skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I call

Possibly, but that (that the case mentioned by Tony Robbins is not factual) is not the important thing: it is an example of what is involved in not vetting ideas. Practice ("before accepting an idea, think") that should be a basically held mandate - also (not primarily) given the warnings of a large part of psychology that shows how easy it is to be fooled.

If you want more solid examples, I recommend the speeches from Charlie Munger about "human misjudgement", which take much from Cialdini and consolidated researchers (and have a "been there, seen that" seal from Munger).

Behaviour that is avoidable in humans, we surely do not want in machines. Tools are there to enhance strength, not weakness.

"Before accepting an idea, think": this we "expect" from all.
I don't have time to research now, but there were some well detailed breakdowns of the large payments when the bailout happened.

The first relevant link in DDG is a statement by the Chairman of the FDIC. He claims that the top ten accounts held more than 13.3B between them, which is more than 10% of the total of all deposits in the bank, and more than half of the $20B that the government is expected to payout in total. [1][2]

The FDIC would otherwise have had to pay a scant 3M of that, so there's 2/3 of the bailout just in those 10 accounts. If we include the next ten accounts, it will be much, much more. (One of the articles at the time claimed more than 85% went to 15 accounts, but I didn't want to be extreme without time to research sources.)

[1]: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gruenberg%20Tes...
[2]: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23023.html
Only food is an area where there’s lots of profit, right?

Internet is regulated through phone and cable so profit is hidden into costs and whatnot.

Same for energy.

Rent is hard to determine profit because of the way expenses can be assigned and so much is private landlord direct to renters.
It sounds like your main objection is with conflation of "irrational" with "wrong". It's helpful to describe an extreme fear of heights as "irrational" but from an evolutionary point of view it might in fact be correct because it keeps those genes that give the rest of the population a healthy fear of heights in the gene pool. I think these are different concepts and a person can be both irrational and correct in their behaviour.
Apparently nobody in the US seems to understand that debt ceiling shenanigans and government shutdowns makes them look like Argentina.
With strong type system a la ML (OCaml, Haskell, F#, Rust, Elm etc) it is allready possible, am i wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcgmSRJHu_8
But eventually everyone knows that your gold stars stand for weeks. So how does this help?
Love the idea! It already outdo most of news aggregators. I also agree on comments say: minimalist is subjective, but this might be covered with filters.
Ah, so the best way to provide time estimates so that the rest of the business can do planning is to not work at a business that needs to do planning.
That wasn’t the case at all for fusion. It is that to be viable different scientific breakthroughs in particle physics, and lasers. Especially to the point where the demo recently showed the viability of it. If you read up on it you’ll see that there was a lot of important steps that lead up to the short demo that was achieved. That is my point though, if you read the article even after the ellipses it wasn’t a monetary issue.
>the rent, as always: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

And regarding efficient and just taxes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

It's amazing how people have figured this out in the 19th and 20th centuries yet we're still arguing with bunk neoliberal economics today.
> At present the rest of the world generates a surplus of real stuff and supplies it to Net deficit countries in return for mere promises.

I view the UK/US as exporters of property rights. An entry on the British land registry can confidently assure somebody of a home in 75 years in manner which nothing in the Chinese economy can. Those rights aren't perfect, subject to sanctions etc, but are generally still much stronger than what those investors have at home.

A big chunk of the UK's trade deficit goes away if you count overseas purchases of London real estate as exports rather than investments. Which I think makes sense given the low yields, high taxes and concentrated buyer base.
> ML hasn't done anything new since the 80s

Lol, let me ask ChatGPT what it thinks about that. :)

> I don't believe we've seen any evidence of this

What kind of evidence would you like to have? Do you want a mathematical proof or what? There is evidence that we are making forward progress in solving problems which were previously in the domain of human cognition. There is evidence that yesterday's "impossible" problem become "possible" while the "hard" problems become "easy" or even "trivial". (Just look at this xkcd[1]. When it was published in 2014 telling whether or not a picture contained a bird was indeed a "5 year and a team of researchers" project. Today it is what, an afternoon? A tutorial you pick up to learn a new ML framework?)

There is also evidence that our solutions are tending toward more generalised ones. Previously you would need a "sentiment detection" network, and a separate "subject disambiguation" network to parse the meaning out of a text. Today you can achieve the same or better with an LLM trained to follow instructions.

Obviously these are not "hard evidence" that this path will lead to AGI. But it is certainly not unreasonable to think that it might.

1: https://xkcd.com/1425/
Yeah exactly. What we're looking at here are similar actors reacting to the same incentives. Pepsi raised prices because they can and their shareholders demanded it. Coke raised prices because they can and their shareholders demanded it. Thus 80% (or whatever) of soda worldwide increased in price, without collusion. So you have the failure case of collusion without the cause, which sucks because we didn't really consider that this failure case might have two causes (which, I would argue that we should have, probably back in like 1920).

It's an important first step to realize this is happening. Larry Summers was like, "I don't think suddenly corporations got more greedy", implying that because corporations have been maximally greedy the whole time that that can't be the cause of additional inflation.

But it can be that it causes a new, unfortunate reaction with a new set of incentives, and this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in. It used to be OK (well, not really but let's stipulate) for corporations to be maximally greedy, but now it's not.

So what's the next step? I don't really know. People float stuff like a tax on profits or price controls. I generally think those are probably too blunt, though I could get behind a tax on profits I guess. I might prefer some kind of blanket industry regulation ("Hi Coke, Pepsi, we know you didn't mean to exactly but you inadvertently increased the price of 80% of world soda by 20%--please stop") because this kind of thing seems like it can be nuanced and tailored to a specific situation. Maybe also a prohibition on stock buybacks to lower investor pressure to juice short-term profits--but I haven't thought this one through very much.
And how little they can care about user experience if something ticks all other boxes.
> How does Microsoft think that they can get away with all of this shit?

People keep buying it, so they can get away with almost anything.
It looks very similar to rust, with some minor details like typed enums.

It would be nice to find a direct comparison between rust and cairo, and why writing contracts in cairo cannot be done with just a rust create.
I think llama.cpp might be easier to set up and get running.

https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp
The law of large numbers doesn't help here because a) the error distribution is strongly one-sided (it being much, much easier for something to take twice as long than half as long) and b) there aren't enough projects, typically, for implementation teams to stay stable for long enough for the central limit theorem to compensate.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the relationship between estimate and actual typically followed a power law relationship, in which case speaking about any averaging over time is meaningless anyway.
> old corporate software house who only manages to keep users through dark patterns and anti-competitive behaviour because they have given up on making products which people enjoy to use?

I feel like you lost the plot here. Microsoft fiddling with browser settings is nothing compared to something like Apple forcing a walled garden App Store, to create a fully captured market they can brutally take advantage of. Even today, Apple has banned all browser competition on iOS, and only Safari is allowed to run. All competitors must just re-skin Safari to obey the monopolistic demands of Apple. Imagine if Microsoft banned all browsers except Edge! It would be an outrage! But we all accept that Apple does that and has for 10+ years.

Perhaps we are all so used to the daily monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior of Apple that we do not care any more.

But Microsoft, to me, barely has a drop of the anti-competitive evil of its competitors. Apple mints hundreds of billions by banning competitors, locking them out and charging 30% rent on their monopoly. Microsoft... just wants their re-skinned Google Browser to not die.
Definitely not. I was waiting impatiently after every prompt.

It was downright frustrating to the point I left.

The worst part was knowing what the rest of the generated response would say, yet not being able to cut it off and jump into writing a subsequent prompt.
I have multiple email accounts and the "Correct Identity" plugin is useful for setting rules to ensure I use the correct account for different recipients.
Couldn't you train the model to keep score (develop a heuristic) for it's own level of certainty for a given answer?
Simply put, people don't love Edge as much as they love Chrome. The browser bundled with Windows 11 is naturally Edge, but users who use Chrome install Chrome of their own volition, so forcing them to open links in Edge is extremely annoying.
Are you serious?
The best /useful things for you are PDFs and SSO?
Both of these features are not what makes a web browser super duper.
PDF viewing is available in all major browsers.
<rant> SSO works in all web browsers - unless you’re using Windows XP as your enterprise cloud server running java and oracle and your asp.net web app requires a microsoft browser running in internet explorer legacy mode. </rant>
Is no one cleaning in Boston? It seems pretty easy to test whether it’s a market failure (ie, there are no cleaners cleaning in Boston).

I think if you ask anything vs “new law passed by Congress” I’m going with anything. So at least the invisible hands will eventually solve this problem by raising cleaner pay until someone is willing to commute 60 minutes (note that was my commute in a larger metro area on programmer pay) or cleaners can afford closer.
> isn't the same true for most companies

Technically yes, but not really. It’s specifically valid to observe with regards to Microsoft because Microsoft did in actual fact hold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Apple stock for a decent stretch of time. Most companies did not.

Microsoft chose to sell their Apple stock in 2003. This was entirely their choice. They didn't have to. They could have sold it in 2005 and made an additional billion dollars. They could have sold it in 2007 and made another ten billion dollars. They could have sold it today and made a hundred billion dollars.
Not entirely a correct narrative as both Edge, Safari and Chrome have had their own private link protocols embedded in their own browser products involving other dark patterns.
> Personally I think the limits of this technique are far better than I would have thought 10 years ago.

Honestly I've always surprised at the scepticism AI researchers have had of about the limits of training large neural nets with gradient descent. Where I've had my doubts is in the architecture of existing models and still think this is their primary limiting factor (more so than compute and network size).

I think the question that remains now is whether existing models are actually capable of producing a general intelligence that's well rounded and reliable enough to be competitive with human general intelligence. Personally, I think LLMs like GPT-4 are generally intelligent in most ways and should be considered AGI already (at least in a weak sense of the word), but they clearly have notable gaps in their intelligence such as their ability to be consistent, long-term memory, and ability to discern reality from delusion.

I don't think scaling existing models could possibly address these limitations – they seem to be emergent properties of an imperfect architecture. So I suspect we're still a few breakthroughs away from a general intelligence as well rounded as human general intelligence. That said, I suspect existing models (perhaps with a few minor tweaks) are generally intelligent enough that larger models alone are likely still able to replace the majority of human intellectual labour.

I guess what I'm touching on here is the need to more nuanced about what we mean by "AGI" at this point. I think it's quite likely (probable even) that in a few years we'll have an AI that's generally intelligent and capable enough that it can replace a large percentage of existing knowledge work – and also generally intelligent enough to be dangerous. But I suspect despite this it will still have really clear limitations in its abilities when contrasted with human general intelligence.
No shit, Sherlock:

In Portugal, for most of 2022 to this day, the price of 1L own/white brand of semi-skimmed milk (one of the most basic and essential staple foods) has been the exact same - to the cent - on all different supermarket chains (Lidl, Audi, Auchan, Jerónimo Martins, Intermarché, Sonae, Dia, etc.) operating here. And, it has risen in steady small increments at exactly the same time in all of them, multiple times. As in, price time evolution correlation = 1.0

If this is not price fixing, I don't know what it is. The regulators just whine and yawn.

And obviously, MBA-types haven't read Numerical Recipes' chapters on random numbers ;)
> They don't because they can't. People use ms programs for their daily work, phones are secondary.

I suspect many, many more people globally (and in the US) use a smartphone than use a desktop with MS products on it daily.
They only ask for ID if you're picking up a controlled substance.
An efficient free market was never a thing except in the fever dreams of economists.

Most forms of the efficient market hypothesis have been formally proven incorrect. The remaining ones are harder to disprove but can be tied to other things (ie only true if p=np).

There are literally mountains of evidence that you have to ignore to believe in efficient free markets at this point. The evidence for them has always amounted to "I have a theory, I looked at a market for a while and it was sometimes true. Therefore my theory is proven"

All countervailing evidence is "no true scotsman"'d. No inefficient market is free enough you see.

It’s one of those things that people feel like should be true, but just isn’t.

meanwhile, if you start from the theory that there’s no particular reason for free markets to be efficient, stories like this aren't even news.
> the free market is basically not a thing anymore

The free market was never a real thing. It's like spherical cows in a vacuum. It describes what you would expect to see given a sufficiently large number of buyers and sellers, with no network effects, with perfect information for buyers and sellers, no players with controlling stake of the market, and over a long enough timespan.

In this case, the fact that most industries have literaly been reduced to one or two players, the powerful force of competition isn't very effective at reducing prices. It might eventually, but because there are so few competing sellers, we'll have to wait a long time.
People put up with millions of ads everywhere but a handful of spam mails a day and everyone looses their minds. Meh, I'd rather have the spam then be beholden to centralized gatekeepers.
The FAQ states that “Mojo is still early and not yet a Python superset, so only simple programs can be brought over as-is with no code changes.”

I have no idea how to reconcile that with the quotes you provided.

[edit] Ah, it seems you can control things running in a bundled CPython:

plt = Python.import_module("matplotlib.pyplot")
fig = plt.figure(1, [width, height], dpi)
ax = fig.add_axes([0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 1.0], False, 1), "hsv", 0, 0, 1.5)
...
plt.imshow(image)
But over any time frame that includes the present and FRB, anyone who tried to store value in FRB has underperformed the people storing value in Bitcoin. Many quite badly. It isn't really cherry picking to note that one of the systems has imploded rather more significantly - the one that was regulated and had bad incentives.

What is the value add of all these regulations? We could arguably replicate the system, more stably, if everyone just owned bitcoin and the government bailed out anyone who lost their keys. The regulations aren't doing anything useful.

The role of the regulators here is destabilising the system. We're running a live experiment between lightly and heavily regulated systems here; turns out that less regulation is more stable even with the waste of Bitcoin mining. That says a lot about what the market thinks of the regulators and their regulations - substantial value destruction, and a significant cause of instability. They caused this crisis by loading up the system with debt and risk through 0 interest rate policies.

The regulators are overseeing a system that is underperforming your definition of regulatory success. The unregulated system sees individual companies succeeding and failing but the broader system carrying on. Where the regulators are involved it seems quite likely that the government is going to have to step in and prop up the regulated system again because it isn't sound. Odds are good the bank failures won't end here if it is anything like '08.

> whenever a crypto company fails, the question is always "Will retail customers get their deposits back" and the answer is... basically always no.

That is certainly true, but that is why the crypto ecosystem is outperforming the US dollar system here in terms of stability. People actually have to pay attention to what they do with their crypto.

A 6% raise in rates hasn't been accompanied by mass failures in crypto. Mainly because they deal with the problems by a string of small failures that wipe out an inconsequential number of people and keep the incentives correctly in place. The US regulators disrupted that natural market cleansing and look what it gets them - massive value destruction. And we aren't quite sure yet where the blow is going to hit.
I would love to know, how your captive portal is getting a valid certificate for https://google.com.

The problem is: If the first connection of the client is a https connection, your captive portal has no possibility to redirect this request to the portal.
> Also, let me fire any project manager who pushes back on giving confidence levels (yes, I’ve met several).

My favourite is the ones who not only will push back on confidence levels but will then drill down into any estimates they think are "conservative".
This experience needs more clarification on how it works. So if I single click a link it won't open a browser but render content within Outlook App? Okay, what happens if I middle click? I should preferably get default browser.

As to having Edge WebView2 engine in Outlook and no other - well, that is understandable [1]. Albeit Internet Explorer and Edge Legacy are still used by addins [2]. Actually it was about time to ditch the old IE Trident engine from Outlook and Office apps. On Mac it uses Safari with WKWebView[2]

So is this outrage caused by just introducing a feature where links open within app and it happens to use whatever rendering engine is there for that purpose?

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/webview2-inst...

[2] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/dev/add-ins/concept...

Edit: I re-read the announcment and it is actually something different than an engine - yeah, opens in Edge and presumably shows your email in Edge Sidebar. So nothing to do with outlook rendering engines.
The new Brazilian government still dreams of rebuilding in South America what was lost in the Soviet Block.

They are hard-line socialists and as good authoritarian socialists they want to control and regulate every aspect of the daily life.

This has nothing to do with "fake news" but with media regulation and opposition strangulation. During the last year election period the Constitutional rights of freedom of speech were lifted to avoid "fake news" during the process. The result: only conservative/right content was censored. Real facts like President Lula association with dictators (for example Nicaragua's Ortega) was censored.

The West supported Lula strongly during election and now is slowly realized the huge mistake this was. Lula supports China and Russia, hates the US and dreams of a Great Motherland uniting all South America countries into a big latino socialist republic...
I’m not saying they can’t show intelligence. I am saying that the techniques are very old, throwing more hardware seems to have done wonders. It’s been surprising to see how far it’s come. I don’t think that simplifying intelligence in humans and saying we are LLMs helps the conversation. That along with that these techniques being used while they’ve clearly been improved are fairly old. From an engineering standpoint it leaves me wondering if there are not more elegant solutions. That nature actually is fairly cool, it doesn’t help the convo to downplay wetware I think.
Thats not true, there are Shopify merchants that target immigrants in countries that are exclusively in Chinese, Japanese, Malaysian.. etc

It is easy to sell to a Chinese audience in America, Europe, etc. What is almost impossible is getting Chinese people to buy your thing selling from abroad. It's possible but its out of the realm of easy by far.

And that is the point, an American consumer (even a Chinese migrant) is easily and far more profitable than targeting China directly (so you export to China from another country). And if its not infant formula, its even harder.
Derek Sivers Tech Independence
> I don't understand the "coincidentally" argument.

Nothing is coincidental about those models. They were designed after processes in the brain. They underwent rigorous training to generate a function that probabilistically maps inputs to outputs. Eventually, it exceeded the threshold where most humans consider it to be intelligent. As these models grow larger, they will surpass human intelligence by far. Currently, large language models (LLMs) have fewer weights than human brains, with a difference of a factor in the thousands (based on my superficial research). But what happens when they have an equal or even 100,000 times more weights? These models will be able to model reality in ways humans cannot. Complex concepts like the connection between time and space, which are difficult for humans to grasp, will be easily understood by such models.

> LLMs do not hallucinate sometimes. They hallucinate all the time, it just is a coincident that sometimes these autocompletion of Tokens aligns with the reality. Just by chance, not by craft.

That is such a weird way to think about them. I'd rather say, they always provide the answer that is most probabilistic according to their internal model. Hallucination simply means, that the internal model is not good enough yet and needs to be improved, which it will.
Insanely annoying, I'm with you.