skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Again, a reminder that this is an across the board terrible awful idea.

It's all the dangers of 3rd party passwords - namely, before you had two parties, now you have three and thus inherently less safe - but worse.

Now, it's just even HARDER for you to control your own keys to your own stuff.

There's one and only one reasonable way to execute this, and that's to include huge liability for the 3rd parties. Unless they'll pay up or otherwise fix in the event of a breach, this is a non-starter.
At the time, attacks on healthcare were very much top of mind for everyone.
That’s not and never was the point. Nintendo is harsh with both piracy and homebrew as was rightfully pointed by all the people you are ignoring.
>You can go and see what I’ve been up to. Ditto for me being curious about you.

I think this is probably one of the worst features (alongside downvotes / upvotes) about HN, Reddit and similar sites. If you are anonymous your opinion can be taken for what it is without any bias and ad hominem due to your previous comments. We can argue in one thread about something, and agree in another without even recognizing each other. It makes one focus on the content of the post and not on the personality of the author.
I guess I'm not too surprised in that, unlike domain names, these aren't obviously exposed to end users, so terseness doesn't particularly matter. Verbose and descriptive is honestly better for most names.
I refuse to play their game of $5/mo for new subscribers then it jumps to $20/mo after the trial period. Sure, I could call and threaten to cancel and get another $5/mo period but I'd much rather just pay $10/mo and never have to play those games at all.
aren't androids linux? thats the biggest by far end user platform.

of course google doesnt want to acknowledge it too much.

https://source.android.com/
> Then those layoffs further lower salaries

Is there evidence of this now?

What I see is a small fraction of the open roles I'm used to seeing.

Compensation, on the other hand, is the same at these big companies. If not even higher than it was a couple years ago.
There's actually a NIPS (Nostr's equivalent of RFCs) which introduces a proof-of-work scheme to prevent spamming.

Event IDs are a SHA-256 over the event's payload and metadata, so the idea is that you put some extra metadata saying "I'm doing a bunch of extra work to generate an ID with N leading zeros in the ID", and then a nonce value. You generate the ID, and check to see if it has the number of leading zeroes you wanted. If it doesn't, you increment the nonce and try again. If it does, you're all good- you sign the event and send it along.

Because the ID must be a SHA256 of the rest of the event, you have a fairly good indication of how much work the client would have had to do to generate that nonce. The more zeroes in the ID, the more effort they would have had to expend.

So, as a relay operator, you can define a policy that you won't relay events that don't meet this proof-of-work requirement, and boom, no more spamming.

Of course, there are other ways to handle the spam problem, such as requiring authentication mechanisms or external attestation of messages. But there are multiple tools in the toolbox here.
honestly yes it's smart(doesn't mean it's kind), if I was selling 6 figures cars
I'd do my best to milk customers in every possible way as long as it's still
profitable in the long run

mercedes isn't selling baby formulas or epipens

plenty of other brands will take your 100 years of 3rd world salary to give you some shiny vehicle

should I cry for some pampered millionaires who just want to drive faster?
This is the glaring omission in this piece.

Googles know _so much_ about me. Is it not reasonable to assume powerful llm + personal data = personal tuned LLM?
Let's go through your guesstimates one by one:

1. We don't know what the number of parameters is, could be 175B, could be 250B, could be 400B. Ok, let's stick with 250B.

2. Training data: GPT-3 was trained on 300B tokens. It already used most of the high-quality data available on the internet, but let's say they somehow managed to find and prepare three times as much high quality data for GPT-4. This means GPT-4 was trained on about 1T tokens.

3. 5.4e+17 FLOPs/hour means 150TFlops, which is half of the BFLOAT16 max theoretical output, sounds reasonable.

4. $1/A100/hr is reasonable.

OK, so we need to divide your cost estimate by a factor of 15: Total cost to train GPT-4 comes out to be around $2.7M.

Regarding Altman's statement about "more than 100M to train GPT-4" - I'm pretty sure he was talking about the total cost to develop GPT-4, which includes a lot of experimentation and exploration, many training runs, and many other administrative costs which are not relevant to the cost of a single training run to reproduce the existing results. Just salaries alone: ~200 people worked on GPT-4 for let's say half a year, at $400k/year: 0.5 * 400k * 200 = $40M.
This really ought to mention https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui, which was the first popular UI for LLaMA, and remains one for anyone who runs it on GPU. It is also where GPTQ 4-bit quantization was first enabled in a LLaMA-based chatbot; llama.cpp picked it up later.
Definitely had a choice in putting a round into the chamber.

Definitely had a choice in placing the sight between their eye and the victims.

Definitely had a choice in sliding a finger through the trigger guard.

Definitely had a choice in disengaging the safety.

Definitely had a choice in squeezing the trigger.

They had plenty of choices that day.
Will it distribute training across multiple GFX cards? I have a 4x 2080Ti box I would love to be able to use for this sort of thing.
How about education, polite warning messages, time limits, instead of a total ban. I think this hardline treatment of young people is unacceptable, probably something entrenched in society from past generations, with its origins in religion. There are much better middle ground solutions to the problem.
Slim margins say nothing about competitiveness. You can lose money in uncompetitive or competitive markets. You can have huge margins in competitive ones.

Also I don't think the 10.5% profit margin of Mercedes is low - the average for the S&P 500 is 11%.
Path based bucket addressing isn't supported anymore, so this must be a legacy bucket:
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-s3-path-deprecation-...
> If you want to really prove someone owns a domain, make them change an authoritative DNS record.

You're not wrong (ignoring how easy it is to hack DNS), but at the same time it's hard enough to get people to buy their own domain name, nevermind understand the system well enough to add a TXT record.

It's a strategy that's fine to implement when your target audience is server admins. It's a terrible strategy when your target audience is everyday users who you hope own their own domain. Doubly so in a world where owning your own domain is so rare for individuals.
Your compensation has very little to do with the profit margins of your well-established employer.

(Tesla is profitable. Uber is not. Who pays their software engineers more?)
Grep is an AI!

Now excuse me because I have to finish my startup deck.
I wouldn't be worried. This is just Google operating from the same playback as when they failed at social. It's as if Google wasn't invited to the party, so they decided to throw their own. And then go on about how some of the guests at the former stole their outfit and game ideas. If you recall, Eric Schmidt and Larry Page put the company on high alert and made it a priority to integrate Google+ into all their products with the same finesse as mixing oil and water with predictable results.

However, if Google's failure at social and their complete inability to seriously penetrate any other mass consumer market via organic efforts without an acquisition shows -- Google may have deep technical chops but their product and go to market is essentially broken. This is not a technical issue that can be fixed with the same approach Google takes to everything, but rather a culture issue from within the company itself. They have repeatedly demonstrated they can't launch anything new that remains sticky -- what is the last major new Google product you can't live without? They publish a lot of papers but routinely can't see the forest for the trees.

Google had all the technical resources in the world (and in some cases, even a launched product) to compete with social but lacked the culture of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram at the time to adequately compete with it. Executives are so far removed from what actually happens and comfortable such that they aren't willing to take big bets and have a limited attention span, with too many choices for which to pick their favorites.

We're talking about the same company here that tried to innovate on one of their core products with Google Wave. The bar for success is so incredibly high at Google and that is their weakness: they are unable to make any single new thing a success. A startup has a limited amount of time, money and pivots; at Google they are essentially unlimited and that will be their downfall.
It's a complex function involving social and environment stressors which effect progression, and social and cultural context which effect manifestation, and there's also feedback between manifestation and progression.

I think it's widely accepted, albeit in a somewhat loose way, that the reason "schizophrenia" was not previously attested is because society explained the behaviors differently and often in less negative terms such that there was less positive feedback that negatively effected progression and manifestation. An archetypal example would be that someone who experienced hallucinations might be understood to be highly spiritual, a mystic, or just quirky. Moreover, people lived in more tightly knit family and social groups, so someone who had trouble taking care of themselves would be more likely to live with or near compassionate family members. And if someone did become a poorly kempt recluse, that didn't by itself turn them into complete social pariahs, so they could more easily have some minimal normative social relations. OTOH, if someone just completely fell apart and died from exposure, or antagonized the wrong person and was killed, the cause wouldn't have been attributed to a mental disease, per se.

And the effect of culture goes even deeper. Hallucinations among those living in modern, western societies tend to be more paranoid and violent; more likely to involve the threat of "the government" or "they" than, say, a beneficent god or playful tree fairy. Or more specifically, as seen in many recent anti-Asian assaults, acting out racial animus received from the culture. The increased negativity in hallucinations and behaviors feeds back into progression directly (more stress from the hallucinations) and indirectly (people are more afraid and wary of you, so you more quickly become separated from supportive social networks).
It seems to me that `sizeof` returns the number of bytes that the thing takes up in memory. For example:

int numbers[] = {1, 2, 3}; // sizeof(numbers) = 12

> Your confusion (besides the pointer thing) is that 'x' is a funny way to write an int, not a char.

Yes, this might be it. So the way to get a `char` value that contains "c" is to use type coercion and write it as `(char) 'c'`. This changes the representation in memory so that it now takes up only one byte rather than four, right?
Anything touching the DNS records for the root of your entire web presence is not simple and needs substantial review.
I created a rich text system for posts to handle things like links and mentions with the eventual goal of it being the basis for all kinds of rich text (bolding, italics, spoiler tags, etc)

the flexibility bit us on the butt. people started faking mentions via the APIs and one user figured out he could pack 1000 mentions into one "@everyone" and cause us all to get notified. pretty predictable in hindsight but I dropped the ball there
One of the comments on the article notes a 7950x doing "time/url=109ns"

so I tossed it on my 5950x and it reports "ns/url=148.994" which is about right from what I understand (zen4 gets a nice ~30% bump on a number of Linux benchmarks over zen3), here its 35% with only a 16% clock advantage.

Which is about the diff between the M2 and my old 5950X in a generation older process/etc.

So, yah current M2 slower than previous gen Intel and AMD both in this benchmark.
> Heavy marijuana use increases schizophrenia in men, study finds

So it is not a problem unless i already have schizophrenia.
Wait - nobody had ever created a bucket named xrpc before, ever? I would have imagined that short s3 buckets were squatted similar to domain names. (Or maybe they were, and it's this person who did so!)
Yes, the first thing I tell someone laid off is that the world is better off with efficient capital deployment. They should know better and not have any emotional reaction. It’s purely logical after all. The CEO should have put that in the letter.
(If you don’t own the trait either, that is. Your own traits can be implemented for foreign types.)

Rust’s approach to the Hash and Eq problem is to make them opt-in but provide a derive attribute that autoimplements them with minimal boilerplate for most types.

Also, Rust’s Hash::hash implementations don’t actually hash anything themselves, they just pass the relevant parts of the object to a Hasher passed as a parameter. This way types aren’t stuck with just a single hash implementation, and normal programmers don’t need to worry about primes and modular arithmetic.
The tax was planned by some EU countries but it has been cancelled on pressure of US government, defending the interests of large companies like Google ([1] & [2]). The legislation for this tax may have not addressed exactly the Mercedes case, but in general the idea was to tax more digital services, which I believe the Mercedes subscription would be qualifying for.

[1]: https://www.dw.com/en/us-reaches-agreement-to-end-european-d...
[2]: https://www.politico.eu/article/washington-big-tech-tax-talk...
I realize this isn't what you meant, but fusion is readily achievable, and has been done by children: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Wilson. It's energy positive fusion that's hard.
There is no need for quote here. The entertainment industry works on heavy marketing and over promotion of a few champions at the expense of every other artists. That’s indeed a system. The market is both about what is bought and what is sold.

I personally feel perfectly fine with strongly curbing the free market with legislations. It’s not the be all end all nor is it working particularly well.

Mass media geared towards easy entertainment successfully erased decades of effort into educating the workers and creating structures to give them a voice. I personally view the entertainment industry as fully complicit in a general dumbing down of the population. Should we applaud the opium peddlers in the name of the free market?
I love the idea of this!

However whenever I see such good abstraction I always worry that when my project gets big and complicated there will be things which are not possible to do, and at that point switching will be super expensive.
I think it’s a nonstarter because the n00bs and n0rm1es will have no idea what to make of it, and will quickly go back to passwords because they just work predictably.

To me it reeks of something that looked great, when you show a room of engineers. But for regular people?
Yes and that will reduce pork by no longer mandating the Army to buy a specific number of tanks that are built in an important Congressman’s district when they really need money to fix a barracks.
> it allows today's leaders to create obligations for folks who didn't vote for them

It's not practically possible for a person of any age to have voted to prevent the massive spending and subsequent debt created by it.

Unpopular opinion: after politicians reach the level that you recognize their name, they're all the same.
I hear ya! I'm out here dying on the GPT-4 API waitlist too. I use gpt-3.5-turbo's API extensively, and occasionally copy my prompts into GPT-4's web UI and watch as it just flawlessly does all the things 3.5 struggles with. Very frustrating since I don't have GPT-4 API access, but also very, very impressive. It's not even remotely close.

I pay the $20 for ChatGPT Plus (aka, GPT-4 web interface access); personally I find it useful enough to be worth paying for, even in its
rate-limited state. It already replaces Google for anything complex for me. I wish I could pay for the API too, and use it in my projects.
It's missing two common error handling techniques:

-ignore them
-squelch them ("this could never happen")
Sure, but if a billionaire can piss away 40B during an ego trip (which I imagine billionaires are susceptible to), most billionaires would no longer be solvent after making such a mistake
Thx. Also. Yikes!
Google flights will let you input the number of bags you are checking/carrying on to produce a "final" price.
It used to be fairly common practice for skilled hackers to patch the way they got in, to avoid their borrowed systems from being invaded by skids.
AI #10: Code Interpreter and Geoff Hinton
> Passkeys are bigger than that, they're not device bound. That's a really big deal that both Google and Apple have been advertising about their implementations -- you make a passkey on your phone, lose your phone, buy a new phone, and you get your passkey back.

You're interpreting "device" differently than I am, here. Maybe let me use a different word.

There's a physical hardware device (the device's "body") and then there's a particular installation of an OS (the device's "soul.") Unlike humans, these device "souls" can leave and come back (restoring from backup) or be reincarnated into a different body (transferring a backup to a new hardware device.)

What Apple, Google, etc. are claiming is that passkey credentials are bound to the soul of your device — the unique installation session that resulted in a unique product-key "activation" in their servers — rather than to the body of your device. So wherever the installation goes, the passkeys go along with it.

But this does not mean that passkeys are portable between installations. They still inherently represent "devices" — just semantic, abstract devices, that may be incarnated at any given time in zero or one physical hardware devices.

And, again, this is exactly how Apple's and Google's own device enrolment for sign-in to their respective cloud accounts works. I have devices listed in my iCloud account that currently have no "incarnated" form — the hardware was wiped, sold, and is now being used by someone else! — but those unique installations do still "exist" and could be "reincarnated", as long as I keep my iCloud Backup of them.
>You never hear about these things happening on random cheap Android phones or PC laptops. Well, at least I don't, but you hear about them semi-frequently regarding Apple products.

For the same reason that Li-ion batteries degrade over time regardless of what sort of device it's in, but the Planned Obsolescence headlines are reserved for Li-ion batteries in Apple devices.
Having a picture of the cloud coverage every 10 minutes sounds very useful to improve the nowcasting of solar energy production.

I’m excited to use this data, if it’s easily available. Perhaps it will be through the Norwegian Meteorological Institute at some point.

https://www.met.no/en/free-meteorological-data
I also built a chatgpt UI that was focused on early readers and kids. Feel free to clone and modify if you like.

https://github.com/paul-gauthier/easy-chat
Do you have the same feeling when e.g. starting a project using React? Why?
Ulaa – A New Browser from Zoho
Similarly to books, the large language models communicate information that comes from somewhere, from people. They use math (such as statistics, though I'd argue that's an oversimplification of ML applications) and computer programming to do this just like a book uses words and ink. Debating whether or not weights reflecting some word statistics can "contain intelligence" is similar to debating whether or not the pages of the book "contain knowledge".

Personally that strikes me as a kind of literalistic perspective. Articles like the one posted here remind us where the "intelligence" _really_ comes from, which as you say probably isn't the word statistics themselves, though maybe you'd accept that LLMs can "encode intelligences" just as books can "encode knowledge". Encodings are meaningless without a little decoding! Decoding is a process of meaning making, almost by definition.

A more interesting question along the same lines of the one of whether or not LLMs can "be intelligent" or "contain intelligence": Can LLMs be embodied by some being or beings? Personally I think the answer is very clearly yes, but in a super basic way that a lot of people would dismiss as dull... we embody them when we interact with them or build them, when they cause palpable effects to us, near or far, direct or indirect. That's the life force that lives "inside" of technology. It's the same life force that lives in us. Except it leaks everywhere, it's not contained. It flows through through inter-relation and interaction.

Are there "other" non-human beings that embody LLMs? Or books for that matter? At the very least the aggregate industrial forces that produced them would be good candidates for having some kind of beingness, and also for embodying these tools. So that's where to look if you want to find some "other" intelligence. These tools are quickly becoming vital parts of very large more-than-one-human organisms.
Here's two great examples of the standard's ineffectiveness

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10508494

https://debugger.medium.com/usb-c-was-supposed-to-simplify-o...

Apple has stringent regular testing standards on MFI certified cables - they regularly buy them up "in secret" to continuously test that they're meeting cert requirements. If memory serves, the contract stipulates Apple can levy massive penalties for "bait and switching" actual certified cables with inferior product.

When the Nintendo Switch came out, Nintendo, being Nintendo, wired the USB-C adapter not to spec, so you'd need a Nintendo power brick to charge the thing. This lead to people trying to use the Nintendo charger on other devices (because USB-C looks like USB-C) and frying them/ blowing them up.
I learned Emacs first, then Vi(m), then I went back to Emacs but with Evil-mode. It's truly the best of both worlds in my opinion.

Much like you, if I need to edit a quick file, I can just fire up Vi or Vim and be on my way. What's nice about Evil, for those unaware, is that I can turn it off whenever I want and go back to Emacs' key-bindings.

However, I have Emacs bindings set-up to work while in 'insert mode' in Evil.I think the package is called 'hybrid-mode' if I am not mistaken? It's been a while since I looked at it, so I apologize.

I find that both styles have certain advantages. For example, If I want to jump to the end of a line to add a semi-colon or something, I rather just Crtl+e while I am in 'insert mode' vs Esc -> shift + a

Though if I want to jump to the corresponding open/close curl brace, I rather use Vi(m) bindings.
okay so clearly you don't know what you're talking about because they do use existing standards/DNS as the primary way to validate domain ownership. It's free to not say anything and read the comments first before going off about something!
"- All users are ID verified. - All users pay a monthly (1$ or so) fee."

That will absolutely NOT stop bots.
Ok, but there’s a set of laws called the federal arbitration act and everyone agreed to it. There isn’t a federal guy-breaking-your-legs act because that would not be a good idea.
The first foldable phone engineered by Google