skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"If" is doing a LOT of work in that comment

I have never seen nor heard of any "ai" system for customer service that remotely approaches a barely competent human, and those are frustrating and annoying enough.

ChatGPT4-level systems may be able to get much closer if they are provided the training set, and if they can, then great.

BUT, the absolutely need to be able to figure out when they are at the limit of their knowledge/ability, and then hand-off to a human. ChatGPT4 has been spectacularly unable to do anything even close to this; and it actually just starts fabricating bullcrap in a highly confident voice.

Corporate managers are already no good, horrible, awful, terrible at actually providing service, as it seems their only goal is to provide a cursory appearance of service and reduce their human costs. (Incidentally, this also massively misses the opportunity to gather excellent data on where their company could improve it's product/service and gain market share.) "AI" will only exacerbate the trend until several generations in the future when it is actually good enough, and it may become a competitive advantage to provide better service.
I don't think this criticism is helpful. Why do any products have a free tier and a paid professional/business tier?

The goal is A) to get me to use it enough in personal projects that I convince my manager to pay for a business license, and B) encourage me to use more AWS API stuff (which CodeWhisperer is fine tuned on), where AWS makes the bulk of their revenue.

I have no qualms with either motivation.
My wife is the same way, though I don't think it's anything specific to her or her sex - I suspect it's just inherent in the bond that people form when spending a great deal of time together.

Most of the time, when she starts conversations in the middle, I'm able to instantly intuit the topic and jump right in. I don't think about it and don't even notice it. When I do notice it (because I'm lost) I just tell her that I don't have any context. No problem.

I'll also say that I have no idea of if or how often I do the same thing.
Oh yeah it's for sure valid to criticize people for exercising their freedoms, but it's not okay to prevent them from doing so.

My pet peeve however is, "They shouldn't do that" very often leads to, "We shouldn't let them do that." though, which I think we agree is a huge problem.
If you haven't bothered to try using it yourself, I don't know why you think anyone would care what you think about it.
No, it appears to be $20k per project, as per https://accelerator.github.com/#faq --

"$20,000 stipend per project ($2,000 per week of participation) for the duration of the 10 week program. If there are multiple participants from a project, the stipend is divided evenly between them."
It's not really so much about the clearance as it is about network access. A tremendous amount of classified information is essentially public on the high side networks. So, if your job entails access to a classified network (particularly an IC one), you have a lot of reading you can do.

This situation is sort of intentional: one of the big findings of the 9/11 commission is that intelligence information was too siloized and analysts were missing big things because they didn't have access to products of other agencies. But there's a balancing act here, and this is the downside of open access.
At Max Capacity
>ChatGPT immediately gives me the answer with no bullshit.

Good point. Cutting through the blogspam is interesting in itself. However, ChatGPT's output is actually pretty close to generic blogspam unless you ask it to be concise. I also wonder the effect it has the fact that much of its training corpus is that very same blogspam.
Amazon announces 'Bedrock' AI platform to take on OpenAI
Any FOSS project you're open to work full-time is within scope, iirc.

Btw, what you're building sounds very similar to spacedrive: https://github.com/spacedriveapp/spacedrive
No. It’s because the metadata is enough for the 3 letter agencies. They are pefectly happy knowing who’s in your contacts, who and when are you texting, and who’s in the contact book of your counterparty without knowing exactly what are you talking about.
Privacy is about granular controls provided to the user. Closed source doesn't even offer you an option. It's either "Use it how we like" or "Get out".

If open source clients aren't that of a big deal or big privacy win as you've explained, then maybe there shouldn't be a need to justify the decisions of a company like Facebook either.
The governor had better things to do that attend to the disaster. He and Ted Cruz have that in common.
https://www.wlwt.com/article/florida-gov-ron-desantis-travel...
Hey Alex, I bought the app a few years ago when I first found the website. Just opened it up for the first time in a while, and saw I can buy the course through the app. But wanted to let you know (in the low chance you aren't aware) that purchasing the course through the app is only $20 instead of $25.
Fine for some secrets but I'd never do with something like an OpenAI key. Somebody could blow through your entire months's usage allowance before you notice anything
Woof. What a misleading title. “Why does this thing equal this other thing in PHP land?” Is more accurate.
Bellingcat's founder basically started OSINT journalism, and most "citizen journalist" documenting protests in France use techniques he shared (Yellow jacket mouvement included).

Bellingcat itself share techniques and tools it use openly. You can think they choose what to report on, but when they do it is liekly to be true, and you always can check yourself.

What i really like is that they give the tools to "do your own research" quite often, and that make them harder to deny.
in real-time :)
I don’t know who would really trust him at this point to put their financial prosperity in his hands beyond the obvious right wing and crypto grifters. And surely he knows he’s burned his credibility too much for this?

I feel like you could make a sausage dog CEO of Twitter at this point and people quips be more willing to go along with this.

Also strange is he thinks “I’m not taking a cut” is a good deal- substack famously handed massive guarantees to their early big names, going way further than just “no cut”.
Sorry but yes, the consumer's only option is to take it or leave it. You are not entitled to the product of someone else's work.

I see this as the very definition to entitlement; that you must be allowed to use something, even if you don't want to use it the way the owner of the thing wants you to use it.
To be fair, there are, if not mostly rules, at least generally accepted behaviors for men as well especially in many religious settings. And culturally more broadly such as wearing shorts in many circumstances.
This doom and gloom prediction paints past scientific achievements with a rosy patina that is unjustified. Major scientific endeavours have always required funding from less than palatable sources, and while understanding may initially be withheld behind corporate moats, it cannot be contained there forever.
Hi, author here. I totally agree with you that, for large scale, you're going to need a vector database. My hope is more to help people avoid scenarios like the one in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35552303 Tangentially, I really like the approach that haystack has taken, where they allow you to slot in whichever document store you want, and that document store can scale from in-memory, to sqlite, to postgres, to pinecone https://docs.haystack.deepset.ai/docs/document_store

In terms of the one-time cost of indexing, you're totally right! Although, one thing to call out is that you will have to re-index every time you change your embedding model, such as for fine-tuning. I don't have a good handle on how prevalent this is, though.
Not disputing that VIM has those things, but I am telling you that I can't live in Vim based on your plugin setup. But of course, I'm glad there are good crafted ext/plugin communities on both sides so we can all can tweak it the way we like!
>Your link is a about a bitcoin case, so unless I missed something this guy wasn't doing it for money (I don't condone it, but money is a reasonable motive for committing a crime).

My point was that they were both kids when they did these stupid things (with Zhong, I'm not talking about stealing bitcoin -- he thought that it would "cool" to have a suitcase full of cash and that it might impress some college coed to fuck him -- hell I even quoted it for you).

Besides, What does your assessment as to what's reasonable have to do with what Jack Teixeira thought was a good idea?

>And I said based on his last name he doesn't appear to be ethnically Russian. Why are you going on about foreign nationals?

Because it's pretty obvious this guy isn't a spook/source for any foreign government. Which was implied by your noting the source of his last name?

And even if he was a spy for Russia or Brazil or Portugal or Grand Fenwick, for that matter, what does his name have to do with it?

why would it matter whether his name is 'Teixeira' or 'Smith' or 'Brin' or 'Nahasaheemapetalan'?

Actual spies like Whittaker Chambers[0] and Alger Hiss[1] didn't have "russian" names. Please.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss

Edit: Fixed tense as to Hiss'/Chambers' names -- as they're both dead.
i’d rather be the detective of my own murder than another’s. i already struggle to figure out people’s thoughts from the strictures of whatever programming language they express it in. programming languages aren’t symbols of thought, neither do they enjoy the ubiquity of, for example, math notations, unfortunately.
I'm not a skeptic nor do I "hate" AI. I genuinely tried to make those examples work, to no avail.
And how did it go? Are the journalists in jail?
You'd rather that pressure build up and have it blow out elsewhere?
Here's[1] John McCarthy[2], a noted computer scientist, ascribing beliefs to systems much more simple than ChatGPT. Searle, of the Chinese room fame, talks about it in his lecture/program here.[3] ChatGPT is only much more capable and finds many more academic defenders.

> But quite often in the AI literature the distinction is blurred in ways that would in the long run prove disastrous to the claim that AI is a cognitive inquiry. McCarthy, for example, writes, '-Machines as simple as thermostats can be said to have beliefs, and having beliefs seems to be a characteristic of most machines capable of problem solving performance" (McCarthy 1979).

Here's[4] an article talking about ChatGPT specifically, asserting that philosophers like Gilbert Ryle[5], who coined the phrase "ghost in the machine, agree that "ChatGPT has beliefs":

> What would Ryle or Skinner make of a system like ChatGPT — and the claim that it is mere pattern recognition, with no true understanding?

> It is able not just to respond to questions but to respond in the way you’d expect if it did indeed understand what was being asked. And, to take the viewpoint of Ryle, it genuinely does understand — perhaps not as adroitly as a person, but with exactly the kind of true intelligence we attribute to one.

[1]https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/ascribing/node4.html

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_(computer_scient...

[3]https://www.cs.tufts.edu/comp/50cog/readings/searle.html

[4]https://www.noemamag.com/gpts-very-inhuman-mind/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Ryle
Me too. And it’s a more and more common feeling.
It wasn't clear to me from reading the article what the specific usability improvement is here. So you still have to compare the ridiculously long number once? With each and every device that anyone you want to message with owns? What does it mean if you don't?

It used to be relatively clear that you had to verify everyone and maintain that verification. This seems potentially more complicated...
First thing I thought of was that tweet asking why we can't just fill volcanos with concrete to stop eruptions.

The answer why not is here. [1]

[1] https://www.iflscience.com/yes-you-can-plug-a-volcano-with-c...
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Artists can create the content you love because they get paid to do so. Without IP, these artists do not get paid, and therefore cannot create the content you love, full stop.

The only reason you're able to pirate in the first place is because you rely on other people not to pirate, so the artist still gets paid. That seems to be working out, which is why I really don't see piracy as a meaningful problem, but if the scales tipped to where most people were obtaining content in violation of IP laws, then you would absolutely see a strong chilling effect on content creation.

It's the underlying premise of capitalism; I focus on making art in exchange for a shared currency I can then use to buy housing and food from people dedicated to those things.

Without the ability to depend on others to provide those services, artists will have to do other things besides create art to convince the people creating food to give them some.
I'm not personally on the Eliezer end of being an AI hawk, but I dislike the type of arguments Hanson uses here and find them boring & shallow. Humanity has a long history of inventing & then subsequently regulating very dangerous things- nuclear weapons, explosives in general, military-grade rifles (well more in other countries....), a vast array of narcotics (the morphine/opium/heroin/opioids/fentanyl family, the meth/amphetamine family, etc.), thalomide, antibiotics.... Boring things we don't think about are regulated for safety (automobiles, stoves, building construction, bridges, phone chargers, knives, bedframes, toasters). I mean there are safety regulations & strict requirements around, I don't know, leasing a crane? An 18-wheeler truck? Why would it be reasonable to regulate cranes and trucks but not AI?

Anyways I think it's uncharitable on Hanson's part (and numerous others online) to just call people with reasonable AI concerns Luddites. Sometimes they try to present their argument as being historically savvy ("people were afraid of the radio and video games when they came out!"), but a historical look at Dangerous Things Humanity Invented sure shows a lot of safety regulation too. I think that's just as reasonable a historical frame to view this new field
christ on his throne ive never been gaslit so hard from a single author.

"Most people have always feared change. And if they had really understood what changes were coming, most probably would have voted against most changes we’ve seen."

what we constitute as AI these days is functionally indistinguishable from the digitized autism of a tiktok and reddit binge. The real concerns --from people who really understand what changes are coming-- include the closed and questionless nature of a dichotomy of "thought leading" products that have been ingested at lightspeed by the largest FAANG players with seemingly no review process in a desperate bid to remain relevant in 2023. it includes serious concerns that this could be used to impersonate legitimate people, wreak havock in courts, indict or frame someone for crimes, and bypass flimsy articles of biometrics like voice.

the issue isnt that we dont know whats coming, the issue is that whats coming doesnt seem to have any serious safeguard or checkvalves because its billed as an AI that is "friendly" despite having already offered solutions to problems that are either irreverant or suicidal at best.
In general I'm extremely optimistic about the near future. I think practical fusion power is likely to happen by the early 2030s, SpaceX is going to drop the cost to LEO below $100/kg within the decade, all sorts of fantastic medical advances will arrive soon including printed organs and the beginnings of workable anti-aging, and that all this will have overwhelmingly positive effects overall.

But I still pay attention to AI safety arguments and find them worrisome, and I'm not sanguine about being replaced by "descendants made of metal and math."
That is possible, but directly challenges the states monopoly on violence in an organized way AND means we have to admit that society has become a cyberpunk dystopia that is way less cool than any of the fiction I read.
> the emacs cursor movement commands, which are (for some reason) the default cursor movement commands in most command line environments like the Postgres CLI.

I think this is because they're used in GNU readline. They're also defaults in all the macOS GUIs, though, so maybe not.
I use generators, list comprehension and a lot of lambda stuff with python.

It's a bit fun because it's very short to write, it's concise and it helps a lot working only with dict and tuples etc.

Not sure if it's faster, but it's always a bit longer to write and think about, and I'm not sure it's easier to read and understand.

Sometimes it feels a bit like code golfing, because you can do a lot of things with very few lines.

It's immensely better to remove 99% of side effects, the code is shorter and more compartmentalized, so it's just easier to deal with.

Although I'm doing this alone, and I'm not confident that I could enforce this sort of software design in a team.
Thanks! You're showing a lot more curiosity and honesty than JumpCrisscross.

>Doesn’t this just move the counterparty risk away from the exchange and onto another participant in the crypto ecosystem?

They have to set the money aside for the (cash-secured) put they're writing, out of their control, so no, you don't depend on any later solvency of that counterparty to honor the put. And, as above, customer access to these assets survived even the FTX bankruptcy, since they're not recognized as exchange assets in the first place.

>Why would someone be a counterparty to this trade? It seems like they are trading a lot of downside risk to get cash equivalents upside.

Same reason anyone else sells cash-secured puts.

>I’m sure I’m not understanding something about this setup but it certainly seems worse in all ways than an exchange actually enabling more traditional shorting.

Except that you, the person taking a short position (by buying puts) actually get a payout in the worst-case scenario, and have effectively no counterparty risk. That's at least one way that it's better.

Also, I don't know what's "non-traditional" about buying puts as a means of establishing a short position. It seems that, like JumpCrisscross, you're being sloppy about the difference between short-selling (borrow an asset to sell) and a short position (any position that increases in value as the underlying decreases).

Edit: Also, one thing that bothers me here is the lack of a coherent model behind the objections. On the one hand, you both want to claim something is impossible, but when I show it is, you want to insist that that way is "worse in every way". What?
Do you have insight you can share into why you find it that way?
Allegedly killed someone, but let's share his identity with everyone anyway! Who cares if we're wrong in the end, right? What kind of impact could that possibly have?
Did you happen to not read the part where the people involved have already worked to shape SF politics?

Also, do people get titles (Political Director Abundant SF) for entities that don't exist? https://www.linkedin.com/in/todd-david-7998473
I prefer lifetime licenses of software. That way I reduce the cognitive load of tracking subscriptions and I have lifetime access. I don't mind the high cost of certain serials/keys. I don't like when companies switch to subscription-only after selling buy-once-keep-forever licenses. (Looking at you 1Password).
The traditional way of doing that was through outsourcing to a low-cost country where they paid pennies on the dollar relative to US wages.
> As we expect them to do more and more

Who does? Who asked for updates blocking third-party ink, 1GB "drivers", full-color "test prints" each time you switch it on, ...?

Printing reliably doesn't sound too demanding, manufacturers reached that point long ago, and since then I haven't seen all that much groundbreaking innovation. Sure, things like wifi were added but that doesn't require cutting-edge technology - consumer devices could handle that 20 years ago, and more reliably than the printers I've used. I also haven't heard of anyone being excited about NFC in printers, and from experience I can say it's not nearly intuitive or frictionless enough to warrant the integration.
Could be as simple and cost-efficient as a Cloudflare worker that adds your key and passes the query along
See OP, I did try that, but obviously in an area that I was familiar with, otherwise how could I tell if it was bullshitting? :)
The PS5 runs most games at 4k 60. Granted, it's scaled on some games, but that really doesn't matter when it's being outputted to a TV sitting 10 feet or more away from the viewer.

I get why they did what they did, because most TVs now days are 4k, but if you know enough about the limits of human vision, it's pretty clear that 4k is a waste for console gaming. It makes much more sense on PC, but even there the biggest noticeable difference is reading text, not playing games.
Same with bicycle repair. Each major brand has own proprietary toolset.
This is nuts: https://www.phind.com/search?cache=30e24cdb-ff4b-4f4d-a748-4.... It understands how to convert between two similar but ultimately incompatible types. It's mostly spot on. The status code conversion to u16 is unnecessary but it does work. There's a more concise way to get a HeaderName from a String: `HeaderName::try_from(string)`, and ultimately the code is more simple and straightforward when using the ResponseBuilder type, but the code works using only the types involved in the query.

What's crazy about this is that it's not a trivial problem. The engine correctly identifies that it's converting http responses and that for the conversion to be meaningful you need to copy the status code, headers, and body. It also correctly identifies that adding multiple headers of the same value is semantically the same as a header with multiple values. I'm pretty sure this example does not appear anywhere in the source material (these are lesser-known crates, not the popular http ones). This is really neat!
I'm not the person you're responding to but I believe the point is that people leaving, doesn't make Bay Area degeneration a fact. Only actual Bay Area degeneration, can make Bay Area degeneration a fact. We need to know who is moving, who is coming in, the economics of the region, geological suitability to population demands, needs of the larger state and nation as it relates to the region. And on and on and on.

A blog post about a guy who didn't like the dog poo in the Mission is not nearly enough data to draw the conclusions most of us were drawing. That includes myself. But after the glaring intellectual lapses I engaged in subsequent to the Asian mass shootings and the killing of the crypto exec, the inner me is attempting to reassert rational order by demanding intellectual honesty and logic. All of which is now firmly demonstrating to me that facts don't care about feelings, and will gleefully bite you in the ass if they don't align with the world view or narrative that you're emotionally comfortable with.
AWS is trustable and secure though. That's why it's easier for enterprises to use, because they have all the compliance and SLAs enumerated and enforced.
I don't think it's fair to be dismissive of AI fears by equating it with fear of future because what matters isn't change but the RATE of change

The rate of change is the difference between slowing for a red light and crashing into a brick wall. In both cases there is a force acting on the front of your skull but only in the latter is it accelerated into the back of your skull.