skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I think that part is a leap. I don't think is given that a super intelligent AI will "want" things.

But if it has no goal then it can’t act rationally or intelligently. Something like an LLM might not appear to “want” anything, but it “wants” to predict the next token correctly which is still a goal (though since it’s only related to its internal state it might be a little safer)

There’s another good video about why this would be the case here if you’re interested: https://youtu.be/8AvIErXFoH8

> This feels like we're projecting aspects of humanity that evolution specifically selected for in our species with something that is coming about though a completely different process.

That’s because evolution is a process that optimises for a goal. The only reason altruism is a thing is because it actually indirectly benefits the goal, which is for our genes to survive and be passed on, and fellow humans tend to share our genes, especially relatives (who we tend to be kinder to). AI training is also a process that optimises for a goal, but unless having humans around helps that goal it wouldn’t display any human empathy. In this case “selfishness” is just efficiency which a training process definitely selects for

> I agree, but I feel like that's what these concerns about AI are doing, because that's what people do.

I feel like they’re doing a pretty good job at modelling AI as a theoretical agent, which does share some similarities with humans because humans are agents, but the main mistake people make is assuming their goals will be similar to humans because human values are somehow a universal truth

> It also seems to me there is a huge gap between a super intelligent AI and the ability to have a perfect model of reality along with the ability to evaluate within that model the effect of every possible sequence of packets sent out to the internet.

That’s very true, it’s an unrealistic thought experiment, but it’s a a good introduction to the concept that something significantly more intelligent than us can be dangerous and pursue a goal with no regard to what we actually wanted
IIRC, Chinese green tea is a completely different beast from Japanese green tea like sencha.
Alief
a lot of the fear is not so much not what the law says, but how a local school administration or local judge decides to interpret it after arbitrary complaints by parents. even if you’re eventually ruled to comply with the law it could make your life pretty miserable.
The world burns that much coal — which is apparently enough to make enough renewables for 50% of global electricity needs — every three months, and we don't, not even accidentally, set fire to wind turbines or solar cells at anything like that rate.
Coders like <T>
Right, but since marketing is 0.5 billion and gross profit is 1.5 billion the worst case is that they have 1 billion of real gross profit.
I think the biggest fundamental difference is that we respect human creativity even when it is learned, because of the value in rights we ascribe to humans. It is expected and natural for humans to fairly use things they have learned as a part of an otherwise unique work. But do we ascribe the same privileges to a machine, particularly when it can be automated? The opportunity cost of the human experience itself is the reason why we even have copy rights.
If you want to go the extra mile, learn enough JSX to build a static version of the page. The developers will love you if you hand them components and CSS that look correct. It's less work than you might think to jump from HTML to JSX.
Germany is exiting both nuclear and coal. In the time from 2010 to 2022 where 14/17 of nuclear plants were shut down generation from coal was reduced from 263 TWh per year to 181 TWh. Renewables increased from 105 TWh to 254 TWh. I also would have preferred to leave the nuclear plants running longer and exit coal faster, but in the overall scheme of things it does not matter too much. Nuclear is basically irrelevant. It is too expensive and slow to build. In reality, renewables will take over everything very quickly.

Gas and coal imports from Russia stopped completely. But guess what still depends on Russia: The nuclear industry in Europe and the US.
Bureaucracies bloat because they gradually fill up with the sort of bureaucrats who seek foremost to expand their own dominion. From the individual perspective of such a bureaucrat, the more people they have working under them, the more important they are. From this individual selfish incentive, bureaucratic bloat becomes an emergent phenomenon.

Or put another way:

> Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

> First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

> Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

> The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
GNU code is partially hard to follow because of RMS paranoia, but that mostly manifests itself in the code being weirdly structured. The far bigger reason is that GNU code tends to run with really strange optimizations and project decisions since they want their tools to be able to run on ancient mainframes that practically nobody uses anymore, so everything is overoptimized for that.
Renewable energy is the answer, on a scale large enough to solve the energy requirements.

The other part of the equation completely ignored by everyone is energy saving.

There's really no systematic effort at all to reduce the amount of energy society consumes.
I don't get this bogus argument. Germany is using the least coal in its history for electricity. The data is very easy to find, but it's a knee jerk reaction that they got rid of nuclear and so they must've replaced it with coal. Not true at all, and it's getting tiring reading this nonsense.
Le Corbusier is a cautionary tale of human hubris and the worst part of 20th century modernity.
I definitely took reducing your entire comment to to "I guess your view is that if a new thing is approximately as terrible as an existing thing, then it's fine." as not coming a place of good faith, but maybe I'm being harsh
How does your career grow if you launch a product, vs grow or maintain an existing one?
My biggest issue with these proposals is one that is at the heart of the documentary here and put pretty succinctly:

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/documentaries/containmen...

How can we contain or dispose of some of the deadliest, most long-lasting substances ever produced? How to we ensure it lasts well beyond the possibility of our civilization currently and mark it in such a way that its clear to others its dangerous. Without those answers I am not sure how we can argue its better/safer.
Yeah it seems so dried out you wouldn't have too much to worry about.

As for boiling tea for sanitation, I took a wilderness first responder class and they taught us that you could bring water to a boil at any altitude a human can breath at (without holding it at a boil for 15 minutes as some claim) and it's considered sterilized. In Cusco, that would be around 191F/89C (humans can breathe quite a bit higher up than Cusco). Not a bad tea-brewing temp!

Also, I suggest trying kukicha. It's high in l-theanine and lower in caffeine. Tasty too.
Excuse me, is there a problem? Why startups fail
Would be quite bad for this author if Zuckerberg got fired, obsessively hating on him seems to be his identity. Too much narrative and axe-grinding.
> It's like starting to sing "happy birthday to you" and being surprised that people in the room join in and finish the song.

A very apt analogy that's funny in that the happy birthday song has its own history of copyright battles.
> Someone from France is telling you that actually, it's really not that great.

Relative to...what? Is there any major country that has a great power grid, objectively better than France? Certainly we have plenty of problems here in the US.

I'm a big nuclear power advocate but of course NP has problems, like any human project. It has dangers, like any scalable power supply. I support NP because it is better than all the rest.
Thanks - yes, this is what I mistakenly referenced as Test Flight side-loading. It was the enterprise cert, not Test Flight.

And yes, they already tried it it as a way around controls.
> The whole process is definitely not "carbon-free".

How do you think those windmill parts and solar panels get from the manufacturers to the end users?

I personally don’t see solar and wind able to provide enough energy to electrify an entire nation’s fleet of freight haulers. Nuclear, maybe — assuming they build a bunch of little plants so a truck can “refuel” in the middle Wyoming away from large populations.

Maybe Wyoming isn’t the best example as it’s always windy there but the point stands.
Ah - I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that didn't happen; it's just the "we don't know if it's dangerous" line isn't great.

Reporting potential news is not much different to insinuation, and I wish it would stop in newspapers of record.
> This is rare

This literally happened just 6 days ago.

> we have a diverse mix of electricity production.

Yes, yes we do: coal and biofuel (so more burning), and corn for biofuel is taking up 6% of Germany's land area.

> When wind gets more dominant, it will be offshore and connected to a larger North Sea grid

So, some magical future

> I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand.

Max capacity means nothing when production is low.

> Thus large scale storage will be build up.

More magical thinking (there are currently no grid-scale storage solutions that would've survived just one night from the link I provided)
Can you not work this out yourself? Use some common sense. Do you disagree, are you saying that animal body cells can be infinitely large?
Same. I've been putting off joining their Discord though (just because I don't use Discord often), maybe there's some info about that there.
I appreciate the connoisseur vernacular
How much research do we need? Sure there are advances to make in physics, but do we really need another paper explaining why Richard III wasn't completely evil, or whatever similar activity English professors research? How much more research into the real nature of the Greeks do we need? Don't get me wrong, both are interesting subjects, and the thinking that goes into those papers is worth teaching/knowing. However the real reason to support most college programs is teaching to think (a topic hard to define!), not having the professors do research.

If you are a medical researcher there is a lot of useful research to do. Most subjects are of questionable value. It is unknown if knowing more about how quarks work will ever be useful.
Politics. Then politics. Then FUD and more politics.

As a result last year energy prices shot up and there was nothing to counterbalance energy shortages.
Even ignoring all those words you used meaning to me what I said they mean (and hence unavoidably "implying" even if you now wish to say you were misunderstood, which is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse):

You know we can see your comments, right?

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian

And you've got a… distinct… writing style, so I recognised you from a few days ago before seeing your user name:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522
I'm gonna need a lot of mojitos.
Brunel was probably right that the work of the commission would be detrimental to the rate of innovation. But is that the only thing that matters? We would probably get a faster rate of innovation in personal transportation if we allowed any unlicensed vehicles to use the public highways at any speed. But there would be a terrible cost to pay in terms of lives lost or ruined. It doesn't sound like the commission was planning to forbid any and all usage of cast iron, just not in places where public safety was at risk. An innovative engineer could always build a novel cast iron bridge in a test location and produce some dramatic demonstration of its strength and reliability that didn't involve running fully loaded passenger trains over it. The trade-off between the rate of innovation and the casualty rate does not need to be chosen at either of the extremes.
> The same could be said about Jack Dorsey

The same should be said of Dorsey. And Musk. And also Pichai, while we're at it.

What's your point?
Let's be clear - while Zuck has the majority voting rights(does he?), he isn't the majority owner.

But even if he was, his decisions would impact the minority owners... and we have had cases, where devaluing minority shareholder value has been deemed illegal.

Imagine that you're in a co-op building and the majority vote owner decides to demolish the building...
> one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material

Please share numbers demonstration health hazards. For ex, bananas are radioactive. Should we outlaw bananas?

> rivers are getting too hot to cool down nuclear plants correctly

That's wrong. In 2022, the power output had to be reduced by 0.18% (not a typo) (https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1645696906327388160). In addition, Nuclear plants can work even in the desert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_...

> nuclear plants are very unreliable

That's also wrong. Please share numbers. Nuclear has a load factor of 95% and its down time can be scheduled (maintenance). Wind has a load factor of 30-40% (and output is unpredictable), solar has a load factor of 20%, hydro requires mountains.

> the government wants to simplify control organism and laws around building new plants

When controls are too tight, nuclear is too slow ; when controls are too loose, nuclear is dangerous. Face je gagne, pile tu perds.

The goal is less CO2, and for that any low carbon energy source is good.
Wouldn't you have this reaction to at minimum 50% of all HN submissions?
That is an interesting point. Also those being put at the helm to run many such in-house or acquired projects probably don't have enough skin in the game or passion. Their metrics are always towards near-term progress; not tied to revenue, viability or even traction for that product line. And like you said, no big consequences other than switching to write code in another repo.
> And let’s be honest, nobody really likes any of their apps. Instagram and Facebook have billions of users, meaning that you sort of have to use them at some point.

That's a strange take. I've managed to be on the web since the mid-90s and have yet to use Facebook or Instagram. I still managed to get married, stay in contact with my extended family, get an excellent job as a developer, have a large fried group, etc. It is completely possible to have a good life without any of these.
>How do you guys code?

I don't think you care. I think you just made this because you want to be told you're special.
Due to the same "green" politicos having been in power the last 8 years [1]. The power plants they closed could have been kept in service - they had been recertified up to 2035 - but they closed them anyway. This was a political decision, not one based on demand - support for nuclear power has surged in Sweden - or technological deficiencies.

[1] https://08nytt.se/naringsliv/mp-erkanner-avvecklat-karnkraft...
A very good starting point would be when it started harming people. This is not a difficult question.
Since this advertising a service to fix this problem, I'm suspicious of the research and its conclusions.
I like the intent of this! My main question is, how do we know redact.ws won't suddenly serve different Javascript one day, to certain clients, which send unencrypted payloads somewhere?
There are fusion reactor designs that don't use water. They directly convert to electricity with magnetic fields.
I understand php is gong through some transformations right now, if it were up to me I would rename php to "Elephant" with file extension of E
One helpful resource is https://www.refactoringui.com/ and related materials/blogs - but evaluate it against your inspirations to understand when the “rules” should be broken, or aren’t even rules that apply to the aesthetic you’re going for! Particularly if that aesthetic is advised by, say, luxury fashion. But it helps to understand the space of what is possible!
Nuclear plants aren't used for grid stabilization, because they can't be. They take hours to days to change power levels.

Fast-responding natural gas plants are used for rapid response to changing load. Hydro (storage or regular) as well. More recently, energy storage systems like the huge system Tesla deployed in Australia.

If I had a dollar for every HN commenter that doesn't understand the basics of grids and generation but considers themselves an expert in how awesome nuclear is...
It's not meant to be a useful use-case, but a proof that the training data contains GPL code and the model is capable of reproducing copyrighted code.

And yes, the implication is that a different less explicit prompt could still emit copyrighted code.
This is the big deterrent. People have families they need to worry about. My SO was telling me to be careful about the things I talk about because it could cost me my job.

I'm not sure where the line in the sand is.
>> At what point of scale do people start imagining they have a right to make demands on how something somebody else built and owns should be run?

This is a pretty weird take. Do you apply the same logic to citizens of a country? I mean, they're just one vote, what right do they have to make demands of a country they only joined 20/30/50/70 years ago? Meta isn't some plucky little privately held startup. Vanguard, Blackrock and Fidelity combined own more than Zuckerberg, and those funds are primarily the savings of individuals and pension plans, so I think people do have legitimate grounds to make demands. He's maintained control without ownership, and I think this makes him extra worthy of criticism. He's highly leveraged and gambling with far more than his own outcome.
Lyft plans to ‘significantly reduce’ workforce, CEO says
> maybe it'll be benevolent

Hoping it will be benevolent is about the only thing we have at this point. Many, but not all, alignment safety researches believe that it will inherently exhibit properties that make for disastrous outcomes. Since they have no solution for this problem if it exists, at this point hoping they are wrong is the best option.
I've had an evolution in thinking over the last few years. I did a deep dive on both atmospheric CO2 reduction and energy requirements for full electrification of transportation, homes and industry.

At the time (5 to 10 years ago) it seemed like a very large deployment of nuclear power generation had to be a significant part of the solution. That isn't at all what I think in today's context.

At grid scale, today, I think wind plus storage seems to be the most logical answer at many levels:

Energy production per installed GW:
Solar: 1.33 TWh/GW (solar is reliably off half the time)
Wind: 3.07 TWh/GW

Land use per GW:
Solar: 3,900 acres/GW
Wind: 750 acres/GW

Land use to provide all Tesla Master Plan solar + wind:
Solar: 12 Hawaii's
Wind: 1 Hawaii (area of all islands)

or,

Solar: 30% of California
Wind: 2.5% of California

Annual Operations and Maintenance costs :
Solar: 1.33 times wind O&M
Wind: 1.00

Initial investment in factories:
Solar: $ 11 billion
Wind: $212 billion

Storage required for 95% reliability:
Solar: >12 hours
Wind: 3 hours

Wind requires 4x less batteries, with all the cost,
recycling and ecological advantages this delivers.

Build supply chain origin:
Solar: Heavy reliance on China
Wind: Diverse

Long term supply chain (maintenance, parts, etc.) origin:
Solar: Heavy reliance on China (forever)
Wind: Diverse

The above numbers come from parsing through Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 (MPP3) and several of their references. Of course, this is US-centric, yet, I think it scales well to other parts of the globe.

It isn't a case that combining solar and wind can't provide a good solution. It's that idea that wind has enough advantages that it can provide reliable clean power generation all by itself (with storage). In other words, grid-scale solar would not be necessary at the kind of scale proposed by MPP3.

I need to emphasize the above because there's a tendency to point out that the combination of wind and solar works very well. And, yes, it does. However, that misses the point entirely. The point is that geographically distributed grid-scale wind with storage does not need any solar to reach 95% reliability (power availability) [0] Table 2.

In short, it seems wind would have lower land utilization, operation and maintenance costs, startup investment, 1/4 the storage requirement, ecological impact (based on only needing 1/4 of the batteries) and, finally, the potential for a more favorable supply chain, both for construction and long-term maintenance.

Home-scale solar and storage has nothing to do with my comment (after all, we are talking about nuclear power). I am only referring to grid scale. Home-scale solar makes sense on many fronts.

NOTE: This is the only document outside of MPP3 I used to generate some of the above:

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z
I’m a designer who codes! It’s very different today than it was ten years ago. Or even ten months ago.

1) get a good grasp of programming basics by taking a codecademy python course
2) use copilot / chatGPT / codeium
3) build stuff better and faster than I was able to do last year
Nuclear proliferation is the big unsolved issue with nuclear.

My preference is to have US DoD set up plants all around the world on its airbases and sell subsidised electricity to the national grid of the host country.

DoD needs something to do.
Megacorps can (thankfully) barely swim in new waters. These guys didn’t even start out in a completely new field.

The hubris when they think they can just create a new entire platform which people have no experience with, no mistakes to learn from etc. Especially so when the ones taking the wheel are anxious upper-mid PMs which are used to AB-test a color changed button for engagement improvements. It may sound harsh, but I can assure you that many, many of these decision makers haven’t even played Minecraft/Roblox etc and have no idea what would be compelling to “real” people. That’s why you get a remote office in the metaverse, because that’s at least one thing they live and breathe.

In my view, novel areas need grassroots “see what sticks” type of innovation, often by tiny teams/passion oriented nerds. I think the gaming world, with all its faults, understand this MUCH better than the FAANGS, because they simply have to.
Not only has Hawking radiation not been observed but the article starts with a "may have" and concludes by pointing out that there aren't conditions to observe the phenomenon described today.

Maybe I'm just not a fan of strong language, making it appear we know something, where we don't.
All foodstuffs are contaminated with germs, unless you go to extraordinary effort to prevent it (e.g. intense gamma radiation.) Unless there is some particular reason to care (you're a hospital feeding people who had their bone marrow nuked by cancer/chemo), then the correct solution is to stop caring. Who ever heard of people dropping dead because they brewed their tea with sub-boiling water? This isn't happening, it's not something you should worry about.