skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Is there any way of trying Bard from an "unsupported" country without using a VPN or something like that?
Next realisation: publishing ChatGPT generated content became useless because people use ChatGPT instead of search.
Lossless transfer compression is good to have, but it's not enough. Lossy compression can give you over 10 times smaller files, but it's format-specific and needs to be carefully applied by the developer.
"The btrfs driver for Windows is incredibly solid"

Hyperboles can be a fun writing style, but of course, it's not incredibly solid: https://github.com/maharmstone/btrfs/issues This is an exciting project though!
People doing this don't realise that they're putting all their eggs into the end of the creativity basket. There is no way for AI to improve on itself like humans do, raising the bar over lifetimes and generations. While AI will certainly improve, I think you'll see it end up like midjourney or other stable diffusion systems which stagnate because they reach the limit of their creative learning data set. You need humans to keep producing novel content to allow AI to continue to improve. Once AI content becomes predominate and replaces human content I think we will start to see a plateau of "interestingness".
Right. I don't "mind" being seen pooping, per se.

You go ahead and zen out and, in turn, take those things with grace by going along with it when someone raises a fuss ("oh, I am soooo humiliated! :)"). Or if you're of another archetype, you'll find witty ways to playfully snap back and turn it around on people trying to clown on you (alas, I'm not of this type/talent). Moreover, there are the countless, other not-uncommon approaches that often lead to escalation/hostility/violence.

Then it becomes a drag (and where the issue lies) when it really catches on in wildfire manner, to where it will have practically problematic effects on you personally or professionally, not unlike the lie that makes it halfway 'round the world before the truth can put its pants on.

As far as I see it, all of that is what is trying to be highlighted with the pooping witness analogy. Of course, that should probably be underscored when presenting it.

You'll probably still get a "yeah, that's fine" or "I don't care what anyone else thinks" after you elaborate. And tons of other cans of worms can reasonably be opened as topical offshoots; I'm just trying to concur that the "I don't mind" response doesn't really feel like a response.
This article initially seems to be arguing over semantics, saying that AI isn't AGI, which most people would agree with. Then talks about data dignity, which is interesting but a bit of a tangent.

My understanding of the concern over AGI, or even an all-powerful "AI" isn't that it's not truly self-aware, but rather that it's motives are not in line with humanity's motives.

It doesn't matter if it trains on data by humans if it still doesn't have the moral compass of a human. Not really sure what data dignity will provide if we truly do have a misaligned "AGI"
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)

See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3hd3AI2CAA
If you use it through the API you can get very far with much less than 20$
If an AI has mutable memory, and could be convinced to damage its memory in such a way that it no longer acts usefully (or does so by accident), is that functionally different from "death"?

This doesn't really apply to GPT, where the core functionality is immutable.
As explained in a sibling comment, the toolkit cannot make assumptions about restoring an apps window state to its previous size. Sure it might work for simple hello world apps that always open the main window, but that's not always the case. Sometimes applications have to open a different window or multiple windows on app startup. The only thing the toolkit can reliably do is translate the requested window size when an application opens a window to the DE so that the DE/WM can place it on the screen.

Because of the dynamic nature of opening windows, app developers should have control over storing/restoring the window size. Simple apps might always store the last window size and restore that exact size on startup. Other apps might have to run some logic first before they know how large the window should be, and then request the toolkit to create a window of that size.
> unelected paper pushers

The core of your argument is that regulators are unelected (vs engineers ???) and incompetent, when in reality they either get counsel from people in the field, or are former or partially active members of the profession themselves.
The L3 caches also aren't shared between CCDs/CCXes which is an important distinction.
This seems like a reach, like you started from your conclusion.
Machines running AI can certainly die, that is why chaos monkeys and kubernetes etc. exist. They can be backed up, unlike humans though. Although humans are backed up by virtue of there being 8 billion of them, so if one dies, the world can keep going on pretty much as before, albeit with some sadness for some of the people. This sounds morbid, but hard to avoid when comparing humans to machines!
There are already legal backdoors not actually referred to as that legally and they are used by corporations to meet their regulatory requirements for things like DLP. Google for example supports this. HTTPS doesn't even matter, their site supports DLP appliances logging in and intercepting all corporate interactions on the platform. The same capabilities exist for non corporate but that is used by law enforcement. This exists on all major platforms. This would play into E2EE if the servers create and manage the client E2EE keys which I believe is the case currently on all platforms that support E2EE. I am told that implementing client side libraries like OTR is too hard or too much friction. So what I am saying is that encryption need not be compromised when all corporations willingly create lawful intercept and DLP API's.

To get more information on this have your company reach out to each platform for DLP integrations.
When you explicitly instruct it that its knowledge about current affairs is dated to 2021 and inject documents and provide clear instruction about the documents are correct about current affairs, etc. etc. it works like a charm.

Adds ~3-5 seconds of latency so I have a switch to turn it on and off, for now
Also sexual humor and innuendo.
No, it's still massively cheaper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.365.6449.108
I really wonder about the justification for using MySQL/Postgres sometimes. How is it not simply superior in almost every way to start with ScyllaDB which is faster in every way and the only downside I can see is that you have a very limited way to query things. But so what, at least it's fast. I mean isn't that the nr.1 thing you want from a database, it's not about comfort.. it's about storing data. It is genuinely annoying though for example that you can't even alter a column type after the column was created in ScyllaDB.
You've lost track of your thread. You're now consistently admitting that China's progress has come from Westernization.

Maybe you should have put your thinking on rails.
> And for the third time, the safety systems that would have prevented Chernobyl are already present in western reactors

You're stuck on Chernobyl. I repeat, it was an example of a trend. The specific example wasn't intended to be of any particular importance. The trend of accident -> extra security is.

So yeah, Chernobyl was a bad example, but that does nothing to change that when something on a nuclear plant goes wrong, we look at how to stop future accidents, and add extra tech for monitoring/backups/etc, making nuclear more expensive, which is one of the reasons why price hasn't gone down over time. Because we've added extra stuff on top to patch up both big and smaller problems that cropped up.

Though I think that without Chernobyl it's well possible somebody would have eventually suggested maybe a containment building isn't quite necessary. Because it sure isn't free.

Meanwhile, if a wind turbine falls apart somewhere, for the most part we just ignore it. It's a problem for the operator. We're not trying to ensure no wind turbine anywhere doesn't fall apart ever.
But, the author is not wrong.

> In my view, the most accurate way to understand what we are building today is as an innovative form of social collaboration.

This is a very interesting take from a philosophy grandmaster who is well versed in the technology and statistics behind it. If we get 10 000x more articles like this in the next couple of years, we should consider our selves lucky. Grifters have controlled the debate about AI for far too long.
This is "begging the question".
Even in English it isn't consistent, ask a Canadian how much they drank and they might say "oh, I had a few beer".
Tests, eh ...
You Are Not a Gadget is a great book by Jaron Lanier.
Interesting side note “boustrophedon” translates roughly into “writing as the ox plows” hence the zigzag.
The very article you are responding to is touting energy densities that could lead to 1000 km in Teslas next year and the super chargers planned for the same time period would charge those cars in 15 mins. You do not even have to go out 5 years before “long distance travel, practicability of refueling” will favour EV owners. I just got back from a 2000 km EV road trip through the worlds second biggest country ( and one of the sparsest populated ). The longest leg between charging networks was about 300 km in the Rocky Mountains. The longest we sat at a charger was around 20 minutes. Most of that time was spent placing take-out dinner orders for the 5 of us in the car.

This is my first long trip in an EV vehicle but my wife drove about a 1000 miles through eastern Washington State a few weekends ago ( also mountains - even more remote ). She had to plan but there was certainly no risk of getting stranded. At least one of the hotels had overnight charging for free.

All this is today. These are going to be non-issues 5 years from now.
Do we have any approaches to fusion that would be usable for launches? I mean, ones that we could possibly prototype within a decade, not just Project Rho links, much as I enjoy Project Rho.
The problem is that it wouldn't help. We have good enough solutions right now, but not many are using them. Better compression will be nice, but it will yield less results than adoption of something that is already here.
It is 4x the density of the Victron LiFePO4 batteries I have on my sailboat.
And cross platform: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/insta...

Not that it’s a particularly compelling feature on Linux with the standard offering, but it’s a good option for cross platform scripts at times, particularly running in docker.
Paragon has been doing it for quite a while. You just need to pay extra. https://www.paragon-software.com/business/extfs-for-windows/
It is hard to tell what is really happening. At some level though, it is deep reasoning by humans, turned into intelligent text, and run through a language model. If you fed the model garbage it would spit out garbage. Unlike a human child who tends to know when you are lying to them.
So if you lost the weights how is that not killing the AI? Is it because it lacks the death experience? If so what about bitrotting the weights incrementally and degrading its inputs?
So basically the reason people use this database in the first place is to work around the skewed incentives of academia where papers are everything and contributing the labwork of finding a sequence is seen as worthless.
Data dignity would give us insight into how the AI “thinks” so we can better understand how it’s aligned.
No, it's a cherry-picked example of 0.0001% of writers. Otherwise there would be no article to write.
There's nothing obvious about crypto being a good asset if the us govt. defaults.
My read is that the author doesn't think today's tools are particularly close to AGI that has its own motives, or that it's at all useful to characterize these tools as "having motives" at all.

There are those who disagree with how close we are to "AGI" with today's LLMs, but as an outsider, the author seems pretty well-qualified in his position at MS Research compared to some of the less-informed prognosticators. Even the linked-out discussion with Altman, who the author says is more pessimistic than he is, doesn't appear to be a case of Altman saying these models are close to AGI or dangerous for "alignment" reasons vs "they can be used for bad things."

Worrying about the uses of tools is a VERY different thing than worrying about if the tools are gonna overthrow us, and I think that's what the author is really pushing for here. If we have that conversation we can get closer to real, specific policies, laws, etc to make sure the tools benefit us instead of the other way around.
Funny thing, botulism toxin does not survive boiling temps, but its spores do.
Which problem? Of humans that aren’t homeless?
What percentage do you think of these will be LLM generated?
I've always thought this was the elephant in the room about design. Like yeah, you make the important text big, you put it at the top, you make a rectangle and you fiddle with the position of the rectangle, ooh those are nice looking colors, ok now maybe some borders and a drop down taskbar, etc.. Really it's not difficult at all.

It's just a bunch of almost instinct based decisions that requires no specific skills, application of difficult principles beyond some very obvious, almost tautological truths (things people use more often should be more visible/accessible, the eye should not be strained/forced to move too much, etc.)
and (depending how time actually works) transformed also may be wrong, rather, everything simply is and time is our hallucination of reality
> In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.[35]

It still sounds like there could be cases where a company only has copyright to a part of their own source code. How would outsiders even be aware of what has copyright and what doesn't in this situation? If an entire function was created via AI is that function then fair game for others to use as well?
This is a Trojan horse article designed to deliver the authors ideas of “data dignity”.
If ChatGPT is "social collaboration", it's an involuntary collaboration between our past selves, with no active control or choice over what we're "collaborating" on. At which point, we're really stretching the meaning of the word collaboration.
As someone who has worked in the media industry, I can tell you that the problem with unbiased news goes much deeper than simply presenting facts objectively. The very first step mentioned in your breakdown - scraping the latest headlines from publicly available news sites - is inherently biased, because it relies on a small selection of sources to determine what is considered newsworthy. But by whom? In reality, editors play a crucial role in shaping the news by deciding which events to cover and which to ignore, based on their own biases and interests.

From my own experience, I can tell you that the most important news stories are often the ones that go unreported/underreported by most news sites. Unfortunately, there are also many insidious methods used to shape public opinion, such as distraction etc. But it all starts with the decisions made by editors about WHAT YOU, as a reader, should SEE and CARE about. So if we truly want to achieve unbiased news, we need to start by reevaluating the very definition of what is news.
I'm guessing they just invented the word coiteration, because if I google it, this niche language comes up.

If they invented the problem that this language solves, it probably isn't necessary.
Jaron has an amazing publicist. I challenge anyone to read Wikipedia’s history of VR (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality#History) and assess him to fairly be called a founder. There was serious work being done for over a decade before he even started his firm; VPL never came close to being a standard and the VR tech today has hardly any relation to his “post symbolic” language.

He’s certainly a very smart and interesting guy but my alarm bells go off when his supposed achievements are used as justification for the piece being valid rather than… well, any of the arguments he made.
"I can translate everything I want to do in code."

This is a special talent since not all programmers can do the same. But when working in teams this will be a problem. You might be able to leave people in the dust but no single programmer can accomplish what a team can. Teams must be able to work together towards a goal but if they can't follow your train of thought then it will make working with you very hard. Also, you will have a hard time working with other programmers that can't keep up with you.

My advice to you is to find a very challenging project that will help solve a human problem. You can then create the skeleton of it and have other programmers fill-in the details with your help. You would be a very good candidate for a PhD. program but only if you can choose a project that's both challenging for you and solves a real problem under the guidance of a mentor.

It seems that you are still early in your studies so things might change as you progress and your way of thinking changes as the classes get more challenging. But keep the above in mind, it will help determine where you best fit.
Lagon Alpha
Cheaper how? From your source:

> Last month, the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie estimated the cost to decarbonize the U.S. grid alone would be $4.5 trillion, about half of which would go to installing 900 billion watts, or 900 gigawatts (GW), of batteries and other energy storage technologies. (Today, the world's battery storage capacity is just 5.5 GW.) But as other cities follow the example of Los Angeles, that figure is sure to fall.

The US was able to build nuclear at plants at ~$1B per GW of capacity when nuclear was built at scale during the 60s and 70s [1]. $4.5 Trillion is considerably more expensive even if we assume that serial production would still be 5x more expensive than historical trends.

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
There is no AI, there are only pedantic verbal prescriptivists?

That's deep dude. What if dog meant god? Pass the bong!
Designers who only design with no regard for what is possible, simple, etc have been the bane of my existence at previous employers.

I feel there is a VERY small set of shops where someone who just dumps a figma in your lap is useful.

The places I’ve seen that employ figma-is-my-only-output designers have just not been the right places for that skill set… but they always wish they were.
That is an excellent problem to have! :-)
> GPL code

There is no such thing as "GPL code" or any other "$license code". This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a license is. The code in question was licensed to GitHub under a different license - possibly fraudulently.
I see a libel suit in the near future, at a minimum.
> I think exfat has recently gained support in all three platforms but it's not reliable for an internal hard drive (I think?).

I've been doing this for a few years now. It just doesn't support some stuff, like permissions, but for just a pile of files, it's fine.
I’m a VC specializing in startups addressing wildfire. If I can be helpful to anyone thinking about this problem, I’m bill at convectivecapital.com
Aside: I opened this in a new tab to browse later, then glanced over at the icon and wondered how I had opened a PayPal page.
It's most definitely not the case that successive reactors are cheaper or faster, that's a myth that gets told but the data says otherwise both in the US and France and many other countries (but not all).

Poland might need to use expensive nuclear, but it's not the case in the continental US. Poland is not the US, has far cheaper labor, and I don't know the status of their construction industry or their funding sources, but they are different from the US's.

Again, if you think that this is a good idea for the US, how are you going to convince a utility to do this? And if it's an investor operated power gen facility, what investor would risk this?

If it's a government-funded and owned facility, then that would solve thee funding source. It's another question if it's a wise use of capital, and yet another of who does the EPC. Perhaps Bechtel? Definitely the most likely to succeed.

My attitude is not to avoid big projects. I think we need to build massive big projects. HVDC. High speed rail. Subways in all major cities. Massive factories, mines, etc. Advanced geothermal. New hydro in select locations. All of these projects will have better pay off, less risk, and increase the construction capacity of the US. Nuclear is not a wise choice for any of this. If we can increase our productivity on large projects, then it's time to try projects with less payoff, like nuclear.
Republicans had no problem raising the debt limit 4 times after Trump's tax cuts produced trillion dollar deficits.
> the only downside I can see is that you have a very limited way to query things

That’s a pretty big one. If you know you need the scale, the trade off might be worth it. But I’m 99% of projects, Postgres is more than adequate and has great flexibility.
> I don't understand where, in this simple math, does a regular bank "create money out of thin air".

Through rinse & repeat.

When the bank has loaned those $90, the deposits still show $100, and are still available to their respective owners. Just not all at once, but we don’t care as long as the illusion is maintained — and it is.

Where those $90 go? to other deposits. So where we had $100, we now have $190. Only $100 of those are central money, but again, as long as the illusion is maintained (and it is), everything works exactly as if we had $190. And since money is but a convention, a good enough illusion is actually real. $90 really have been created.

And those $90 that have been added to deposits can also be used to lend money. $81 in the current example. So now we have $271. Rinse & repeat indefinitely, eventually you end up with up to $1000 total, with $900 created out of thin air. As long as the illusion works at least. And it does.

Sure, sometimes it breaks down. Sometimes we get a bank run. But in practice the illusion is so important that the state steps it an make it real: by creating actual central money to compensate for the bank run. Heck, often just the promise of doing so is enough to prevent the bank run in the first place, and maintain the illusion.

Strictly speaking money hasn’t been created. It’s just an accounting trick. But the trick works. Those $900 may be fake money, but if people are using it (and they are), it’s also real money. It’s not real real money, but it’s close enough.
Crypto may be a bad bet in a world where the dollar implodes. If crypto is predominantly healed by dollar holders - rebalancing from crypto to the dollar denominated assets they need to function could harm crypto prices.

Alternately, in the event of a dollar default - the world may not be conducive to the capex+energy expenditure required to mine crypto. If interest rates went to 20-30%, I’m not sure that crypto mining would be a viable concern - causing instability throughout the crypto world.

That being said, whether crypto is a good hedge or not really depends on whether it’s worth putting money in today - regardless of the potential for US default. Particularly in comparison to Yen, euro, and yuan assets.
Boiling isn't going to do anything about arsenic.
They are fine as an enterprise vendor. Chill out about Google Reader or whatever.
This sounds like pretty bad, or at least risky, advice. Mind you, I think it'll work on average; but it's a dishonest and adversarial way to start a new relationship, for probably not a ton of money.