skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Clearly GPT doesn't "know" things in the way we do- I'd argue that there's probably a little bit of world modeling in there, but piecemeal and crude at best. Only so much you can do with such limited iteration. However, we must acknowledge that there are evidently some tasks that don't require knowledge the way we usually think about it. For a human, being able to talk about a game stems from the same place as our ability to understand one- our knowledge. But for LLMs, you get one without the other. The fact that ChatGPT doesn't "know" what a game is isn't sufficient to explain why it can't play one. It would be in a human, but clearly ChatGPT can perform tasks without knowledge that we'd need knowledge for, since it can talk about games just fine! So why not this one? Your hypothetical perfect sentence predictor could absolutely play a totally novel game, after all. It is a worthwhile question to ask why this particular flawed predictor can do one but not the other.
Shameless plug but if you’re looking for a SaaS idea to use this playbook on…

I write a newsletter called Unvalidated Ideas[0] that is about what it sounds like it’s about.

Just hit the 50th edition which means 150 ideas sent out (in the paid letter)!

[0]: https://unvalidatedideas.com
Reminds me of this video about automation of mental labor (and this was made back in 2014, way before any of of the LLM stuff of the modern era): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

While not all the example predictions in the video were accurate, I think the point about automation as a displacement of mental labor is real. At the end of the day, a lot of white collar work is really not that "valuable" from a production standpoint. And while the easy way is to blame either technology or those it replaces, the crux of the problem is really in society and how individuals make a living.

Society needs to be ready for a future where most people will not be able to do meaningfully differentiated work ---where even if you're thrown into higher education, most of the jobs available are still what would be considered as "entry level" ones.

Also, this is also somewhat an attestation to Moravec's paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox), where "intellectual" tasks like writing are easier to automate compared to "actuation" tasks like fetching food, driving it around, and placing it in the right place (re: Doordash).
The buried lede:

You could also argue that Dogen never really retired. Though he left the corporate workforce and lived mostly off of passive income, he also consulted start-ups, produced his blog, and wrote one traditional book and an e-book over the past 10 years.
To be fair, the brain tumour thing used to be much higher up (i guess it got downvoted), and i agree that it is an incredibly condescending and offensive thing to say.

Like sheesh, imagine saying that in any other context. e.g. someone likes emacs, must be a brain tumour.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35512100
Again, could be fake, but if you had a 3 y/o and your salary cut to $0, you might panic and go for one of the few jobs where you can start making money instantly w/o having to interview while you look for more work.
(thanks for pointer to memory-augmented llms)
It's just the name of the repo: the actual target is ${arch}-postgres-linux-gnu.
Some people lie for fun.
With how rich YouTubers / influencers are getting, I think relationship building / becoming a celebrity will become more and more necessary
World Startup Convention: The India startup gala that exploded into a scandal
Incompetence in that specific domain.
Doesn't water from wet sponge evaporate soon?
IMO, the quality is demonstrably poor at present, I don't think any dev worth their salt is going to be concerned when at best, it's only what people could have done with boilerplate tooling twenty years ago, but even that was superior.
Yeah, there are lots of ways cars could store such settings that wouldn't be cleared when main battery power is disconnected (which is something that regularly needs to be done when the car is serviced). Flash storage would work too.
Right but the way that this paper proposes determining the best rank is by training a LoRA with the full rank.
I’m gonna merge the thread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35518975 where you said:

> * Encouraging higher IQ parents to have more children through subsidies, thereby increasing the likelihood of future technological innovations assisting all mankind.

This is a schoolbook example of a eugenicist argument. Are you sure you want to go there?

I’m gonna assume that you meant something different than what I took from this, and you are not a eugenicists. However I do want to speak a little about why eugenicists are wrong.

The problem with trying to select for IQ is that there is no broad consensus about what constitutes a good intelligent trait. There are thousands of traits that work differently in thousands of situations. When there is no consensus, somebody must take authority. And if that authority has nefarious reasons, than we are pretty screwed. More likely no such trait, nor sets of traits exist. As Charles Darwin him self demonstrated, there is value in diversity. By not selecting for a single trait, and allowing our cognitive abilities to vary as much as possible, there is way more chances of something beneficial to our species to develop and be selected for.

Now this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t accommodate for disabilities. However it isn’t 1908 any more. We have better tests and metrics to detect disabilities, and we have better means of accommodating. IQ has run its course. We don’t need it anymore. The science has advanced, and the theory is obsolete.

And this ties to the above post, and other posts you’ve done in this tree.

You seem to think there is some scientific is pretty sound and there is some suppression going on:

> 6. Refusal to discuss IQ leads to it being something that is whispered about behind closed doors, but cannot be discussed openly. This directly harms those who are often (and often wrongly) associated with groups that might be thought to have lower IQs. Bringing the reality of IQ into the open enables a real conversation about it, and it allows confronting racists on much more solid ground, since the debate is no longer undergirded with taboos and untruths.

If you think that, you’d be wrong. Modern psychology looks for behavior, if a model predicts behavior, your pretty good. IQ does no such thing. So perhaps it is sociology, not psychology and is looking for population statistics, well... IQ is pretty bat at that too. There are number of other metrics which does that better. The simplest one being school grades. And to apply Occam’s razor, why invent an entire new construct intelligence when grades suffice.

We don’t not discuss IQ. It has been done extensively for well over a century now. and IQ has simply lost to better theories. There is no taboo, just sore loosers that keep on and on about a theory that holds no relevance any more. Just look at The Bell Curve it’s been almost 30 years and we are still talking about it, despite it being a schoolbook example of how to do bad science. We finished talking about N-rays and phrenology a long time ago, it is time we do so with IQ as well.

IQ is dead, it was never anything more than a bad theory which took way too long formally die.
OP can look forward to some well-deserved schadenfreude when the marketer's clients inevitably replace him with AI.
Only after the facility was built did the port authority realize that widebody aircraft like the Airbus A330, Boeing 777 and 787 Dreamliner, which are regularly used on long-haul international flights, couldn’t fit into four of the gates at the facility.
Can someone actually explain how IQ tests work? By work, I mean how are the tests engineered, and the results computed.

Long time ago someone explained to me that the engineering of IQ tests was actually drafted from a very large pool of (regularly updated) questions, where statistical significance was extracted to form a _core symposium_ of questions to sample from. Also, the IQ score itself was normalized to be normally distributed centered at 100.

With this understanding, I was under the impression that IQ was a relative measure, at a specific point in time, of one's placement in the distribution.

Which meant to me that IQ cannot "drop" across a population, the mean will always be 100. And IQ scores cannot be compared on a time series basis, since they are only cross sectional measures.

Is that all wrong? Is there some truth to it?
Not sure how many cities' economies can get get by just with their population buying locally, but if your parking is too expensive, I'm not visiting, and I'm not patronizing businesses. I don't actually know how sustainable a policy of "we don't accommodate visitors" is for a large city.
If George Carlin was a philosopher, perhaps Mike Judge is also more than a physicist, musician, and director. Giving Brian May a run for his money.

When the collective hive mind of a society is organized around anti-intellectualism (the core ethos of America), then it will subsidize a combination of stupid (less talent) and mental laziness (lack of productive application of talent). This is how a society enters the dustbin of history and emerges as a brutal and backwards people.
Oh we do, too. My beef with it is how easy it is for a user on the account to go and read your state due to a lax IAM or bucket policy.

My advice: check and make sure your bucket policy you use for the state has an explicit deny (resource *, principal *) and then you explicitly allow only the user / role that requires access to the TF state.

Things to watch out for are providers that store sensitive info in your state. For example, if you use Vault and you read a secret out of Vault with Terraform then the secret will be saved in your Terraform state which, painting with broad strokes, largely invalidates the purpose of Vault. Lots of providers do this, some are getting better about not requiring sensitive info to be saved in the state or included in the config.
All assumptions are bold right now, so in a weird way they kind of cancel each other out lol. There's really no predicting what this is all going to look like in 1-3 years.
Right but if it needs its hand held, that ends up being a transcription task rather than a logical reasoning task. Like if you _tell it_ the solution to a coding job in detail, it can build you the complex entity you’re looking for. But if you just say for instance “write me a Python script that generates random chord changes (ex A#dim to Gmaj9b5)”, first of all it will just dump code without asking for clarification on requirements, and second of all even if you do give it further clarification on requirements the code won’t work without you explaining in depth the algorithm.

Although, that’s just a personal anecdote.
I'm from NYC and very familiar with taxis. They produce quite a bit of congestion on their own, without needing to park regularly.

And stop calling for-hire cars "rideshare", because it isn't sharing, it's hiring or renting.
Measure never; build again and again and ....
Apple iOS rant
This is absolutely something that they should have caught before building the terminal.
Will we ever get apologies from the AI-Foom crew for losing their marbles and riling people up about the word calculator?
That’s not the core problem, really. Plug in the numbers for a $600k mortgage with $100k downpayment in California, and add the $1k HOA fee mentioned in the article. It comes out to $5200/mo, including property tax. This is excluding maintenance.

For a property that is quite likely not even that much better than renting. (Super market dependent — in Seattle anyways, $600k doesn’t get you even a “starter” home.)

It just doesn’t make financial sense unless the time scale is fairly long, with interest rates as high as they are.

I make a fair amount, as do my peers. I don’t find it hard to save (though student loans can require a lot of cash flow). I can live very comfortably, but that lifestyle is peanuts to what it takes to afford a home. Going to some concerts, dining out, small trips — that’s peanuts compared to the cost of ownership.

As far as I can tell, the only way for the finances to make sense in a HCOL area is 1. come into a lot of capital (stock cashout, inheritance, etc) or 2. move very far away (possibly loosing that nice job). Or 3, make a lot of other lifestyle sacrifices while still also having a well-paying job. (Edit: and I mean way more than cutting that daily coffee or yearly vacation.)

And that’s not even counting what it costs to have kids!
Yes to the first.

To the second, I'm not sure that the RAM requirements are the same to train because you have to preserve the state which takes extra memory.
There's a lot of gray area, though. Consider the statement: "This person (does/does not) have the ability to see Widget X on their homepage."

From the perspective of someone implementing the frontend or backend? It has all the characteristics of a feature flag.

But what if Widget X shows something we are not allowed to sell to that person (say, per a specialized contract with their organization, or regional/legal limitations)? Then it's long lived, has extraordinary consequences for failure, and needs careful design to be able to model the person's membership in different (often overlapping) labels or organizations.

We implement a `resolve_config` function used across our codebase, where different entities in our data model have a well-defined precedence order when they can override the value iff they match part of the hierarchical context. It's designed to be a near-zero-cost abstraction (cached locally so lookups can be done synchronously). That way, doing something that will roll out to some partners over time, and never to other partners, is as simple as using this function instead of a constant or literal. Edits at any level are audit-logged and can, when necessary, have approval procedures applied. It's an authorization system, at its core, but with arbitrarily typed values rather than boolean authorized-or-not flags. And I can't imagine building a B2B or B2B2C business without it.
I'd be curious to know how good of a job Google can do at recognizing content generated by ChatGPT. While I've seen some tools that claim to detect AI-written text, their performance is usually pretty lackluster. Even if they have an internal model which can distinguish ChatGPT-authored content reliably, it seems like it'd be prohibitively expensive to run at scale (on the assumption that it must be a pretty large model to reliably solve a difficult classification problem).
Four out of 20 gates! That is ludicrously sloppy.

I enjoy that their recourse for such a failure in design so far has been to "write a strongly worded letter". Is there some kind of protection for the builder that is preventing them from being sued? Is the airport body governing this actually the one that failed? What a bizarre situation
Tutoring assumes the skill is valuable to learn, that there is a need for more people who know how to do it.

We don't really tutor people how to write too much assembly anymore, or hand-compile code. So if you're arguing that ChatGPT meets the definition of a tool, or a servant, better than a tutor, fair, but if you're further arguing that that makes it somehow less valuable than a tutor (in this case), I'm not sure I can come along there.
Stuff like this used to be designed at drafting tables, by hand. Now we have computers that facilitate sophisticated modelling during every stage of the design process.

So how is it even possible to fuck up this bad?
Discovering Headroll (CVE-2023–0704) in Chromium
There is a raw score underlying any given IQ test that is an absolute value. It might just be as simple as the number of questions you get right. When testing a population, these scores form a normal distribution. We then scale the raw scores so that the mean/median or center of the distribution becomes an IQ of 100. So the raw scores can be compared across time and can vary, even though the IQ cannot as you said.
Just like umpires in the 9th inning?
Creative output from GPT-4 like everything else is a huge jump from 3.5. People say 60% as good but don't be surprised if it's already much closer or even surpassing the human baseline in question.
Good point about the Raven's Progressive Matrices, but I still think the parent's hypothesis that we have improved at test taking is relevant. Outside of verbal reasoning there are a lot of soft factors that influence test taking ability. People who haven't taken a timed test before would probably perform worse than expected simply because it is an unfamiliar context, and unfamiliarity tends to create higher stress/anxiety which is known to be bad for cognitive performance in novices. A group that has taken hundreds of tests will probably score better on a test in an unfamiliar subject than another unprepared group that isn't used to taking tests simply because they have some meta-knowledge about test taking.
> What if a flight only cost a nickel, but there was a 40% chance it blew up?

Everything has failure modes though so this isn't nearly as easy of a comparison...

Just as an example on the analogy, there are plenty of cases of pilot suicide bringing down planes too that one would expect would never happen with pure automation... So you can just as easily turn the analogy around and say people are the "cheap but worse" option.

FWIW, we have been able to create processes to manage risks with unpredictable humans, why couldn't we with AI ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Bad tools or consumables break at the most inopportune times and yes, in most cases bad = cheap. People like to compare to Snap-On but forget that Snap-On subsidizes their delivery service with the tool cost. Also, yes, Snap-Ons are in fact that much better than HF tools in almost all cases.

Its bad when a $9 HF torque wrench breaks at 8:45PM on a Sunday night when you're under your car putting the transmission back on. Or a cheap pot-metal screw strips when you have a manufacturing deadline approaching.

I've been in the electronics manufacturing industry for 17 years now and in almost all cases, "buy the best you can afford" is the better mantra. That doesn't go bankrupt over a $1500 dollar Snap-On wrench set, but if you buy the HF stuff, you will spend $1500 in time using their warranty.
I both strongly agree (“content is a plague”) and strongly disagree (artisans, even digital ones, make society better).

I’m glad that we’ll hopefully see the end of content as an industry, where people churn out text and images and posts trying to monetize attention by the penny. It’s inevitable as content becomes effectively free. How long before TikTok makes AI generated videos without creators? I’m pretty sure medium can be replaced in entirety today.

That said, there’s plenty of people who work hard and are immensely talented and contribute a lot to society. Technology and automation has slowly taken away many jobs that brought people satisfaction and we’re anything but BS jobs. My classic example is musicians. It’s something people love to be, but in a world with recorded audio, you don’t need as many musicians as you once needed (and it was actually a fairly common job).

I don’t have the answers, but I hope that automation can start replacing BS jobs through AI.
If you substitute "google the problem" for "get a printout from my doctor that isn't from a possibly sketchy internet source" I would be a lot happier.
The big difference is that in a train, you fit 4 people wide and roughly 2-3 ft front to back per person while in cars which have average capacity of ~1.5 per car, you have 1.5 people wide and 50-200 ft front to back. Trains are farther apart than cars, but fit a ton of people per train.
So, nobody built a scale model or 3D simulation before they built it IRL? Or is the article leaving something out?
It might be more that whether the user is authorized to view something or a particular feature is enabled for some user is really mixing concerns the code shouldn’t care about. Really what it cares about is “can the user do this thing”? How the decision is arrived at should be opaque to the code asking that question. It also probably makes it easier to test because you can just tell that section of the code “yes” or “no” through a stub of that permission / feature oracle.
Checks and balances failed. People phoned in the work. I can imagine it.
You can use a standard web browser and login: https://card.apple.com
When something gets easier we get sloppier
What should be a setting? This specific youtube ambience thing? That is, but it shows the issue - you need to pick a default, and most people won't know they can change it. Having some idea of the capabilities of the device you're running on could allow you to choose sensible defaults.

But if you mean there should be a setting in the browser that websites could check, I agree that could be better.
Stephen King is a weird example because there are lots of working writers in the store brand Stephen King market.
They came out with decent slip jaw pliers that were almost as expensive as real channel locks for about the same quality. At that point, the question becomes "do I trust a new brand?" instead of "do I buy lower quality?"
Well except you can't legally offer fine-tuned LLaMA as a commercial offering like that.
If you can afford it, sure. Not a lot of waiters make developer bucks though.

I usually find just switching companies puts the spring back in my step.
> If one wanted to, couldn't they find a provider they could pay to deal with whatever issue immediately?

If you live in or near a large town, yes, but the price will likely be 4-8x what your insurance company would pay for the same services, and you can't get a quote in advance.
Would love to get more insight into what happened in the design phase? Besides the construction contractor who was the architect, why aren’t they being sued?
Well today we have lower iq scores.
France had a similar debacle with ordering the wrong size trains [0]. Supposedly that blunder cost $20 billion.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27497727

Edit: Apparently $20 billion was sticker price for all trains. Presumably something was worked out so they were not out the full bill.
I disagree, but in the absence of shop-class and summer factory jobs, then yes.
Probably a Design-Build bid, based on how other large infra has worked here in Seattle (See: Hw 99 Tunnel).

It appears the 4/20 work with smaller planes, so merely may not have been need until now.

Local reporting has a few other issues mentioned about specific gates, which to me sounds like a "Our contract says you have 30 days to reply to our letter informing of issues before xyz happens". So purely posturing before mediation before lawsuits. But we'll see.

For anyone interested, I found the local media coverage was higher quality: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-t...
Someone probably decided it was not worth it to pay for the right software that could detect it
Fair, I lived in East Melbourne for a couple of years and having a car was entirely unnecessary.
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-violate-local-causa... is one
Project ran for 2x as long as planned and 3x the budget. And we're left with finger-pointing and lawsuits
Creative writing output from GPT-4 like everything else is a huge jump from 3.5(and it gets even better with targeted refinement). People say 60% as good or whatever but don't be too surprised if it's already much closer or even surpassing the human baseline in question.
This sort of stuff combined with the train situation really does feel like the start of an Ayn Rand novel.

I will say this is a remarkably small overspend for this sort of project though "Originally earmarked to cost no more than $968 million, the Port authority was forced to pump an additional $18 million into the project in 2021, but now there are fears an additional $78 million will need to be found to address the gate layout design."

Normally these projects at least double.