skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
1. Rule of probability: The concept of statistics is being used to predict outcomes based on previous observations or experiences, such as the likelihood of an object falling when released.

2. Rule of inherent knowledge: Some understanding or knowledge, like objects falling when not supported, can be known without explicit study or exposure to the specific terminology (e.g., gravity).

3. Rule of generalization: Observations or experiences with one type of object (e.g., a smartphone) can be generalized to other objects or situations, as long as they share similar characteristics (e.g., not being supported).

4. Rule of causality: There is an implied cause-and-effect relationship between an action (releasing the grip) and an outcome (the smartphone falling to the floor).

5. Rule of experiential learning: Knowledge can be gained through direct experiences, even if the specific terms or scientific concepts are not known.
> Maybe our own brains are nothing more than overrated statistical machines?

This is a tired assertion, easily disproved for current llms (read some of Lecun's stuff) and if some variation is going to be claimed, it needs to be an affirmative defence. "Maybe x is true" is a meaningless statement.
This IMO is a HUGE business opportunity to whoever solves it. I'm not so sure it's impossible actually. Maybe just impractical.
> Maybe we've simply found the number of parameters needed to simulate the function of "human level intelligence".

Have we? That seems like a huge reach.
"Serverless" is one of those names that kinda-sorta-almost makes sense: It's that your code runs "on no server (in particular)" rather than "on no server (at all)".

Someone stripped off that nuance in trying to come up with a concise buzzphrase for code that expects ephemeral access to an arbitrary server.
I agree that our justice and prison systems need a recalibration to one, focus on violent crime, aggravated sexual crime, property crime, and de-emphasis on personal vice correction while also trying to guide prisoners to a better path.

At the same time, I wish to point out most other prison systems in the world are similar or worse and suspects before they become prisoners have fewer legal rights afforded them.

That said, the catch-and-release as well as the watch-and-do-nothing approach we're seeing in some places are aggravating crime and they are not doing anyone any favors, the criminals or the victims.
Was the EPA a mistake because heavy industry without dumping loads of shit in the rivers was a theoretical solution that reduced diversity?
I note how you and other posters here are referring to "cultures" when Tucker Carlson was explicitly referring to race, not culture. "white" is not a culture. Tucker Carlson was not making a comment based on a neutral anthropological analysis of European cultural values as derived from Christianity and as they apply to the ethics of organized combat, which, again, don't actually exist but one based on racial stereotypes, specifically, black racial stereotypes related to violence and criminality.

He even admits this. It shouldn't even be debatable.

I'm not going to continue further because it's obvious you're trying very, very hard not to grasp such a simple and obvious point. I'm afraid you might sprain something reaching so hard.

And no, calling someone racist is not itself highly immoral in today's time and place morality, and thus equivalent to racism itself. Your rationale is as puerile as it is obviously in bad faith.

Good day.
I think those numbers lump the emissions from goods produced in china and exported to other countries in with the emissions from domestic consumption. So they are inflated by China's vast exports. Yet even if you use consumption based emissions, China was around Spain's numbers in 2016 and by now probably has overtaken quite a few of the European countries.
Riffing on this in from another HN thread which I brought email and the spam problem into .. it's noticeable this writeup doesn't say "then install postfix or sendmail" because for some time now, the last thing you want to do is try and self host even with a mail-in-a-box precanned recipe: it's just wiser to go with a hosted solution, but consequently incur some risks of capture and cost.
That's a great response, thank you!

As a sidenote: is the windmill hub open-source too? Does it make use of the base product to operate? I think it might be a good candidate for showing what your product is capable of, as an actual example of use in production
Yeah, locking up Elizabeth Holmes and SBF for running a small business will destroy respect for the law for generations. How dare we?!
That's a very transient, localized effect. I have a hard time imagining it making a real impact, though if you can reference a study showing otherwise I'd be interested.
> LLMs directly incorporate the "learning" material into their models.

No, that's not how it works.

> read a chapter from a book, memorize it, and then proceed to rewrite verbatim with the names of the characters exchanged,

That's how a bayesian markov chain would work, not transformers.
I’m not really interested in managing the addictions of other people. Anyone who wants can already smoke meth by the gram.
> You can see glimpses of this with bing.

Oh please. The human gives the verbose output meaning by projecting onto it. You're clearly letting your emotions run wild. It's a fucking LLM.
Even if he couldn’t, so what?

EV subsidies were made as a way for the government to encourage consumers to buy electric cars and encourage car producers to make electric cars. It’s not like they were made with the purpose of making Musk rich and literally any other car manufacturer or rich person wanting to make a car manufacture could have done the same. Should the US have never subsidized electric vehicles or should have all the car manufacturers have ignored the subsidies and continued to to completely ignore the EV market?

Complaining that someone filled a market niche that the government very intentionally created just seems so weird to me.
The problem area seems to be property crime without direct violence.

It can ruin the victims life just as much as non-lethal violence (taking away a person's source of income, or transport required to keep a job, or wrecking a business they've spent many years building), but many take the 'it's only property, it's probably insured!' attitude.

And many at least see stealing from 'big nasty corporations' as relatively OK. But if people keep stealing from businesses until they close down or relocate and there's no easy shoplifting targets, will the thieves stop, or will they move on to stealing from homes?
It would be nice if the naysayers could offer an argument in favor of it being "just statistics", or even explain what that even means. There is reason to believe these models are demonstrating the traits of understanding in some cases. I argue the point in some detail here: https://www.reddit.com/r/naturalism/comments/1236vzf/on_larg...
They're not the same, but speaking as someone who's been both cities, there are some interesting similarities . Both endemic corruption by a single party which uses social issues as a ploy to forestall reform. Baltimore is a poor city that has been forgotten, whereas SF is a rich city in the limelight. Baltimore's problems begin much earlier, SF's problems are relatively more recent; but the rot in both speaks to a deeper shared problem in American society.
The article isn't doing anything more then quoting experts in the field.

From the article:

“It is certainly much more than a stochastic parrot, and it certainly builds some representation of the world—although I do not think that it is quite like how humans build an internal world model,” says Yoshua Bengio, an AI researcher at the University of Montreal.

If you remain unconvinced then the only conclusion I can make is that your an expert yourself on a scale of even higher in eminence then Yoshua Bengio here. Also don't forget Geoffrey Hinton, the Father of the modern revolution of AI, you must be more of an expert than him.

Let's be real. These people are saying something along the lines that it's more then a stochastic parrot and we aren't sure what's going on. But you're saying it's absolutely nothing more than a parrot and your unhappy with with pop Sci media quoting experts who are just saying they don't know?

Are you saying pop Sci media should quote you? Because you absolutely know what's going on and that it's definitely nothing more than statistics? I'm asking a stupid question here because I don't think this is what you're saying. You're not stupid, you know that what these experts say have merit.

So my question for you is why do you remain so unconvinced in the face of experts and other intelligent people who clearly say no one understands? Your opinion here actually represents a large group of people who very violently deny/dismiss what even many experts are saying and I'm curious as to why?
Of course it's just statistics, but so are we.

Define intelligence. Say you took a human brain and kept it alive in a mad scientist's pickle jar. Let's assume the brain's wired up so it can hear and speak, it's got an idiot savant's memory, and someone has just read it the internet.

What do you think the most impressive things are that the brain could do, that GPT-4 couldn't ?
My hot take is that music is vastly underdetermined by text prompts, leaving too much control up to the model, so it's kind of doomed to produce Muzak.
There are some cheap options to get out. Live at a hostel in San Fran! https://greentortoise.net/tradework.html. Work in the UK! https://www.workaway.info/en/hostlist/europe/gb?region=Engla...
What is the meaning of your philosophical approach? As in, what is the proposed consequence of such hubris or humility?
I don’t see what additional attacks this enables.
> There are alternatives like Bitcoin

How is it a bad-faith argument to accurately state that using Bitcoin as a "bank" would be far too volatile for basically everyone.

The alternative -- which doesn't require fad technology and buzzwords -- is "narrow banking": deposit-only banks that don't loan money out, and therefore can easily survive a 100% run on themselves.

Hell, this doesn't even need to be a for-profit business. The Fed should just offer consumer accounts, free of charge. The USPS could offer banking services at their branches for people who need to do things in-person.
> In effect you‘re saying that countries that are poor today must not be allowed to reach the level of western countries. I don‘t have a good word for it but that‘s a very specific worldview.

Being charitable, it’d clearly be an environmental disaster if everyone in the world consumed oil at the per capita level of OECD countries. I imagine global oil consumption would multiply manyfold.

> Wealthy countries pioneering the widespread use of these technologies will reduce cost and allow developing countries to deploy them in the future.

I too used to think this, but it seems like most of the progress in solar has come from China. Similar with nuclear power plants.
This is a deeply incurious take.

Yesterday I wrote a Python script, used dis.dis(code) to output its bytecode, and gave the bytecode to GPT-4. From the bytecode, it correctly decompiled the exact script I'd written (python bytecode includes variable names, so this was possible), explained what the code does, and explained what the code would run output if it was executed, all correctly.

It doesn't have access to a Python interpreter. It simulated one, both to decompile the bytecode and to predict its output. That's reasoning.
Windmill Hub is not open-source, not because we want to keep it private but because I wrote it a bit quickly using svelte kit and it's not ready for the world to see yet. It does not use windmill to operate but every actions trigger a windmill webhook and alert the discord.
Hold on there bud, please don't speak for all of us. I'm quite confident that I and most people, even some other men, do not share your risk profile. I prefer to just be a decent person.
I'm curious in what you meant by there's no way to automatically perform hardware testing in CI server?

Is it hardware testing at the simulation/emulation level as a "digital twin" or hardware as testing as in hardware-in-the-loop (HLL)?
I'm not exactly sure if it's a "strongly held belief that I've changed my mind about", but lately I have come to suspect that technological advances may have an inevitable (or nearly inevitable) effect of fostering centralization and concentration of power. Note that this is one on which I deeply hope that I'm wrong!

And I may well be, as the "concentration of power" effect is - I believe - unlikely to be strictly a consequence of the technology qua technology, but is rather an effect fostered by the confluence of the technology itself and our legal/social/political system(s). And the latter are potentially subject to change in ways that would allow technological advances to benefit everyone without creating ever increasingly concentrated pockets of power and leading us inexorably towards a cyberpunk dystopia.

That latter point is one on which I deeply hope I am correct.
Three of those four changes (tweet length, paid checks, timeline changes) have made Twitter substantially worse to use. Now every reasonably popular tweet's replies are drowning in irrelevant novel-length screeds and emoji-laden nonsense from paying users.
> As others have pointed out, you're looking at the comment section of an account that posts political satire.

Which account is political satire? The Babylon Bee or Elon Musk’s personal account? I kid.

> What do you mean by "these types of political statements"? Right-wing ones?

I intentionally didn’t label it. Where on the spectrum does a statement like “women can’t run companies” lie? To me, the issue isn’t political. It’s that people whose entire identity is founded upon fighting a culture war seem to be the loudest voices on Twitter. It makes the product very unpleasant.
Well, I've been there, in his living room in California, about 5 years ago checking them out, which he'd bought a few years prior. He's an executive and very conscientious and law-abiding, not some scofflaw with nothing to lose.

No, I didn't check the laws, serial numbers, registration, etc. But your comment did make me do a quick search which turned up many references to "California-Legal" AR-15s.

The 1989 law was basically a list of products, so it was easily evaded by making similar products and slapping a different name on them. California tried to tighten up the law in 1999 by specifying features, which was then worked around by adjusting the features. The 2016 San Bernadino shooting provoked another tightening, and I presume he bought it before that went into effect.

Here's a key quote: "In 2016, California enacted a law to provide a statutory definition for the term “detachable magazine” to clarify that firearms outfitted with bullet buttons are restricted. People who lawfully obtained these types of guns before Jan. 1 2017 could retain them as long as they registered them with the California Department of Justice in time." [0]

The article found after a quick search indicated that he needn't have been so worried, as the manufacturers also found quick work-arounds to that set of restrictions. It also mentioned that there were something like 189,000 currently registered... so yes, obviously extremely possible to have one.

QED was nothing, except that you know almost nothing about the topic; perhaps consider refraining from posting stuff about which you are obviously ignorant and then doubling down. Sheesh

[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/california-assault...
Sure, but this is just a further symptom of the problem. Maybe it made sense to do a depositor bailout this time, but I don't see any reasonable structural changes that will prevent this from happening again.

Ideally we want no bank runs, confidence in the system, and banks that keep their risk profile low enough that they can survive a big chunk of their depositors deciding to take their money out. What changes have been made since SVB's failure to achieve this? What confidence do we have that another SVB won't happen next year or whenever?
This is a misunderstanding of the researchers' claim, for which I blame them rather than you.

You are using their study to claim that LLMs can not learn and reason about novel tasks. Their study doesn't make any claims about what LLMs can and can't do. The study says that when it appears that LLMs suddenly became able to reason about novel tasks, what actually happened is that the ability of the LLM to perform reasoning improved gradually and smoothly during its training until it could do those things. They are not saying that LLMs don't have emergent capabilities: they are saying that those capabilities emerged at a continuous rate rather than a discontinuous one.

Do you see?
Let for the sake of argument, assume that the LLM is truly sapience. Then this would be the first alien intelligence we have ever encountered. All life and intelligence we have seen before were organic, carbon-based life, including the most distant and unintuitive ones like the cephalopods, cetaceans, and primates. Even now we are still arguing whether these creatures are intelligent or they are just "not there" yet. We refuse to acknowledge their higher reasoning capacity regardless of evidences like rudimentary communication, social structure, tool use, etc. And these are things sharing >70% similarity to us.

An LLM is so different and alien we would literally incapable of imagining their thought process even if they are pummeling us with evidences of their intelligence. It is just how it is. So I think it is futile and even foolish to try to quantify or create criteria for "intelligence" when discussing AI. Let it be and accept it for what it is: something we humans have created that can do lots of stuff.
Yes. Though, the crazy thing is, a lot of things are in fact easier but not done with resources well spent (on global scale, not personal).

Related:
I read the other day — and only then realized the full absurdity of it — about how if we want to a share a file quickly between two devices in the same room, for most people (non-tech / -devs) the fastest way would go through a server on the other side of the planet.
Your negative takeaway is entirely based on perspective. Nothing you mentioned is necessarily negative. Take your mention of email for example. Sure, it’s introduced some new annoyances. Its net effect of providing an instant long-form asynchronous communication is hugely positive.

On the “was this made by a human” front, I think society will adapt. LLMs will introduce bigger problems than email (I’m already dreading the hellscape of fake product reviews) but the net effect will be hugely positive.
Depending on circumstances, it would seem like "I want maintain my pile of cash at roughly its current purchasing power value" is as valid as "I want to bet on making it bigger--based on long-term trends for certain investment classes" (or some combination thereof) as investment strategies.
From an interview[0] with Charles Weiner in 1966 Feynmann reminisces about not wanting to go Princenton and rather staying at MIT after graduating, because “MIT is MIT”, but does so only after being persuaded by one of the professors from MIT. I think he made several remarks of MIT having a high status at the time.

[0] https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral...
Not necessarily. A PD might well be much better than an affordable private counsel. It's definitely better to go private if you're rich, it depends on specifics if you aren't.
Having some liquid assets is obviously of some value.

That's not what you were advocating for though.
> Absent legislation...

So write that legislation! The fact that such legislation in the wake of 2008 was so politically unpopular speaks volumes.
If you like weird, sci-fi stuff, I can't recommend 17776 highly enough: https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)
I think to some extent it's using the attention to pay attention to which "statistics" to pay attention to.
The downward slide has been happening for a long while, but it was still better than a lot of what was being broadcast on TV in a lot of countries and was cheaper than cable.
Fraud requires intent. Lying is behavioral.

Pathological liars don't intend to deceive. They can't seem to stop themselves. They literally hallucinate events even when presented with evidence to the contrary and we still call them liars.

A "hallucination engine" presented as a source of truth is fundamentally dishonest. We don't go to fortune-tellers when we need legal advice. We don't learn law from reading every Matlock script ever written.

A human hallucinating behind the wheel and plowing into traffic gets jail and a license suspension. An AI doing the same gets a press release about FSD being right around the corner.

This tech is literally replacing humans (by abstraction of the responsibilities they assume). It needs to be held accountable as one even if it's not technically AGI (or wherever the goalposts are being moved to next).

But our continued faith in tech as a growth industry depends on it not being perceived as a lie, so we must keep up the illusion that your car is just suffering from cyberpsychosis when it hallucinates and drives you off a cliff.
Ah the good old golden age, back in the days things were so much better. What a load of bs.

Not sure if this is part of the article, I couldn’t read it. There are plenty of flaws to the modern western world order, and the culture wars and moral posturing can often go overboard no doubt, but it is vastly better than what came before.

These arguments are nothing new and have been made many times before to justify bringing in an oppressive authoritarian new regime, be careful what you wish for.

1. The older culture was aristocratic and saw rewards as inherited or given by divine right. The newer culture aims to even access to opportunities for all. Performance is still prized and rewarded, and more so than before because achievement is more open to all.

2. The older culture sought status and was cruel to the disadvantaged. The newer culture still seeks status, sometimes from competence, but also tries to be caring to the disadvantaged.

3. Oh please, the older “manly” culture is the most conformist by its very nature, if you are not manly enough you will be spurned or worse. The ones constantly attacking anyone standing out are the same people always decrying the loss of “real men” and calling for making things great as they were in a completely unrealistic always idyllic golden age.

I could go on the rest of these points but they are so asinine.
Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Perilous Power of Respectability
At least 14%. From their own page:

"Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR."

>7% Federal appropriations via CPB

>7% Federal, state, and local governments

Source: https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...

Furthermore, NPR was built by public funding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadca...

>Tesla and SpaceX get far more public money than NPR does.

And neither one is a media organization, so I'm not sure why that's even relevant.
Embryos that learn inside the egg