skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
OK and saving a bunch of film reels or tens of thousands of Mona Lisas takes a tiny amount of space in a salt mine warehouse or some megabytes or gigabytes taking literally zero space. It's not a zero-sum game where disposing of this stuff makes more room for future artists.
> and the land routes are lacking in capacity

It's the costs of transporting the same amount by land. Bulk carrier takes ~50000t, you need ~2500 long semis to haul this amount at best. Include the gas, drivers salary etc.
That there are infinities of various sizes follows if you accept Hume's Principle, which says "the number of things with the property F equal the number of things with the property G if and only if there is a one-to-one correspondence between those that are F and those that are G."

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...

Cantor and Frege adopted this definition of "the same size as", although already Galileo argued that it would lead to absurd consequences when applied to infinities (there would be as many square numbers as natural numbers, even though not all natural numbers are square), which is known as Galileo's Paradox.

For finite numbers any one-to-one correspondence between F and G means that neither can be a proper subset of the other, which seems just as plausible a requirement for "the same size as" as the former. Since the two requirements come apart for infinite sets, it is unclear which to keep, or whether size comparisons even make any sense for infinities. Galileo concludes they don't make sense.

Hume's Principle is actually not uncontroversial among philosophers of mathematics, but many people treat it as some kind of objective fact rather than a proposed conceptual analysis of "the same size as".
But how can there be more integers than the are even integers when for each and every even integer there exists a corresponding integer? And how can there be more rationals, when we can find an integer for every rational number?

You are thinking in terms of very large sets, but literally infinite sets are simply not the same as very large finite sets. And they are not even the same as the limits of cardinality N sets as N grows to infinity.

For example, if we take the set of all integers less than N and the set of all even integers less than N, we can show that no mapping can exist between the two, even as N grows to infinity - so, one is indeed larger than the other. And yet, a mapping appears if N is literally infinite.
I really appreciate the look and also am interested in the content but I find this presentation super difficult to read for some reason. Maybe the text is too big and spaced out? I can't really explain it but it exhausts me just looking at it. Very weird.
Yud is not even in contention anymore given his AI fear-mongering.
How would you do that? Land based (or whatever the term is for "terrestrial" on the moon) relays?
The point of OpenAI was that no single company would have a moat around LLM or foundation models in general. It was set as a non profit with this goal in mind and got money for it.

Whether Google pat itself on the back or not for releasing the paper no one could replicate, is not important, because an open research had never been their company’s goal. What happened is a for-profit company released a paper, that allowed a huge advantage to a company, whose mission was to ensure that no one has a huge advantage in the field. OpenAI was converted to for profit and established exclusive relationship with Microsoft.

Google fucked up and missed the train, but they can catch up. Much harder for smaller companies if as a result of this Fb, Google, etc AI research dept lock down their papers to tools to internal use only.
No.

The JWST is about a million miles away from earth.
It is only 6.5 meters wide.

tan = 6.5 meters / 1M miles = 4.03891275 × 10-9

2.31×10^-7 degrees

The Hubble can resolve 1/10th of an arc second or

2.78×10^-5 degrees

So it's roughly 100 times too small for the Hubble to see.
one might even go so far as to argue a literal public attempt at ending the human race.

I somehow don't think a disclaimer will cover that.

We won't be around to enforce it once our atoms have been reused and optimized to a more suitable purpose.
I've also been convinced that any comparative might have issues. Let's take the set of all primes.

On the one hand, I can trivially demonstrate they are less numerous than the set of integers

On the other hand, Cantor's exercises for showing larger cardinality can be exercised equally on the set of prime numbers

At least as far as I've been able to see. This shows a contradiction that can be easily accommodated for with multi-dimensional or an otherwise richer descriptor set. Any refutation that starts like "assume there exist a function f that generates all the primes as a sequence of integers" I reject. The whole point is that I'm not assuming that - maybe a proof that no such function can exist for the set of primes is an undiscovered property.

If you decide to be extremely disagreeable and stubbornly throw out any speculative, at least I'm left with only with the contradiction. They seem to behave way closer to the irrationals then anything else.

I think a more useful exercise is whether the peano successor function can be defined. For the irrationals, I think the answer is "not a chance". For the primes the intuition is "maybe" but when you start stating why, nearly every argument you give (statistically you can do it - with enough information you can do it, it is a discrete number and so on) you can defend for the irrationals with the same reasons.
I've been using "curl -v telnet://host:port" for some time now because it's more likely to be installed than telnet. Surprised it wasn't mentioned.
Nice. Hopefully that prize money will help her recoup her losses.
It's more of an aircraft when there's air around, be it only a very small quantity :)

Can't be much at 250km though.
> Pick any large bound

Yes, if you tautologically select a finite subset of an infinite set, it tautologically has a comparable size which doesn’t equal the same constraints to select a finite subset of another infinite set. It would be a little bit more accurate to describe these comparisons as “faster” vs “slower” (ie you’ll reach the end of the conceptual subset of integers “before” you reach the end of the conceptual subset of even integers), but that belies the tautology.
The sun's focal point is 542 AU, about 11 times Pluto's orbit. It's safe to say we won't be using Jupiter or Earth as lenses anytime soon.
> Security. First of all, let's just consider the fact that with .env files you are storing completely unencrypted secrets locally on your machine...

In general, right after people say this, they propose encrypting the secrets somehow but then storing the decryption key completely unencrypted locally right next to them, or something that's equivalent to doing that. Is this an exception?
GOCE is a wonderful (and beautiful) experiment. Its scientific contributions are particularly wonderful.

When I think of pretty gravity experiments, there are many, as the form must follow the function and gravity is geometry.

I'm particularly partial to the laser-ranging satellites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAGEOS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LARES_(satellite)

LARES is particularly cool, as it is (and may forever be) the densest object of its mass in the solar system. As so many gravity experiments go, systematic uncertainties are more-important than raw signal, though, so LARES 2 is composed of nickel instead of tungsten. It'll still be quite a day when LARES 1 re-enters; it'd be quite a sight to see.
This is the kind of thing that's going to get a lot of increasing hype until the first time somebody's bank account gets emptied in a very public way via a prompt injection.

This article mentions the risk near the end, but... it's not a side problem. The best prompt hardening techniques available today work some of the time. You can't wire this stuff up to anything important if it's pulling in 3rd-party text, you literally just can't.

I mean you can, but you really shouldn't. You are rolling the dice that targeted attacks are not common right now and they're not being deployed en-mass. That's not going to be the case in the future. Right now, it's safe for you to do a Google search with an LLM. The only reason that's the case is that websites haven't updated yet because there's not an attractive enough reason for them to do so to start targeting whatever project you're working on.

And if the project you're working on is a toy, then fine. You can get away with that. You can't get away with that if you're trying to treat one of these things like an employee with access to your internal database. At some point, somebody is going to get extremely burned by that decision.

And no, this is not comparable to phishing risks. Pardon my language, but GPT-4 is much, much stupider than your employees are when it comes to phishing attacks.
How long until we can do folding@home-style and train open-source models as a group?
> Humans are also vulnerable to prompt injection

This is an interesting viewpoint. In other words, prompt injection and social engineering could virtually be one in the same, and similar measures behind protecting against social engineering could apply to prompt injection.
Elon Musk’s Twitter: Everything you need to know, from layoffs to verification
llama.cpp has preliminary support already. https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/issues/1063#issuecomm...
Given Dutch demographics and prevalence of cheap (on the world stage) and highly regarded university degrees? Quite a lot. Dutch culture was shaped by entrepreneurship more than anything else (Except maybe plausibly deniable exploitation of entire people groups up to extremely recently, a cultural trait shared by an embarassingly large number of European countries).
Your linked article mentions it as well: For people looking to get these benfits today, LavaMoat[0] builds on endo (Agoric) and SES to expose a user-friendly interface and make it easy to integrate into your build and dev processes. Just curious as to what you perceive as the major cons.

Intro video[1].

[0]: https://github.com/LavaMoat/LavaMoat

[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Bz0DYga1k
But then the resolution can't have been that high, or the other satellite would have been as big as the ISS. It must have been a lot closer than earth.
Or put a relay in a halo orbit at earth-moon L2. Or at the earth-moon L4 and L5 orbits, which would cover a good portion of the moon's far side.
The segmentation is so good that one can easily see how the segments correspond to depth, with remarkable precision. Amazing work.
With literally just about any diagramming tool - Vizio, dia, xfig, PowerPoint, etc. Frankly those are not particularly consistent or careful - they’re not that good. The text positioning and alignment is inconsistent and careless, bleeding into the boxes in places, the arrows don’t even meet the boxes in a consistent way. I’m not trying to shit on it (I’ve done my fair share of mediocre diagrams) - but it’s not professional level or particularly careful work (it’s a jpeg to boot) and looks done by hand (without even bothering to use alignment affordances.)
Didn't even know Plaid had already been sued, now I feel extra justified for shitlisting Cash App the other day when they tried to get me to use Plaid in order for them to deposit money into a bank account whose details they already had and into which they had already previously successfully deposited money.
ChatGPT alternatives for developers to generate code
Satellites don't have lights. It must be reflection.

Especially a photographic sat wouldn't have lights, all it could do is light up nearby dust and debris and make it more visible.
Which is why I said "many purposes." It doesn't work for everything.
> Pick any large bound you want from the set of integers, whether it's from 1 million to 10 million, or negative a trillion to positive a trillion trillion trillion. It's always going to converge to integers being twice the size of even integers.

The fallacy in this argument is basically the same as the fallacy used in the "troll math" post that claims pi = 4 <https://qntm.org/trollpi> <https://math.stackexchange.com/q/12906/355349>.
Those are the Van Allen Probes A and B, and that is just a render, not a photo. [0]. There are two of them that flew in an identical orbit, but with one following the other at a distance, because a single probe would not be able to detect the difference between a transient EM field locally vs. a moving event along the orbit, but two craft spread apart but following the same path could.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Probes
https://github.com/rustformers/llama-rs
Does he have any original ideas or inventions to list since 2004?
In Australia I'm observing a trend where state governments are continually removing powers from local councils to approve or deny applications as those councils have proven to be completely dysfunctional and work against the interests of the general population
Arthropod Head Problem
This article just seems silly. As many have mentioned nobody is using telnet to check multiple ports (outside of a handful). If you need to "automate" checking ports, nmap has always been the tool. The choice between telnet and netcat has just been personally preference or availability.

I also hate the title of this article, really sick of seeing "Stop using X".
I also recently had an issue where a systemd parameter was introduced in version 229 and ChatGPT was confident it was available in 219.
> Both of these are incorrect you can create a 1-1 mapping between all of these sets so they are the same "size".

They are incorrect if you define "the same size" as the existence of a one-to-one mapping. But if you think that a proper subset is never the same size as the original set, then you won't accept that definition.
Since AI training is highly parallelizable one can look at it as a question of cost for training, that is given enough electric power, any nation state can train the model they want. And it would be nice to know how much cost reduction is due to fab process advance and how much is due to architecture and software advances. My suspicion is that the fab node is not strategic. It is a commercial issue to integrate more cores as fab advances, but training can be done over more chips and boards if integration isn't there, maybe for higher cost.
GPT-3.5 is likely a finetuned Curie 13B using output from the full size GPT-3 175B.
Attrition at Meta is currently far below those rates.
They are interested in the arthropod head problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropod_head_problem

it is a long-standing zoological dispute concerning the segmental composition of the heads of the various arthropod groups
I doubt they’re worried about the bill. It’s Microsoft. It probably has more to do with him painting them as the evil capitalists who took OpenAI closed source and for profit to achieve world domination. He spoke a lot about this in recent interview.
Ethics has little to do with it. Cotton and tobacco farmers mostly lack the equipment necessary to grow staple grains at a productive level. Much of the equipment is fairly specialized.
I hate to say it (as someone formerly from this field), but --

Astronomers can justify any amount of spending you ask them to, based on whatever incremental learning a telescope of a new type can be built for, based on:

-- size of telescope

-- new sensors

-- background noise reduction, sensitivity

-- frequency domain, spectroscopic resolution

-- it goes on and on

Who provides the external check of whether the latest improvement is worth spending the money? Because astronomers will always say it's worth it on some dimension. How do we decide whether that dimension is worth the money?

Is pushing the discovery of some metal content in an early galaxy by one more unit of redshift worth $10B? Study of dust obscuration of some nebula really pushing the boundaries of our understanding like it was 50 years ago? (or similar esoteric questions)

What $ / unit scientific discovery is worth it?

Edit to add: and yes there are things like the decadal survey and the “industry” has to justify itself to Congress (in the US at least). And yes, I generally do think the finding of this is (at these levels) probably going to bring some net positive multiplier benefit even if hard to quantify. And is more value per money than sending it to war to use an extreme comparison. But I wish there were a more defensible bar for knowing, other than public opinion or “at least we’re not as much a waste as <xyz>”.

Just lucky for astronomy that at least they produce pet pictures for the public to support. But sad for other important fields that don’t have this luxury.
Disabling "old.reddit.com" would achieve this nearly instantly.
macrovision is a prime example of those copyright owners making it hard.
IMO this is a bad take. MCAS was a fine system, the different aero charicteristics were fine. The only problem is that Boeing cheaped out and made MCAS depend on a single sensor for critical decision making. If they just had 3 sensors like any other saftey critical system none of these problems would have happened.
They've got 0.3m on World View 3, more than enough for what was shown in the gif

Edit: you're probably right, actually.. the silver square on the lower section of landsat 8 is ~1.5m high (guessing from the image on wikipedia), so there should only be ~5-6 pixels for it, but there are clearly more.
It further commodified it, and made it less viable as a career.
No, I know that, I meant how do they refer to Putin?
"Befriend generous benefactors who like you" is good, but hard to action, advice. Equally, be prepared to look past failings of the same folks.
> The check-in kiosks will be replaced with iPad stations — essentially an iPad and credit card reader on a stand — where the passenger can pay for a checked bag and print the paper bag tag.

So basically a cheaper, less reliable kiosk?
I don't understand or appreciate what the mystique of creativity is. The inside of the black box could just be your brain randomly remixing concepts and evaluating the variations. Most of them are probably nonsensical (“purple monkey dishwasher”) but some of them are interesting (“monkey dishwashers”) and then you take that idea and keep mixing it. The ideas that gets mixed are just whatever you’re able to pull into context, so ideas you’re familiar with are more likely to get mixed. Sometimes you struggle to come up with creative ideas, and it’s because you’ve run out of new ideas to mix with so changing your environment helps by injecting new ideas.

But at its core creativity is, at a practical level, just remixing ideas and applying some value metric against them.

Regarding the article, you can apply creative remixing at multiple levels so a creative nonfiction writer may start with fixed facts but can still remix the order, presentation, format, where to begin/end, etc.
How to train your own large language models
These are only available for non commercial use. But still good to have.
more or less the same problem JWST or anything else in space faces.
And the moon's too hot anyway. Even at the end of its long night. Even at -130C it'd still be too hot for JWST.
Kerosene produced from oil adds carbon to the atmosphere (carbon positive), biofuels take carbon out of air and after burning put it back (carbon neutral). There is a big difference.
That is very cool - like your work. How do you restart the game - i had to use the back button after i died
Last thing that I’ll add is that you seem to be quite active on this site - which is a marketing campaign for a VC firm.

You can keep moving the goalposts of what true marketing is though.
cformers already has ggml support because it's the same architecture as GPT-NeoX.

llama.cpp just added preliminary support three hours ago. https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/issues/1063#issuecomm...
Most tool companies making claims about their tools show a shocking lack of knowledge about testing. This generally guarantees that their tools are dismissed by serious professionals. That still leaves a pretty substantial market among credulous wishful thinkers, of course.

But as a tester, I would like to see a tool that isn’t just more bullshit. For this to happen you will have to explain:

- What exactly is your product designed to do? What kind of products can it be applied to test?

- What do you mean by the word test? Humans test in many ways and levels. Do you simply mean “exercise code while detecting crashes?” Because that’s a tiny part of testing.

- Code coverage is not the only kind of coverage. So how do you automatically achieve state and data coverage? I’m guessing you don’t, but hoping you will surprise me.

- Test oracles come in all shapes and sizes. One of the reasons I say testing cannot be automated is that I can easily demonstrate that a human tester cannot fully specify their own oracles, and thus cannot write code to implement them, either. So, how does your product recognize a bug when it sees it?

- How much human handholding is needed to operate your product?

- Testers think critically about how users interact with the product as users attempt to fulfill their purposes. This guides practical testing. I haven’t yet seen any product that thinks critically. ChatGPT can’t. So how does your product cope?

- When the product under test changes, what does your product do?

- Can your product EXPLAIN its test coverage (other than reporting code coverage, which is a poor indicator of good test coverage)?

- Say I have a product that sends the user through a multimodal questionnaire (including the use of animated screens that guide the user through measuring heartrate) and then produces a diagnosis of possible illnesses. Can your product tell if the diagnosis was correct in relation to the original intent of the logic that is documented in Jira tickets and Slack conversations? Will it generate questions about any of that, the way a real tester does?
> but why does the presence of a mapping imply anything about the "size" of an infinity?

It is used like this because it corresponds to an intuitive property of size. If I say that set X is larger than set Y, it comes naturally to assume that, if I were to lay out their elements one by one in pairs, at some point I would run out of elements from Y but still have more elements in X.

For example, even without knowing how many fingers I have, I can check whether there are more pebbles on a beach than fingers on my hand by putting a pebble on every finger. If there are no more pebbles and I have free fingers, the size of the set of fingers was actually larger than the set of pebbles.

And while of course I would never finish if I started doing this with the naturals and the rationals, I can still prove that it can be done if given infinite time; but that, given infinite time, when comparing the naturals to the reals in the same way, we would run out of naturals and still have more reals left.
Agreed, fortunately b skips to the boss.
How is this up here when I turn 30 tomorrow? Brah…
that did help
I am glad you escaped. I am an Australian.
Yes I've visited the battery banks in make exchanges in the Netherlands in the early 2000s. Phone exchange equipment runs on 48V DC for this reason. I've even been to relay-based phone exchanges that still existed in those days, though they were rare. Pulse only. It was weird being in a dark building sounding like it was infested by crickets. Really spooky.
Autonomous Agents and Agent Simulations
How can you exactly use these kind models in your application? Do you have to train a layer on top of these?
They are planning to make their API paid-only and removing access to NSFW content via the API, so it's about to be thoroughly enshittened soon (59 days and counting).