of braille that blind individuals might learn to read labels in other ways.
Did he actually say this? Do you have a source?
Why cause harm? Basically, by accident. If you try to solve a problem really hard, and you're really good at it, and you aren't also trying very hard to preserve a bunch of things that are important to humans, you're very likely to destroy a lot of things that are important to humans in the process.

100 times the computational power may be... 2 years out, at the rate we're going. GPT-4 has about 500 times as many parameters as GPT-3, and that was released 3 years ago. The amount of power people are dedicating to these is following an exponential track.

It's not about it causing harm -- I think most people have accepted that. It's that we may make an AI that's so smart, so good at everything, that trying to control it is like me playing chess against Stockfish. If it gets to that point, and it happens to have learned a goal / set of goals that aren't 100% friendly to humanity (which seems like an inevitability based on our current abilities at AI alignment) then it will optimize those goals so hard that we all die in the process. We'll end up with a planet with all silicon turned into solar panels and computing power, and probably all other elements put to the use of the AI as well.
I can't tell if I'm misreading point 1, barely rephrasing:

Special relativity disallows faster than light travel because it requires moving faster than light.

I can't gain a lot of insight from that point.
There's already something called a "spheromak" (I'm not sure what the difference is except they've been around for a while and apparently they're not good prospects for energy production — they have other scientific uses)
Nothing to expose. The US has always spied on allies as well as adversaries. (So do all other countries, by the way.)
IANAP but even if FTL travel is possible wouldn't it require a lot of energy? That seems way more inefficient than having life forms whose state can be digitized and beamed through space to a receiver?

FTL travel may make sense for installing the initial receiver network, but after that's done you just digitize life and beam it through space, reassembling at the target, rather than transporting matter.

Just like we talk about carbon footprint now, in the future I think people will talk about free energy footprint, and how to minimize it. Transporting matter through space seems really inefficient.
Can you not use SSH proxyjump?

https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/ssh-proxy-bastion-proxyjump
Harvard. Nice
Subtract the free speech argument and a law school still has a very particular need to train students in adversarial debate. It is inherent to the practice of law and failing to teach it would fail to prepare the students. Lawyers need to convince and discuss and negotiate with people who have different values. Being able to have a civil discussion with a judge you disagree with is literally part of the job. There's no need to "reach" 1A.
There's also https://scantailor.org/ (and a maintained fork at https://github.com/4lex4/scantailor-advanced ) which semi-automates unwarping and other corrective tasks in scanned books.
I find it very hard to imagine a world in which software development is fully automated but business owners still have value to bring to the table.
Yes, at the fringes of known physics, as you say. My point is that this question is not at the fringes known physics. Earth and Alpha Centauri are not near the singularity of a black hole and special relativity is perfectly adequate to predict that events now on Earth will take some time to influence events on Alpha Centauri.
Yes, I am sure that 99% of your colleagues would agree with you. But modern astrophysics seems to be stuck in a rut, wasting decades on string theory, and now steadfastly determined that no advancements beyond relativity quantum mechanics can ever be accomplished. Even discussing such is met with disdain, dismissiveness, and ridicule.

And absolute confidence that this is the correct take.

Now, I understand that the experimental evidence underpinning modern astrophysics is very, very sound. But if that is truly the end, and no further discoveries of any note are ever to be had beyond Solvay 1927… well, perhaps the modern astrophysics community should just collectively hang it up and start a landscaping business.
I could be wrong, but I can't imagine those hard problems will require nearly as many people to solve.
Firstly, it's meaningless -- the construction time depends on who is building, not where.

Secondly, it doesn't matter -- reactors in Russia are built by Rosatom just a little slower and still on par with South Korea.

I have zero interest in asking her about anything.
I can absolutely confirm that blog describes a pretty typical experience for patching exchange.
Absolutely fantastic point. If AIs make all useful software, why does anyone get to benefit from that as an owner? NOBODY is doing the work.
Microsoft also reused LoRA in the LLM context recently

https://github.com/microsoft/LoRA

sigh
Slightly tangential, but I had intended to start playing around with LLaMA and building some agents. I got the 4-bit versions up and running on my 3090 before I was quickly nerd snipped by a performance problem...

The popular repo for quantizing and running LLaMA is the GPTQ-for-llama repo on github, which mostly copies from the GPTQ authors. The CUDA kernels are needed to support the specific kind of quantization that GPTQ does.

Problem is, while those CUDA kernels are great at short prompt lengths, they fall apart at long prompt lengths. You could see people complaining about this, seeing their inference speeds slowly tanking as their chats/prompts/etc got longer.

So off I went, spending the last week or so re-writing the kernels in Triton. I've now got my kernels running faster than the CUDA kernels at all sizes [0]. And I'm busily optimizing and fusing other areas. The latest MLP fusion kernels gave another couple percentage boost in performance.

Yet I still haven't actually played with LLaMA and made those agents I wanted... sigh And now I'm debating diving into the Triton source code, because they removed integer unpacking instructions during one of their recent rewrites. So I had to use a hack in my kernels which causes them to use more bandwidth than they otherwise should. Think of the performance they could have with those! ... (someone please stop me...)

[0] https://github.com/fpgaminer/GPTQ-triton/
It's built off of llama though - you can't get to Vicuna without having the llama model weights.
First interim report of John J. Ray III on control failures at the FTX exchanges
"Depending on how you define it" is too load-bearing in that claim; there are non-crazy ways to define each of those initials such that 3.5 is also a general intelligence.
When is writing a score function easier than describing what you want? As a UI, it doesn’t seem like an improvement?
To play devil's advocate, we still have no idea how economically impactful the Copilot suites will be. I don't think this is the most likely outcome, but I can absolutely see a scenario in which these end up being minor features that are rarely used by the typical worker.
Yea it's BS. I'm getting charged tuition (which is waived) while getting paid a 50% FTE contract as a graduate researcher yet I spend 100%+ time in the lab on research. So they're saying that they're charging me for that other 50%+ time I guess? Sure, they can call it dissertation work, some of it isn't directly on the grant I'm under but that's still messed up IMO. Some other students in my lab are there every weekend.
The difference for me with GPT-4 is its ‘understanding’ of the scene and its explanation of WHY you should push or pull.

It talks an out a door with people approaching from different directions. It has some idea of what those people would be thinking.

That seems different to just ‘mirror writing means do the opposite’.
The Alberta Plan for AI Research – Richard S. Sutton et al.
Yeah, if you use a false analogy it doesn't make any sense. Traveling faster than light isn't the same as (or rather, wouldn't be similar to) traveling faster than sound.
Do you think that light moves instantly?
I’m not very hopeful of the effect given a high profile example of their failure: they issue high quality password strength guidelines, and they can’t even get most Federal agencies to adopt them.

CSF has a fair amount of traction I guess.

I’d be happy for my pessimism to be proven wrong.
> it could be construed as promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support, which violates the NLRA [0]

Ok, but there is nothing stopping them from approaching the union with the proposed new benefit.
Many (most?) novel technologies never become commercially viable. I think what @charlieao is saying is that they suspect fusion will be one of the failures. That's a different claim from the one you're countering.

Of course predicting the future of new tech is always a kind of bet. I don't know enough about the details to make a judgement either way. Fairly obviously it just isn't going to be ready in time for the thing it's most often touted for - ie. the decarbonisation exigency. That's just the usual research funding opportunism.

But assuming we do make it over the next few decades (very unlikely in my view), cheap limitless energy is inevitably going to be transformational.
Since when training and fine-tuning isn't learning? Individual sessions of LLMs are not learning, but models as products surely are - the feedback loop is just iterated manually.
> It would require some pretty un-physical behavior, like not being able to move in certain directions if you receive an FTL message.

I don't think that is necessary, what do you have in mind?
As I understand it, fusion's radioactive contamination and waste is a lot shorter-lived than fission reactors', and there's no chance of a runaway meltdown reaction (not that there's any chance of that with a modern fission reactor either... and fission reactors generate a tiny bit of waste in exchange for free unlimited energy...)
Thank you, agreed.

However, the existence of the privileged frame by itself won't allow the paradoxes to be resolved. It would also require some kind of a "time police" as well, some kind of a process that would force the event ordering to be causally consistent.

I'm trying to visualize this, and it would look like a cone that would block any FTL messages in the direction of the receiver. As the time passes, the cone will get slimmer, until it disappears once the causality catches up.
They could always switch fields to where we need help. People are still dying from cancer and Covid won’t be the last pandemic the human race encounters. We also need plumbers and air conditioner repairmen.
Another datapoint: I'm streaming and watching on Twitch multiple times a week, all from Linux and using Firefox. Never had any problems with login.

(Though, somewhat related, I have a funny bug for nearly a year now where Ctrl-V does not work in the Twitch chatbox. I have a workaround in place with a script bound to a global hotkey that sends the clipboard contents as individual keyevents via the Wayland virtual keyboard extension protocol. [1])

[1] https://github.com/majewsky/devenv/blob/4a3b36daafbcb93d8b43...
Is this true?

Greens sometimes have influence in balance of power, but ultimatly they are a smaller party with limited influence or policy making decisions.

Logically that view seems to look at one side of the position only, if they had the power to stop nuclear you'd have to think they also have the power to significantly reduce/replace coal, which hasn't been the case.

Generally doesn't seem fair statement to me but open to reading information that shows otherwise.
It can be done if you can offload some the work to C libraries and the gpu, preferably with zero copy. It will be very constrained, because you won't have parallel threads and a fast game loop to begin with.
Yes, need to pivot promptly!
Considering other topics that are leaked including that the Israeli intelligence community is supporting protests in Israel against the judicial reforms this is definitely not US propaganda.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-rejects-cla...

I can’t leak to the article in the times but the compartmentalization and classification code on that document specifically was pretty much Area 51 aliens level.

It also was a SIGINT report which reveals the means.

The documents that were leaked overall tended to have some of the highest possible classification and dissemination controls on them. Someone is going to jail for a long long time.
D'oh. Nope, it's just me typing too fast.

It should be: "Special relativity disallows faster than light travel because you need to cross the lightspeed barrier".
The form of argument "maybe X invalidates theory Y, so we shouldn't trust prediction of Y" isn't terribly useful since it could be applied to any prediction of science; "Maybe quantum gravity so let's not worry about conservation of energy." "Maybe comoving frame, so maybe we can build antigravity devices", etc. Of course, it could be true. Most anything could be true. It's just not a useful basis for adjusting one's priors.
Show HN: ThoughtCoach: Helping to improve mental health with AI
> Please don’t get the wrong idea that this is a point of controversy within physics! As a physicist I’d estimate 99.9% of her colleagues would disagree and I would too.

I am pretty sure 99.9% of her colleagues won't state that "this is impossible" when presented a consistent model. Why would they? Why do you do that?
code reviews are not the be-all and end-all of a coding job.

in-person interview can give you some insight into what it might be like to work with a person day to day, it has more value than a take-home test in a lot of ways.
full title "first interim report of John J. Ray III to the independent directors on control failures at the FTX exchanges", shortened for HN length limits

Meat begins at page 7, some random "fun" quotes:

> Fifty-six entities within the FTX Group did not produce financial statements of any kind. Thirty-five FTX Group entities used QuickBooks as their accounting system and relied on a hodgepodge of Google documents, Slack communications, shared drives, and Excel spreadsheets and other non-enterprise solutions to manage their assets and liabilities

> Approximately 80,000 transactions were simply left as unprocessed accounting entries in catch-all QuickBooks accounts titled “Ask My Accountant.”

> A June 2022 “Portfolio summary” purporting to model cryptocurrency positions held by Alameda stated, with respect to valuation inputs for certain tokens, that Alameda personnel should “come up with some
numbers? idk.” In an internal communication, Bankman-Fried described Alameda as “hilariously beyond any threshold of any auditor being able to even get partially through an
audit,” adding:
> Alameda is unauditable. I don’t mean this in the sense of “a major accounting firm
will have reservations about auditing it”; I mean this in the sense of “we are only
able to ballpark what its balances are, let alone something like a comprehensive
transaction history.” We sometimes find $50m of assets lying around that we lost
track of; such is life
Correctness might be there. But there are also some grandiose claims in the abstract ("“There are no trigonometric proofs, because all the fundamental formulae of trigonometry are themselves based upon the truth of the Pythagorean Theorem.”) and the argument being novel. I don't have a way to verify these two. That's what the peer review is for.

------------

update: This video refers to another trigonometric proof that doesn't rely on sin^2 + cos^1 = 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6j2nZKwf20

I would write a more modest abstract for this work. Just my $0.02.
I was (wrongly) guessing performance. Tibbles are ok for smaller data sets where data transformations don’t need to be in place and there’s no risk of running out of RAM. Data tables perform better, at the cost of what I think is a less ergonomic interface. See benchmarks here (compare data.table with dplyr):

https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/
And what would you use to beam FTL?

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem
For sure NLP writ large requires lower accuracy levels than AV, like how computer vision writ large has many applications that require lower accuracy levels than AV. And indeed over the past few years what we've seen play out in CV deployments in the real world is incremental gains in controlled environments built on gobs and gobs of application-specific engineering, vs breakout success steamrolling over industries with standardized turnkey solutions

I say that as someone who works in the space and loves it tbc. And I fully expect to see some wild stuff make it IRL this decade in both NLP and CV, I just think the rubber hits the road a bit more slowly than pop social media discourse would have one think.
No, that kinda is right - under special relativity, as your apparent velocity from a fixed reference frame increases, it takes more and more energy to accelerate closer to light speed, so _moving_ faster than light is disallowed.

Another way of putting this is: we know because of special relativity that you can't just strap a lot of rocket boosters on a spaceship and expect to go faster than light. That won't work; if you want to _travel_ faster than light, you have to do it another way.
Why is it game over though? AI is already used for self-improvement, and will be used more as it becomes more capable, but that won't magically solve all the problems in the world and create omnipotent AI. If there are many people and many AI's they collectively will be stronger than the one most advanced, and cooperation will remain advantageous.
I'm late to this, but both of you broke the site guidelines badly in this thread. Please don't do flamewars on HN, and especially please avoid tit-for-tat spats, in the future. We ban accounts that get into this sort of thing regularly; it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

You've posted some good comments in other threads, so hopefully this should be easy to fix if you review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the intended spirit of the site more to heart. We'd be grateful!
Only theoretically; the UK, as half the country said would happen, is currently deciding to use its post-Brexit sovereignty to repeatedly freely choose to (almost?) always do whatever the EU decides to do, only without any of the free trade advantages that come with guaranteeing they always will.
ArmorPaint and ArmorLab: open-source alternative to Adobe Substance
(At the risk of self-promotion) 5 min explainer video here:

https://youtu.be/oXtZAUPGHn8
Absolutely not. When the paychecks come from a company that fundamentally does not believe in the four freedoms, that is critical information with regards to infrastructure.

Free software is an ideology and philosophy, not just a license.
I think it’s disingenuous to paint a decision in the framework you agreed upon as “disrespect and lies.”
I wish OP hadn’t left off the 100 number. It’s in the title of the article. It’s only 3 characters longer and conveys so much more information. Why did they do that?
Have you been waiting three years since creating your account, just to make that joke? :-)
> Tell the world you will stop development until alignment is figured out.

Oh alignment was figured out already, look at who is on the board of OpenAI and the connections they have to US intelligence.