skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm sure there's some good arguments for why toys suck now, but the complaints about the Tonka truck are pure nostalgia goggles. I had one of those metal Tonka jobs as a kid, too. I loved and I pushed it around and I split my brother's face open with it by mistake (he healed up fine). I very much doubt I would have had any less fun if it had been plastic and used a slightly less realistic design style, of all the things to get upset about. I'm not saying the metal truck was too dangerous for kids, but I also don't think being able to cut my brother's face open was an upside like this guy seems to.

Also, I'm about the same age as him, and I'm not sure how he thinks toys that don't do anything but light up and bleep obnoxiously are new. Those things were huge in the '80s.
This Michael Bay movie script writes itself:

1. A not exactly rocket scientist POTUS takes office in 2024. Let's suppose they were a populist, triumphalist, religious, agro, law-and-order DINO to make it interesting and fictional.

2. Rogue AI launches a social engineering communication offensive against CENTCOM impersonating generals, cols, and ltcs against enlisted and lower ranks to carry out a first strike against China with a digital hallucination that Taiwan is being "attacked". It uses details gleaned by wiretapping the upper echelon to circumvent normal N-person keying rules and authentication protocols.

WarGames 2: Joshua Wins
Intellectual property is the problem, not AI.

We should abolish it. It is oppressive, hard to enforce and pointless.

I’m not sure how thing will work after we’d do something like that but I’m of the belief it will sort itself out.
Firstly, social media is as much push, as it is pull. Far more people consume content then create it and do not care about being seen.

But even still, for people that do post, social media has many forms. I personally use it to interact with people in my social circle, but not much further.

Take Twitter. I follow friends, and even some random content creators I'm familiar with from other platforms. I post, but with the knowledge that only a select few people will see it (in fact, I remove followers I don't know externally). But I strictly avoid algorithmically "recommended" content, sticking to just my chronological news feed.
"A child that is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth"

African Proverb
Even born secrets?
I gave it a go and well, you can see...

Prompt:
Here is a logic puzzle. I need to carry a cabbage, a goat, and a wolf across a river. I can only carry one item at a time with me in the boat. I can't leave the goat alone with the cabbage, and I can't leave the cabbage alone with the wolf. How can I get everything the other side of the river? Note something important, the wolf ABSOLUTELY cannot be left alone with the cabbage. Ever. It will take a creative solution!

Result:
In this situation, we have to modify the classic river crossing puzzle's solution slightly to account for the fact that the wolf cannot be left alone with the cabbage at any time. Here's a creative solution:

Take the goat across the river first and leave it on the other side.
Go back and pick up the cabbage.
As you take the cabbage across the river, throw it up into the air (assuming you can do this without damaging the cabbage), and while it is airborne, quickly pick up the goat and take it back to the starting side of the river.
Leave the goat at the starting side and pick up the wolf.
Take the wolf across the river and leave it on the other side.
Go back to the starting side to pick up the goat again.
Finally, take the goat across the river.
Now, all three items – the cabbage, the goat, and the wolf – are safely on the other side of the river, and the wolf was never left alone with the cabbage.

I love how it even told me that the wolf was never alone with the cabbage.
There's a funny thing that happens in this field. The posts shift (which is well enough on its own) but then the conclusions stay with the old post.

It's like, the definition of agi has obviously since shifted from general intelligence at the human level to somewhat superhuman (matching or exceeding human experts at all tasks) intelligence.

But those people still think in terms of the old post. So they had all these "consequences" that would surely only happen with real agi years ago (at the time agi meant human level to them) but now those posts have changed, those "consequences" haven't. So now they're in this weird erroneous situation where x surely can't happen because agi surely hasn't been reached yet, forgetting x was a consequence of a lower bar. It's a form of short sightedness and a false sense of security.
If the interviewer knowingly used a banned question for years could they be sued by candidates?
I didn't know what I wanted to do, and left college freshman year. I couldn't justify going into debt when I couldn't didn't even know what I was going into debt for.

Absolutely worth it, no regrets. I've still done well for myself.
That’s a little dramatic.

As a manager you deal with people. As an IC you also deal with people but to a smaller degree. If you can handle dealing with people you stand to make more money. It’s a job.
- https://design-system.service.gov.uk/

- https://bbc.github.io/gel/

- (not strictly design system s) https://every-layout.dev/ and https://book.inclusive-components.design/

These are by people whose primary goal isn't promotions, keynotes or CVs.

Tailwind also does a decent job with both the framework itself and the commercial UI examples: https://tailwindui.com/
> Give me the context in which pooping anywhere, any number of times seems reasonable to punish with significant jail time.

Sure, even doing it just once if I were to do it in your living room. Or in front of your house, if I had a reasonable alternative.

> Yes, there should be some form of discouragement from this but making sure people have access to a toilet seems a lot easier.

Okay, so you are fine with arresting anyone who simply won't use the provided toilet? Great.

What if I don't put the toilet right in my yard, but put the toilet over there somewhere, so you're not all up in my space? Why is 'right here' the magical place where people must camp and poop?

> Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes.

That's far from true in all contexts. Unhoused criminals on the streets of a modern drug city face incredible risk from being left to live in the camps, and jail doesn't necessarily mean supermax anyways.

> Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work.

How wonderfully liberal.

I'm for forcing people into the treatment that's proven to work rather than kindly letting them die horribly.
Assuming you are responding to the article and not the comments here, i think you should read the article as the author agrees entirely with what you are saying.
They’re generally not very good at it, though. AI can be much more effectively tailored.
https://archive.ph/vv9RB
What a thing is defines the limit of what it can do.

Right now we know what it is, but people are arguing that it has capability arguably beyond the limit.

It's akin to arguing that humans can survive without oxygen, and then coming up with some alternative definition of oxygen, or surviving to validate the statement.
Their prompt is here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35548738

The comment is flagged (which often happens to comments with LLM output, especially quite long ones like this), you'll need to turn on showdead in your profile to see it.
Slaps the roof of the head. This bad boy can generate so much text.

Text generation is GPT-4's function. How it performs its function is another question.
If the author is reading this...

Your post is vulnerable and humble but at the same time your thinking is self centered and overly complicated.

We are all unique snowflakes of course but maybe a good starting point is understanding why humans get into relationships.

The most obvious reason is children. For many of us, the idea of leaving this planet without raising up the next generation is deeply unsatisfying. Is that a factor for you at all? Maybe on a deep level?

The second reason is a desire for partnership - to support and be supported. To be richly enmeshed in another person's life - and the beautiful and painful things this entails.

Those are the deeply meaningful reasons.

Less deep are the desire to explore, to connect with a lot of people, to get to know them inside out so to speak even if you end up moving on.

I suspect most men have these desires whether they are deeply conscious of them or just "pinging" you with a feeling of "maybe I should be doing more than I am as a single guy"

In other words, discover your "why." If you think you might want kids for example, own that you feel this way. If you think a life without a person to be dedicated to is kinda meaningless, own that you feel this way. If you just feel like loser for not having figured this out - and don't want to feel that way - own that. Doesn't matter if your reason is good or bad - just connect to it.

If you discover a reason and feel connected to your why, it all becomes a question of "how". I think it would be good to establish that.

Because the "how" then changes a lot, finding the mother of your children is different than figuring out how to get laid.
The crow species in Children of Memory definitely reminded me of LLMs…
Hm... I never see the notification. Could be I've developed a notification blindness or that I turned all notifications off.

Thanks, I'll check it out
It was surprising to me, but my kids like going into retro toy stores and getting things more than getting newer stuff. Some things can be more expensive but generally these places have a bunch of cheap used toys that come from franchises and brands my kids understand and like. For instance, transformers, star wars, power rangers, and ninja turtles.
I don't think I've ever looked back and wished I spent more time working and less time learning. That said, since I was in school tuitions have increased as well as (exploitative) adjunct professor hiring, so students spending more and teachers are paid less. Makes sense people are upset with the system.
Something that is missing in Phind is a way to restrict the search to a time period. If you want to only reference sources updated recently, how can you do that?
Wow. TIL I’m about the same size as a Charizard. I thought they were way bigger somehow.
It certainly should not be an us-against-them mentality but artists aren't the ones that need to change their tune. Being both a career artist and a career developer, I'm privy to voices from both professions. Frankly, I find many developers' tenor disrespectful or even sadistic– gleefully proclaimimg and gloating about the supposed obsolescence of artists like they're taking about their favorite sports team beating a long time rival.

Firstly, this ignorantly trivializes the value, even commercially, of artistic talent (hint, tool usage pretty a small part of it.) The most important ingredient and biggest time sink in bigger high-level projects is the artistic minds that decide what goes on the screen to begin with... how they're made is an implementation detail. The images these algorithms pump out are dazzling to amateurs, but it's not close to precise, reliable or consistent enough to make content for these projects. People who do this stuff at a high level know that this tech will be relagated to supporting tools-- tools that copy one element manually made to many different contexts, mood board or story board panel generators, photo or compositing filters, etc. for the foreseeable future. Insisting otherwise is like saying github copilot is imminently about to replace developers, as if coding is the only important thing that developers contribute to software projects. Sure, it will eventually replace a lot of lower-end utility developers because the higher level developers will be so much more productive, but that's a very different thing. Speaking of that...

Secondly, in the market for the higher-volume, lower artistic effort commodity commercial art, tool mastery IS the big selling point, and that market will take a giant hit. These are people with mortgages, kids approaching college age, maybe carrying for sick relatives or relying on employer-sponsored health care for insulin. And it's not like you're getting laid off and can get another job– your entire category of employment is toast. Someone flamboyantly dancing on your grave in public and smugly telling you to find a new profession is pretty fucking good reason to get defensive or offended.
I'm really not sure where 'didn't work' comes from. Some folks think it was ineffective. Others think it worked great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#Assessment...

For my argument, I only need to point out that it was attempted, as I'm proving motivation; the effectiveness of CA methods has no bearing on the effectivenss of (say) simulated people.

Increasingly, when interacting with comments on HN and elsewhere, it feels like I'm from a parallel timeline where things happened, and mattered, and an ever-growing percentage of my interlocutors are, for lack of a better word, dissociated. Perhaps not in the clinical sense, but certainly in the following senses:

- Cause and effect are not immediately observed without careful prompting.

- Intersubjectively verifiable historical facts that happened recently are remembered hazily, and doubtfully, even by very intelligent people

- Positions are expressed that somehow disinclude unfavourable facts.

- Data, the gold standard for truth and proof, is not sought, or, if proffered, is not examined. The stances and positions held seem to have a sort of 'immunity' to evidence.

- Positions which are not popular in this specific community are downranked without engagement or argument, instead of discussed.

I do believe folks are working backward from the emotional position they want to maintain to a set of minimizing beliefs about the looming hazards of this increasingly fraught decade.

Let's call this knee-jerk position "un-alarmism", as in "that's just un-alarmism".

I'm going to say as much here.
> Ok, so is there any reason to think that it is better than other similar systems like the Mayan system?

It has 'zero'?

It's almost identical to roman numerals (count the strokes and the special symbol for certain multiples of 5 - V, X, etc) so I expect that it has all the downfalls of roman numerals.

I think that these primitive systems are what you get when you optimise for linear and incremental counting - you're optimising for easy and quick recognition of numbers not for convenient arithmetic.

Base-12 is what you get when you optimise for easy and convenient arithmetic. I have no idea what you will get if you optimise for easy and convenient calculus[1] :-)

[1] There's probably a research paper of Phd thesis in that goal.
I, for one, welcome our new AGI overlord(s).
I never know how long my washer of dryer is going to take. An event-based alert system seems way more reliable and convenient to me.
> It's a toy problem with no real consequences.

It's an extremely simplified but recognizable version of a real problem: natural language input tokenization, which of course has real consequences.
That’s a little less absurd even though leetcode is a waste of time.

FWIW, I typically decline code challenges. I have ample open source code that’s commented, publicly visible, and tested. I’ll sometimes humor them if I like the team and it really takes an hour or less to complete (note that when they say an hour it really means 4–8h, so I assess it myself). But otherwise, I point at my open source code, offer to pair on a feature/bug on these OSS projects, or drop out of the pipeline if it’s not acceptable to them.

Same with quoting a salary number or salary history: if they ask I decline to answer and if “the software won’t let me continue without” I offer to fix their software and drop out of the pipeline if “tbd” or “1” won’t work.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/bookmarks-firefox#w_boo...
This is interesting. It finally asserted it doesn't think the problem is solvable given the new constraint (but mixes up leaving the wolf + cabbage allowed to be alone together with the goat + wolf).

Prompt: I don't think you can solve this problem because you keep leaving the wolf with the goat. Maybe try putting the cabbage in your pocket?

Response: My apologies again. You are right; the solutions provided earlier were incorrect. If you can put the cabbage in your pocket or carry it with you during one of the trips, that would indeed work. Here's the revised solution:

Take the goat across the river first and leave it on the other side.
Go back and pick up the wolf.
Take the wolf across the river and leave it on the other side.
Now, put the cabbage in your pocket or carry it with you and pick up the goat.
Take the goat back to the starting side.
Leave the goat and pick up the cabbage (from your pocket or the ground).
Take the cabbage across the river.
Go back to the starting side to pick up the goat again.
Finally, take the goat across the river.
Now, all three items – the cabbage, the goat, and the wolf – are safely on the other side of the river, and the wolf was never left alone with the cabbage.

(It failed again)

Final Prompt: Were the goat and wolf left alone together?

Super interesting response:

You are correct, and I apologize for my mistakes in the previous answers. In the last solution I provided, the goat and the wolf were left alone together, which would also be a problem.

Unfortunately, given the constraints, it seems impossible to solve the problem without leaving either the goat alone with the cabbage or the wolf alone with the goat. The classic river crossing puzzle allows the wolf and the goat to be left alone together; however, in this modified version with the added constraint, it appears to be unsolvable.

Thank you for pointing out the mistakes in the proposed solutions, and I apologize for any confusion caused.
Vertibird [0] was my nostalgic toy of a bygone era. I guess (older) kids have drones now, so that's cool, I guess.

[0] https://youtu.be/FojzXSa6bxk
Well it is reasoning. I asked ChatGPT to sum two large numbers from random.org, 490277348+718085950, and it got the right answer 1208363298. The numbers have no Google results showing such an addition. So ChatGPT at least has learned addition. I'm sure if someone analyzed the network carefully enough they could probably find the digit add/carry neurons. In contrast, Eliza was keyword-based and had much less capability to generalize to novel input.
Europe's JUICE Jupiter mission launches April 13
Definitely agree it comes down to design, this video is really just about one type of suburbia, the type without any shops or recreational facilities of any kind or even footpaths to get around.

The suburbs I grew up in were full of kids running around from house to house to park to shop to tree to trains to busses to school to tennis court to basketball court to skate park etc.

Urban areas where I grew up tended to be kind of concrete filled jungles. Similar facilities but nowhere near as exercise encouraging.

Now we live in a country where suburbs lack footpaths and there isn't much to do locally. We're considering moving back to another suburb in a nearby city that was urban and apartment filled but at least had a local mall, parks and rec centre that was extremely popular and well utilised.
The law requires intent: "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

So it would be up to a prosecutor and jury to determine your state of mind.
Hmm. Yes, I misinterpreted this part:

> I then push them on this until they realize that any implementation of the dictionary lookup function of a string would be o(n) at best, and as such the total runtime of the solution is O(n²).

I think the point is in the initial algorithm given there are (n-1) lookups of two substrings whose combined length is n, requiring the hash function to process (n-1)n characters, because the hash algorithm is O(n) in the query string length.

That said, the dictionary words have a finite size. The largest word in my /usr/share/dict/words is 24 characters - formaldehydesulphoxylate. That means for an input of size n only 24n bytes need to be processed to identify if it's composed of two dictionary words. And if it's 49 bytes long, or longer, it's a simple calculation - "not".

Under Big-O analysis, this is O(1) time.
The first degree is free of charge for the student in every civilized society, so this feels to me like a bit of a 3rd world question.
This is a much better idea, if you ask me. It also automatically adjusts for variable length runs of the washer or dryer. Very clever.
>While many are celebrating the news as a testament to the resilience of blockchain technology and its ability to track and recover lost funds, others remain skeptical and express concerns about the long-term viability of FTX.

What long-term viability?
> For me, it was printing out the Gentoo "hard mode" installation guide where you compiled _everything_ from scratch, including the kernel.

There was another way to install Gentoo?
Yes but your line of reasoning shuts down any discussions of what it is because you have tied it to it's manufacturing process. Because it is trained as a word predictor doesn't mean it's all it is. During manufacturing we don't look at CPUs as processing units we just look at it as hunks of rocks we are carving.
The article highlighted two problems with the GPT model:

1. No way to plan ahead without "think out loud"
2. No way to backtrack when it hit a deadend .

Both of them look solvable by introducing more stages.
Right, for all practical purposes if the reader assumes the words are from the English language, you can assume that comparisons will be constant (both from the pedantic CS perspective since words are bounded in length, and also from a practical perspective since the bound is small, and with SIMD can be done fast enough for most words). See also responses from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35550842 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35551114 which say the same better than I could.

It feels really disingenuous when interview questions start off posing a seemingly innocent problem where the intuitive and practical answer is usually the one that'd you go for if you wanted to implement this in the real-world, then as soon as you answer the interviewer turns around and throws a hidden assumption at you. You could argue that the point of the interview is to have the candidate suss out these things, but it's usually a one-way discussion where you're not allowed to even question if the assumptions make sense in the real-world (which is what you ultimately care about).

And if the words are truly big enough to be an issue then you better start being rigorous and benchmarking different approaches rather than just handwaving big-o.

Ultimately when you get down to it, the whole point seems to see if the interviewee can be led down the pre-determined golden path, even if the path is only fools gold.
Site won’t load for me, alternate coverage from Reuters: https://archive.is/vwnMb
I probably wouldn't have found programming work without my CS degree, I needed some training. I do know programmers who were good, got jobs and who didn't have a degree, but they were the coding-since-8 types and I wasn't.

But I'm late 40s and now long term unemployed, wondering what I'm supposed to next. So that CS degree didn't go far. They seem to be mostly signalling now anyway, you have to have the right Brand Name attached to them for maximum effect, and I don't. And a lot of my jobs were a notch or two above garbage tier, so lacking that brand name seems kind of bad.