skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I’ll give you an example to think about in human terms.

In political discussions, a lot of humans don’t really know what the fuck they’re talking about, but they do know what to say in response to certain stimulus. They know the talking points, the key phrases, the terms, they parrot these back to you when you provoke them to say it. They are basically human sentence predictors. Stuff comes out of their mouth based on what they’ve been trained to think the next word should be. They don’t pause to reflect on some gathered knowledge and then present an observation to the world.

This is basically what GPT is, but with everything. And the only way GPT plays a game, is if the state of the game can sufficiently activate some output that represents the next best move for the game being played, which isn’t really a readily available data set for all games, especially for made up games.
The rustc driver for trusted PL/Rust prevents using the subset of the Rust language required to trigger those issues. Most of them are things that would have a hard time traversing the Postgres procedure call boundary, anyways, in a legitimate use-case, so this isn't expected to meaningfully affect actual user code.
> The Port of Seattle says it could cost as much as $78 million to fix an apparent design flaw

A good detailed simulation that would have caught this would be a small fraction of that cost. Release it as part of flight sim games and let the public explore it. Offer rewards for suggestions that lead to design changes. With such an expensive risk of mistakes it should be only a matter of time before detailed explorable sims of major projects become routine.
As written in the article:

> ... the Port is counter-suing Clark to recoup costs involved in fixing the gate layout fiasco.
That's the reality of the US: it has lost its capacity of building anything under budget and correctly. Engineering skills have been replaced by blind management guided by computer software. This is the result.
I've had mine (Model 3) for about 5 years now, so far they updated the hardware for free and it's gotten way better software for free over the air. It's a much better car now then when I bought it (so at least so far, the opposite of what you suspect is true).

Service has also been way better for me than when I had cars serviced by franchised dealers, but that may be because I'm in SF. I had an issue and two days later a mobile Tesla service car came to my house and fixed it in my driveway for free.
Your link still gives 5x more efficient.
I loved using this! The UI is quite nice and kudos for keeping sign-up free.

English is not my native language, so I wished it provided more info on why a certain thing is correct or wrong

Also, what are your plans regards to monetisation?
Are they doing that with old model teslas?
Woah, I’ve been actively using GitHub for over a decade and I had no idea it had profile pages like this if you make a repo that is the same as your username. Is this a new thing? How did I completely miss the bus on this?
If you want to understand China, you must first understand Legalism
Your link is about the PinePhone (AllWinner SoC). neodypsis is presumably asking about the PinePhone Pro (Rockchip SoC, though not the rk3588).
> Often it can actually solve more complex problems but needs to have its “hand held”. Essentially the model needs to be guided to/through problem solving techniques.

While I haven’t done experiments with it hooked up to enough resources to really solve problems autonomously, providing it access to lookup information (e.g., searching wikipedia) and do simply computation (e.g., send python expressions to be evaluated) it figures out a lot more than just the chat interface alone without resources, without hand holding. I think autonomously solving problems where the necessary information is in the universe covered by training data and accessible resources is not unrealistic.
usually design documents are stamped by a "professional engineer" (PE) licensed by the state. They're names on the documents and they're supposed to check them.

I used to be a civil engineer and for the earthworks the PE always had us checking things. especially grades in the areas around the perimeter. Our initials were on it but the PE stamped it. We did catch a few things where the plans called for a "wall" because if we did our 3/1 grading we'd meet existing over the property line.

Not sure how the engineering works for airports.
Because machines are never the substitute for thinking and checking.

Tools need to be used with intention and not by coincidence.

Even with a simple calculator, just by getting a result after mashing buttons it doesn't mean that the result is valid for the problem you were seeking to solve. The same goes for more complex tools and new things like LLM expose the lack of critical thinking by humans even further.

"The system told me so" is the laziest lack of ownership and appeal to an authority that is not only not above reproach but usually extremely buggy for different reasons.
Either something can come from nothing, or something has always been. Neither make sense from our understanding of causality, but one of them must be true.
Whether those particular gates were actually designed for widebody aircraft is exactly the point of contention. Clark Construction says the design specifications for those gates were for narrowbody aircraft, and suggests that this is but one of many SeaTac flip-flops that caused tremendous cost inflation, resulting in an earlier lawsuit initiated by Clark for unpaid labor costs.

Given the acrimony it would seem rather difficult to know as an onlooker what transpired and why.

Seattle Times has a better article: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-t...

> Clark’s latest legal brief, filed in late February, asserts that the contract documents defining the work “specifically state that Clark was to design the Project to accommodate narrowbody aircraft at Gates A6 and A8, not widebody aircraft.”
Bitcoin Climbs Past $30k for the First Time Since June 2022
VPNs are illegal in China, but that doesn't stop a lot of them
Re: your last sentence, I'm fairly certain this would fall under the category of neuro-symbolic AI. It, too, seems to me like the logical next step.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-symbolic_AI
Hum, but my understanding was that the whole point of the normalization was that the raw scores are not in a scale that is meaningful outside of the symposium which they were placed in?

Does it really make sense to compare raw scores from different tests? If that were the case then the normalization step would be useless, we would have an absolute measure of intelligence.
Maybe I missed it in the paper but they did post the source code (Github) for their implementation? Is anyone working on creating their own infrastructure based on the paper?
Why? What makes commuter trains different?
How does "a simulation" get you out of the universe always existing?
Good thing they are already a regulated job (in much of the US) so it’ll be easy to gatekeep access.
As much as I love metcals, we had a $100 Aoyue hot-air station in graduate school that probably soldered on 500+ custom ASICs over its lifespan. The thing with prototyping chips (as with anything else) is you don't want to insert a variable (bad solder joints) into something that might have other unknown variables (the chip). The $100 hot air station broke somewhere around chip #400 and we just kept cobbling it back together. I think its still working to this day.
Nothing more to say about variation arising from geography around the US, such as urban vs rural, high vs low education, by age, etc, etc. And have other developed countries seen similar shifts?

It's like the authors overheard a single sentence on the topic in a bar and decided to turn it into an entire article without looking into it any further.
I think a non-zero amount of people would argue that. I disagree with them, and point to the fact that, say, dogs appear to dream, and in those dreams reflect on past or possibly future behaviour as a sign that they could indeed be conscious in an analogous manner to humans, but that's a bit of a longer bow to draw perhaps.
> Solving a problem with one or more right answers is very different from critical thinking.

Its also very different from what STEM majors do. In life there are no specific right answers just ones that aren't wrong. STEM majors dont live in a world of binary right/wrong problems any more than anyone else does.
"Contaminated water" is a very misleading phrase, because the more of it there is, the less danger it poses (from "almost none" to "none").
Britain to encourage smokers to swap cigarettes for vapes
Faculty pay rates at most (if not all) state universities are publicly searchable. I ended up using that at least once during a salary negotiation.
The stable diffusion community has, unfortunately, largely ignored peft because the training/inference scripts largely ignored diffusers.
There won't be any human drivers, so they will all yield to me even if I treat them like slalom poles.

I genuinely laughed when I read your post, but there is some truth to it. Most of these posts here are "doomers". Ignoring that for a moment, no one (except you) has talked about pedestrians or bicyclists. One "hack" that sounds great as a walker/rider: In a world of 99% self-driving cars, just walk/ride anywhere you want. Literally, casually cross a ten lane expressway. All the self-driving cars will bow dutifully to you!

This thought experiment sounds like a performance art dream. Do you remember the artist who created a Google maps traffic jam in London by filling a wagon with mobile phones and walking slowly? Ref: https://www.simonweckert.com/googlemapshacks.html

Another thing: You can sabotage self-driving cars by putting traffic cones everywhere. Or sit in the middle of a major intersect with ten of your friends and read the newspaper (or pick your nose!). The passengers will be furious, and the self-driving cars won't know what to do.
Isn't most plastic we'd think of recycling (bottles, food containers, utensils, etc) thermoplastic, and able to melted and reformed like you described?
Who had the incentives at the Port Authority to make these decisions and what were their motivations or failure of motivation is the question...
There is no real engineering in charge of this, it's all managers making decisions and engineers are asked just to do the boring parts. How would managers know that gates need to be dimensioned for airplanes?
Our world we be so much better if the people responsible for mega projects actually thought this way! But, I suspect that a person needs to have a certain hubris to believe themselves worthy of heading a huge project, and that this belief militates against seeking input from outsiders that might catch mistakes.
200 million people aren't going to want to deal with excrement filled pipes, bug, rat, snake infested crawl spaces, understand all the dangers involed and all the other reasons that plumbers and electricians have such high pay scales.
Framing LLMs as primitives is marketing-speak. These are high-level construction for specific runtimes, which are difficult to test and subject to change at anytime.
Guess that's why I never feel firefox laggy but others said it is. The first thing I do after installing windows is always installing some other antivirus to disable defender. Because the defender start routine scanning at weird time and lag games randomly, which is really annoying.

I really have no clue why engineer at ms think such behavior is ok. Shouldn't scans like these scheduled at some time slot that people are not actively using computers?
> users in Brazil get to see certain products, a special import-tax panel, etc, but no-one else does

That's authorization.

Feature flags were invented to enable continuous integration and trunk-based development. Ultimately, they're an alternative to feature branches. If you wouldn't create a git branch for it, you shouldn't create a feature flag for it.
I’ve spent a lot of time around smart and eccentric people and around various diet and exercise “communities” and one thing I’ve noticed is that smart and eccentric people are so much more likely to subscribe to faddish, heterodox diets and exercise routines.

Tech attracts a lot of smart, eccentric people with anti-authoritarian, anti-mainstream bents. Bizarre ideas strongly held about health and nutrition emerge naturally among this group.

Makes you wonder what else they’re not really experts about, but that can also be a feature. A guy doesn’t know you can’t just put a supercomputer touchscreen in everyone’s pocket but he also doesn’t know carrots don’t cure cancer.
What you’re saying gets to the core of why I would call it AGK and not AGI. Training a transformer on known answers to problems and then observing that it can successfully answer questions related to those problems is cheating.

I think the way that Ilya suggests that the “test for consciousness is to train a model with an absolute absence of any training example remotely referring to the notion of a self or of feeling, and then ask it questions about feeling. If the model can do it, congrats, you’ve discovered consciousness.” Similarly, if you train an architecture on exclusively the building blocks of a particular class of problem, and also avoid training it on any sort of problem where it could just reason by analogy and get a correct answer (isolating first principles thing as the only option), then if it can solve the problem you have a genuine problem solving architecture.
Some entity must have been responsible for ensuring that the technical drawings satisfied the technical requirements. If this entity exists, they were at fault here. If the entity doesn't exist, the entity responsible for assigning that responsibility is at fault.
"The Flynn Effect" is a very popular topic on HN, but the general understanding of it is way off. Ulric Neisser has a good analysis in "Rising scores on intelligence tests" in American Scientist 85(5):440-447 (1997).

I'll try to cover his main points...

The various intelligence tests that exist show some positive correlation. The factor "g" is this degree of correlation. The best measure of g is Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM), which is a test of visual reasoning. Intelligence tests are periodically revised and recalibrated. Flynn noticed that subjects were scoring higher on older versions. Scores on arithmetic, vocabulary, and general information showed small gains or even declines. The greatest gains were on g-loaded tests such as RPM.

Given the performance of current students in school subjects, such a rise in general intelligence doesn't seem plausible. Because of this, Flynn thinks the tests don't really measure intelligence.

Various theories have been put forward to account for the change. The gains were far too rapid to result from genetic changes. Another theory was that Americans became more familiar with test taking in general and that transferred to IQ tests, but the rise continued for decades after the spread of broader education. Also, the tests more closely related to school content were not the ones showing the rise.

Nutrition caused people to grow taller and have bigger heads, but there is very weak empirical support for a connection between nutrition and intelligence. Also, a purely biological basis for the change would indicate a rise in all aspects of intelligence, which clearly wasn't the case.

There is a well established effect of schooling on IQ, but populations of children before schooling have shown gains comparable to populations of adults after schooling. Also, groups of subjects at different levels of education showed about the same gains. Finally, schooling affects tests of content more than of reasoning, but that wasn't reflected in rising test scores.

Modern children increasingly have exposure to things explicitly designed to stimulate their intelligence, e.g. Sesame Street and preschool. Early childhood intervention programs have been shown to have no lasting effect on IQ. The most intensive environmental enrichment programs have been shown to have some lasting effect on IQ, but nowhere near comparable to the Flynn effect.

Neisser proposes that changes in the cultural environment have caused the rise. Modern industrial culture produces vastly more of complex visual media. He thinks our increasing practice in analyzing complex imagery has caused the gains in performance on visual reasoning tests.
Conversely, if you want to understand the US, you must understand:

1. Less educated, but successful, founding merchant emigrants

2. Old West (American frontier until 1920)

3. Slavery (and firearms and police)

4. Alexis de Tocqueville's American exceptionalism
Can LFP experience thermal runaway? I was under the impression you could put a nail through an LFP cell and It'd mostly be fine.
Improved UNIX socket networking in QEMU 7.2
My 2c: you could scrape 5+ minutes time if you stop reading/posting to HN
Aquinas and Aristotle knew: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
WikiMap – Map of all WikiMedia Commons photos
I made a 3D model of the Aperiodic Monotile a.k.a. The Hat
They found a new shape, and I wanted to 3D print it so bad. I'm not the first, but its ~100x100x6mm so I can use it as a coaster.
People on Twitter are speculating breathlessly about using this for social science. I don't immediately see uses for it outside of fiction, esp. video games.

It would be cool if some kind of law of large numbers (an LLN for LLMs) implied that the decisions made by a thing trained on the internet will be distributed like human decisions. But the internet seems a very biased sample. Reporters (rightly) mostly write about problems. People argue endlessly about dumb things. Fiction is driven by unreasonably evil characters and unusually intense problems. Few people elaborate the logic of ordinary common sense, because why would they? The edge cases are what deserve attention.

A close model of a society will need a close model of beliefs, preferences and material conditions. Closely modeling any one of those is far, far beyond us.
word calculator is a more impressive title than I’d grant some people
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/22/22946108/irs-login-gov-id...

https://www.biometricupdate.com/202303/irs-gutsy-move-plug-i...

https://fcw.com/digital-government/2023/03/planned-login-dot...
Someone should create a website to list bugs that haven’t solved for years. Hall of shame. I myself could add couple from Oracle, hibernate
Oh yes, quite frightening! I don't want to listen to people who peddle bullshit, and I would deny them a platform to do so, gasp in horror!

In situations where people start threatening others with violence to shut them up, concern is warranted. Until then... Let's touch grass together.
Thank you for pointing out that device.

I believe you are correct. I was only able to find a listing on Amazon for a used one of the M3K devices. Also found a listing on ebay.

I need a device with Bluetooth as my car doesn't have an auxiliary jack. Suppose that I could also make use of an low power FM transmitter also.
UC Berkeley’s Instruct-NeRF2NeRF Edits 3D Scenes with Text Instructions
Yes that’s correct.

I was saying it came after, meaning GitHub could not have used it since it didn’t exist. :)
Apple can and does leave things out of that repo.
You've been told it doesn't need that much handholding.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366

https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.17651

Why insist otherwise ?
Awesome ChatGPT Plugins – a curated collection of ChatGPT plugins
I have never been one to be really interested in policy, but the whole twitter debacle has shown me how important it is for platforms to have not just have good policy, but be trustworthy enough to consistently implement them.

I have no idea what Elons goals are, but if he was actively trying to destroy the platform, I’m certain that I couldn’t have achieved that goal more efficiently than what he has been doing for the last 6 months or so.
Westworld vibes
It's hard to know if "their code was horribly written" without privileged knowledge about their code, but we can infer some things or at least formulate some reasonable assumptions based on what factual information is publicly available:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2013/34-70694.pdf

> On August 1, 2012, Knight Capital Americas LLC (“Knight”) experienced a significant error in the operation of its automated routing system for equity orders, known as SMARS. [...]

> Upon deployment, the new RLP code in SMARS was intended to replace unused code in the relevant portion of the order router. This unused code previously had been used for functionality called “Power Peg,” which Knight had discontinued using many years earlier. Despite the lack of use, the Power Peg functionality remained present and callable at the time of the RLP deployment. The new RLP code also repurposed a flag that was formerly used to activate the Power Peg code. Knight intended to delete the Power Peg code so that when this flag was set to “yes,” the new RLP functionality—rather than Power Peg—would be engaged."

> [...] In 2003, Knight ceased using the Power Peg functionality. In 2005, Knight moved the tracking of cumulative shares function in the Power Peg code to an earlier point in the SMARS code sequence. Knight did not retest the Power Peg code after moving the cumulative quantity function to determine whether Power Peg would still function correctly if called.

A system that can, in a catastrophic failure, single-handedly put your entire company out of business, is what I'd consider mission-critical.

Mission-critical systems should, by definition, be held to a higher standard of quality than non-critical systems.

A mission-critical system that has dead code still in production for 9 years, untested, and allowing the "repurpos[ing of] a flag," suggests the level of quality that may be at play.

Your guess is as good as mine, but this smells like a pretty grievous coding error, lack of quality around deployment processes, and insufficient testing and validation.

For a system that is so mission-critical, that a simple "mistake" put the entire company out of business in one single event, this seems pretty "horrible" to me.

YMMV.
It’s mostly that they care. Chrome is designed with the mindset that it’s the most important thing running on your computer.
> FDNY has a huge problem with cheap scooters and e-bikes catching fire in residential structures.

For those interested, it's shitty imported cheap products, and/or (and I believe this is more common) cheap shitty third party chargers that overload the BMS/don't shut off correctly when they are supposed to.

Buy reputable brands (lots and lots of the scooters and e-bikes you see are just re-branded stuff from the same Chinese OEM) and don't get a third party charger, stick to first-party ones.
They copied all those mistakes from the Mac, even though by that time Apple already knew those decisions were mistakes.
Respectfully, you chose the wrong hill to die on. Psychology has many squishy parts, but psychometry is basically the closest thing it has to a hard science.

The other comment adresses your NQ argument, but here's something I don't understand: "There's a very uncomfortable result about IQ tests that a generation of psychologists have tried to explain away"

This reeks of anti-intellectualism by the way ("can't trust the experts!"), but I am curious to know what you're referring to. It can't be the validity or reliability of IQ tests, surely? Both have been very solidly established for a long time.