skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Methane breaks down into CO2, which is a part of the Carbon Cycle.

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

CH4 -> CO2 -> grass -> cow -> CH4
|
\/
steak -> human -> CO2

and so on...

> If nuclear plants can generate with costs <1¢/kWh, why don't they?

Because they're too expensive to build, because of regulation and lack of economies of scale. Similar to why rockets were expensive, before SpaceX. If we invested more, both in research and in building more of them, in factories, we could build plenty, much more cheaply. The technology for modular reactors obviously exists (e.g. nuclear submarines), it just needs to be commercialized.

> If your costs are practically zero, isn't your profit margin essentially 100%?

You're mixing up or conflating total cost vs marginal cost. The marginal cost of making computer chips is almost 0, but the upfront investment is huge. Same with reactors and nuclear power. If we make more of them, streamline the construction, simplify regulation, etc. the marginal costs will drop massively (as will upfront costs, but they will still be non-zero).
I think there are two kinds of environmentalist - the purist kind you prefer and the practical kind. The practical kind has the arguments that appeal to most people with things like "let's not run out of oil because it's useful" and "lets not cause climate change because it'll lead to problems for people". But the purist kind is really more of a religious belief that you can't persuade people of in practical terms. That doesn't mean it's wrong - it's just that even adherents don't know why it's right, if it is. Just like religion. You see the purist kind extending to things like "lets not colonize the moon or Mars because we'll damage their natural state." Maybe in a million years, they'll turn out to have been right, but nobody knows that today.
You seem to be taking the analogy literally.

It's more the muddying of blue checks of "notable people" with "paid so you can hear their weird terminally online rants".
Well we're talking about making a record like OK Computer. It's a work of art, it takes time and intent and attention to details.

If you want to record a couple jazz songs for kicks you can very easily and satisfactorily do this today, for very little money (just higher up this thread people have recommended great tools) and it will be higher quality that what was playing on the radio in the 90s. And I'd argue that if you were as good a crooner as Radiohead are -eh- experimental musicians, I'm sure you'd find the time to make an album that would make yourself rich.

Sorry I'm a little ranty - gonna get a drink I guess

You don't need two months of mixing for your crooner album. You can mix it yourself on the weekend and be 80% there.

Like the guy that did Tubular Bells keep re-recording it because it's not good enough for him - but I'm fine with the version he first produced. AI isn't going to change anything here.
Nobody wants to run Google on their PCs, why should LLMs be different? I'd expect GPT models to be updated regularly fairly soon, and in much the same way that I wouldn't want to host a personal out-dated web index + search engine, LLMs seem a perfect fit for server-side services given their requirements. Barely anyone even hosts their blogs or mail. What's the excitement about getting it almost running on a phone about?
Well, I think this guy is sort of an authority in Bipolar disorders, has a clinical psychopharmacology textbook that's not the typical one from Stahl, a bit dry on citations but some people seem to follow his school of thought:
https://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Psychopharmacology-Principle...

His ideas are rather controversial, as he charges against the whole DSM too but gives historical context on why. You can check out his podcast for a quick overview on his points:
https://open.spotify.com/show/2UNy6ZRzomYZXJgN5DNXx9

I'm not a doctor, and not that I agree with his thinking, but he does make an interesting point on how is this diagnosis handled, so I'm just leaving it out there for discussion here on HN, if it takes off.
When you don't know if your LLM is confabulating because it's undertrained or because it's UB
Expensive in a few ways. Deferring styles to execution time means users on slow networks or devices will have an absolutely brutal load experience.

This might all be an acceptable trade off depending on one's user base, of course!
As an owner of Cosmo, I can confirm all of the above. The form factor is great and the keyboard is amazing, but the software story kills it all dead in the water. I wish someone could just do a dedicated Linux machine like that.
Who does the CGI?
We can't even mitigate relatively banal problems like wild boars and Himalayan black berries.

My go to "oopsie" is the radioactive plume crawling towards the Columbia River. Once that breeches, all settlements downstream will be uninhabitable. Bye bye Portlandia.
This is not a defense only phenomenon.
Journalists were always the most annoying proponents of the old blue check system. Where it worked well was letting people check someone claiming to be a public figure really did represent that figure. But then journalists, who got the check as a matter of course by their employment, started treating it as a mark of credibility and demanding people they didn't like be stripped of their check.

I never trusted blue checks. I would regularly see fake accounts in the pre-Musk days and I regularly see fake accounts today. But I do take pleasure in the wounded egos caused by the new system.
I appreciate the sentiment, but your tenants might have rights that you don't know about. These may vary depending on your locale, and may include restrictions on evictions of tenants who don't have written leases.
Looks like this is it? https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenix-1996-annual-technic...

I couldn't find any of the content online.
In this very interesting video, Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin argue that LLM's can feasibly generate their own training data sets [1]. It's a very interesting (and a slightly alarming) talk, maybe check it out.

[1] https://youtu.be/xoVJKj8lcNQ?t=2107
Ah I love the future. Thank you!
Seeing as developer salaries are the biggest cost and I just talked about how I've seen fewer developers deliver more over significant time with Rails your comment doesn't make any sense.

Anyway both of our opinions are based on anecdote. It would be interesting to see an analysis on real data but I wouldn't trust that anyone could get that data from industry, correctly accounting for failures.
So who is the head of the FAA at the time of this issue, and who confirmed them?

Let's put the names out in the public.
Since your asking the question, why do you bring them up ?
Here are my scary evals to use basic ANSI/vt220 color.

N="$(printf '\033[')" x=30

for a in Bl R G Y B M C W # 4-bit Black Red Green Yellow Blue Magenta Cyan White
do eval $a='$N'"'"$(( x))"m'" \
b$a='$N'"'"$((60+x))"m'" \
${a}bg='$N'"'"$((10+x))"m'" \
b${a}bg='$N'"'"$((70+x))"m'" # bX=bright Xbg=background bXbg=brgt bgnd
x=$((x+1))
done

N="${N}0m"

printf "$Y${Gbg}I am yellow on green.$N\n"

I pasted this into my Android terminal, and it works as advertised.
Not quite that extreme. I could use it for harmonies if it wasn't too many dissonant notes because I couldn't tell the notes apart.

However, that is something I trained before doing the perfect pitch thing. Being able to pick apart harmonies is extremely useful. Having perfect pitch just made it a little easier.

I always found it hard on the piano. I wonder if it is related to the fact that everything sounds good on the piano, even things that are badly composed. Parallel fifths in a chorale on the piano? Sounds wonky but ok. In a chorus? Awful.
>So those years of experience aren't worth a lot, in my opinion.

That makes me feel better. :p

I didn't start until SUPER late. When I began learning it, I feel like I took to all the concepts like a fish to water and found a passion for it which endures to this day.

I have a hard time imagining what code my younger self would've written without cringing, but I always wondered whether I'd be godlike at it now or just as good plus cringeworthy memories if I started early.
The easier to run it the more competition will emerge.
This paper highlights a crucial aspect of evaluating AI language models: the significance of prompt construction (e.g. adding "think step by step").

When a model is given insufficient context beyond the question, it may generate responses based on its best guess. This situation can be compared to abruptly waking someone up in the middle of the night and demanding an immediate response to a question.

In contrast, when humans are asked to answer questions in a test setting, they are aware of the larger context and the importance of providing accurate answers.
I posted this question without an opinion because I have a strong bias that it doesn’t matter when you start coding in your youth.
I had no access to computing until I was in 11th grade. I feel that it helped me build better mental models because reasoning and build better mental a that I wouldn’t have built if I was younger.

Appreciate the community giving their perspectives, most which are spot on.
> They had a guide or took a dosimeter...

A perfect vacation resort. Just don't touch anything or disturb the soil.
For something like this, I think I would actually prefer that they copied existing code for hashing. It's simple and stable enough to avoid taking a dependency.
It's probably only me but isn't Markdown's main "selling point"/feature the raw files are human readable?

Looking at the screenshots, the only thing the "rendering" provides seem to be: 1) syntax highlights on code blocks; and 2) don't need to count the ordered bullets?

I guess if you need to verify that your markdown can be rendered (e.g no syntax errors), this would be helpful, but for that use case maybe a markdown linter is better?
A few thousand or even a few hundred years ago: sure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQjT3z0ti6U

But not 20 or 50 years ago.
Interesting, can you clarify what configuration in the manifest this would be? Or is it not a standardized pattern and more akin to reverse-engineering on a per app basis?
Are users of old browsers likely to be using high resolution displays?
> Why? Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character.

Where does this line of thinking come from? It isn't true because e.g. MLK, Malcolm X

It sounds like you're trying to psychologize whistleblowing or activism

Where did you learn this from? Did you grow up in an authoritarian regime or something?
Look, this is true from the server side because people suck and use eating out as an excuse to decide whether someone deserves to make minimum wage based on their "performance" but on the tipper side I could not give two shits. As long as I get the food you get 25%. Same with Uber. I think it's gross to make someone dance for their supper. If I want to pay someone to give me attention and make me feel good I'll buy a different service.
Do you think China is the type of the place where people and companies are allowed to do whatever they want?
> If someone’s been driven to Google something you’ve written, they’re stuck.

This is not true. When I evaluate new technology to decide whether to use it or not, I tend to Google or HN around to see what people think about it. The words "just" or "simply" can be a good expression somebody uses to express their opinion about the library.
Low solution rates are nothing new. So is the lack of causality between police funding, crime, and police effectiveness. TBF another poster pointed out that hiring more detectives is effective, and that's plausible.

It's too bad nobody has the political will to get rid of and rebuild whole PDs. That's what it will take to get rid of bad cops.
Isn't the problem that if the risk is entirely hypothetical, you can't define a limiting principal to any hypothetical regulation?

It reminds me of the Vulnerable World Hypothesis - that at any moment someone could invent something so dangerous that it destroys humanity. Given enough time and technological development this outcome becomes inevitable, and ergo we must put brain implants in every child to limit creativity. Do you see the problem?
Being the Nicholas II of Mars would be a legacy.
If you quit at the first point it gets hard, maybe founding a company is not for you.

My advice, stick with it, but understand there are probably 100s of these already. You need to think about what makes your offering unique, especially with ChatGPT + <anything>. It's trivial to wrap an LLM around a small API or block of text.

Have you done any prompt engineering for your product? That will make a world of difference in output if you do it well.

Here's my example:

1. We are trying to address the code gen issues in LLM by combining it with our deterministic code gen tech

2. We spent time to reshape the problem and craft a prompt that works well for this integration

https://twitter.com/verdverm/status/1652504163635347456
> No, they are based on instinctual responses

There is a tremendous gap between the sort of general in-group altruism in social animals that is precisely the evolutionary trait that made them social animals, and human rights. The cultural expression of these social instincts varies wildly, insanely, and no culture from Aztec to Assyrian has ever had norms that were not based on them. Tautologically!
> Modern ARM RISC processors have multitudes more instructions than that of prior generation CISC processors.

That isn't and wasn't the thing that RISC processors reduced.

What was reduced was the complexity of the instructions themselves, not the number of instructions. For example, having complex addressing modes is CISC, whereas only touching the ALU in register-register operations is RISC; the theme is improved pipelineability, so you want less ALU state to have to back out if the memory operation takes a page fault. A number of things (delay slots, for example) follow from that focus on making the instructions as simple and pipelinable as possible.

Here's a guy who helped design MIPS on the distinction:

https://userpages.umbc.edu/~vijay/mashey.on.risc.html
Basically everything you just stated is out of date. You're thinking of old, incandescent electric stoves, which are indeed garbage.

You can heat faster and also adjust heat faster with induction than with gas. Many restaurants are moving to induction. People pushing for this legislation have induction ranges in their house... in fact, most serious people with concerns about air quality have already switched.

The reason why this topic as so controversial is that the vast majority of people don't understand how powerful modern induction ranges are. It's effectively as great a change as geothermal heat pumps will be in our lifetime. They are a total win on every aspect except aesthetics.
Why would all browsers at Substack Co have their user agent changed?
> A group of people that comes together as a larger body or organism can be quite beautiful too.

Sure, but that doesn't have to be a corporation. There are all kinds of terms that describe that, and they don't come with the clear emotional and interpretational baggage that "corporation" does.

The term honestly isn't free of judgement, it carries with it a _lot_ of associations, and you can't just ignore them and pretend they're not there. Well, I mean you can, but you can't expect others to do the same. They're likely to interpret what you're saying as something else entirely.

For example, try talking about "a corporation of churchgoers" and see what kinds of reactions you get. =)
Nah I’m more than happy to agree that I’m making an argument of moral propriety. There has to be some consistent basis for forming laws, and some sort of coherent social order.

But my point is there’s a difference between moral basis for having laws and taxes, and their specific implementation. Consumption taxes are just one approach for implementing a social system build on the basis “fair contribution/usage”, or whatever we want to call it (my views on “moral” behaviour are too nuanced and confused to fit into an internet comment, so let’s just work with something simple). But the taxes themselves aren’t a direct expression of moral judgment themselves, but rather an implementation detail of a broader governing moral system that provides legitimacy to laws and the states rights to enforce them.

It might be a distinction without a difference. But if someone is going to call out consumption taxes as somehow more inherently driven by moral judgments than any other part of a system of law, then I think making the distinction is reasonable.
LLMs are much more than a Google Search replacement, and many interesting use cases require them to have access to private data.
https://archive.is/HG1vv
... well this is embarrassing
That's still a better outcome than people getting convicted just for being on the wrong side of the culture wars.

Failing in the right direction (not locking someone up) is one of the most important characteristics of a justice system.
Having been in some niche commodities sectors myself, Google doesn't always have relevant information and the producers are more interested in their competitive advantages that they’ll let people guess their way to completely inaccurate realities even at the expense of the industry.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are no sources that you respect.
Then you install Principia and realize that everything you know is a lie and it's all about N times more complicated.
2.7% of ALL browser usage is still a significant number, and certainly more than one person.
Glad you found it useful. Yes it should qualify and I wanted to make it a bit meta :). However I think https://thoughtful3.eth.limo is more interesting out of things I've built for myself. It's an onchain Twitter. I am currently using it as my personal microblog - however anyone could use it too if they wanted to to burn a few cents per post.
Or, you know, not dump millions of liters of waste water with all kinds of chemicals in the rivers at all.
I don't think it'll ever be the case. There's an infinite number of unknowns and unknown unknowns. It's a lot easier in our economic system to solve a bounded problem by throwing money at it than for regulations to be enforced politically on what would be 99% speculative problems.
I Was Skeptical About Innovation Advice, So I Put It to the Test
> It’s unclear how the arsenic ended up on the book’s pages, but it was considered safe in small doses in the 19th century, and was often found in food, medicine and even common goods like face powder. An arsenic-based green pigment was used in wallpaper in Britain at the time.

I’ve loved very old books since childhood. But it had never crossed my mind that they could contain physical (chemical) danger.

Let’s just hope that the book in the article is a real statistical outlier.
As long as we don't have a Perfect, True, Unified theory of gravity, I don't think you get to say that "in reality" is self-explanatory. It can reasonably mean Newtonian dynamics or relativity, or I don't know what else.

Would you clarify?
I’ve never rented in a low-income area, but I’ve still had this problem with every single landlord I’ve had. Never did have the pleasure of meeting the “honest landlord” though I have always been, by all accounts, a model tenant.
Incidentally you can play some interesting games with these numbers to present different narratives. For instance, the percentage of murdered men killed by their intimate partner was 6% while for women it was 34%, that's a huge difference. That's basically 5x as many! And that "five times higher" interpretation is emphasized at the top of the PDF as the alternate title.

But if you instead ask, of the people who were murdered by an intimate partner, how many were women and how many were men? That breaks down to 61% vs 39%, still a substantial difference but far short of that evident "5x" from the other framing. Viewed that way, it's more like 1.5x.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
You’re implying it’s thinking about the questions, and it’s not. This is the point: there’s no way GPT has theory of mind because it doesn’t think. It can mimic well but it’s not thinking.
I would bet that if the filibuster could be depended on to prevent movement on these issues, you wouldn’t see close to $15 billion going into federal election campaigns.

Anyway, McConnell successfully blocked pretty much all Obama lower court judge appointments, causing huge huge backlogs in the justice system nationwide and allowing GOP to later install people who are e.g. trying to make the abortion pill illegal.

Our government HAS been changing pretty radically deep down in the bureaucracy. The justice system and election boards are extremely ripe for non-filibuster-able overhaul.
>why should LLMs be different?

Because LLMs are expensive to host. It's more of a case that no one wants to run these on their PCs and it's the cheapest if it ends up running on client PCs instead of your own PCs. Not all use cases of LLMs need a super powerful model that is always up to date.
I wouldn't call modern ARM instructions not complex either
So we should focus on the goons and ignore the boss sending them? Makes total sense.
If only the lego gears (and your arm) could withstand the force required to turn that crank!
Not soon enough, the iOS transcription is terrible compared to even the small whisper model. I really hope Apple revamps voice recognition this fall, but I'm not putting money on it being Whisper quality.
> > We can still regulate the new ai tools, but we must act quickly. Whereas nukes cannot invent more powerful nukes, ai can make exponentially more powerful ai.

> I mean, maybe. Sure, LLMs can currently code shockingly well, and LLMs are just programs, so an LLM writing an LLM is def much more likely than a nuke building a nuke. But we don't _know_ if there are limits to what AIs can do. Or, to pick on the word "exponential," we don't know if there are limits to growth rates of AIs improving AIs!

It seems to me that the current approach to AIs can improve along only two axes: better training data, or better algorithms. I don't think this kind of AI can generate better training data for the next generation of itself, just by the nature of how it operates. It (currently) doesn't know truth from falsehood; how is it going to know what training data is better or worse than other data? And I don't think it can improve its algorithm either. It may be able to implement an algorithm that someone else specifies, but I'm not sure that it can write a working algorithm, let alone an improved working algorithm.

So I don't think that self-improving AI is currently on the table.
Let’s put it this way, even though they had a full video confession it made it to trial…
Unless you're doing training, is there much point in 8-bit for this model size? My understanding is that the larger the model, the less affected it is by quantization; for 65b, 4-bit gives you ~2% perplexity penalty over 8-bit.
Yeah, and just let it build your entire startup for you while you sleep. 20 days in, you will have six figure revenue. /s
I've turned Facebook every time when they come calling for my engineering talents. I don't want to work for a person like Zuckerberg, and 2016 is one of many reasons why. I don't care how much they would pay me, other companies that aren't as evil pay as much. And no, I don't consider Facebook on someone's resume to mean anything. They hired too many inexperienced devs just like Google did, and then dumped them just as quickly. It doesn't mean as much as you think it does to work for FB.

>I don't know, I'm just tired of all these hit pieces on Meta/Zuckerberg.

If Zuck didn't suck so much, you wouldn't see all these "hit pieces". He's not a target because he's rich, he's a target because of the things he's actually done that are evil.
It’s not the same thing and you know this.

Plastic surgery is similar, wearing some make up is one thing, changing the structure of your face is something else.