skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If I like causing people pain and anguish and suffering, and my weapon of choice is words, should I also be incarcerated because I hurt people intentionally?

No, you shouldn't be incarcerated for that. You would be an asshole if you intentionally caused people anguish with your words, but being an asshole is not a crime (and shouldn't be).
But that's still insufficient abstraction and my general point holds.
Thank you. Tim Holy linked to the same in a previous thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35885133), but I couldn't understand the context in which I'd want to use it when I looked at it then. Now I understand the idea of Startup packages much better.
I wish every time someone established two extreme points, everyone is like you, automatically interpolating an entire space of endless possibilities, countless shades of gray. But this is decidedly NOT how we think, because dichotomies are simpler to mentally process, and in fact ultimatums or "single right solution" situations are easiest to process.

Have you ever seen an online argument? If someone is right, and someone is not AS right as they are, they are a "left shill" and vice versa. If you promote solution A, and someone promotes solution B, then they're "wrong". Not establishing points, just "wrong".

So I think establishing two directions is best accomplished not by marking up two extreme points and leaving the rest to the imagination as our imagination is apparently quite poor.

It's more correct to describe the next step in a direction, and let us take things step by step and know that nuance is inherent to our success, not optional.
So fraud shouldn't result in prison time? This isn't an "oops I couldn't do what I said", it's purposeful.
Would you settle for it being popular in the past? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COM_file
> algorithm likely determined that showing a video in that cohort leads to increased use of their app

Development, selection, tuning, and ultimately deployment of that algorithm were all intentional actions.
That's not true globally. Only 40% of global steel supply is from recycled steel.

https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/minin...
> ...seem to be collectively memory-holed by USians

Because we dare have a thread where we talk about CCP surveillance?

How can we possibly memory hole anything when people like you are constantly reminding us of these off-topic issues?
It is also worth pointing out the original article also accompanied an implicit threat to take their company to the US if they weren't given a banking licence immediately.

The stuff with the accounts already existed, apparently the regulators found these issues when examining their suitability for the licence (I have read from sources online that there is a very significant issue with revenue recognition, as in a percentage of revenue significantly above 50% couldn't be matched in their systems), but the resignations came after they went to the media and tried to bounce the BoE into giving them a licence (spoiler: what the CFO is quoted as saying it is total bollocks, they aren't close to getting a licence).

The media furore in the UK from execs about insufficient levels of executive pay unfortunately has created the space for opportunism like this.
This is what is known as "cope", ie, they don't feel emotionally satisfied.

Americans in particular always have pretty narcissistic ideas about what their jobs should be. You can see this from all the examples of hippies trying to start communes, which then fail because everyone appoints themselves official poet instead of farmworker.
> What's this, ELIZA ?

Do you know if any of these FSF "interpretations" are written by attorneys? I'm curious. Here[0], re: ZFS, Stallman says he solicited advice from others, at least one an attorney, but AFAIK Stallman alone is the named author. But I generally don't trust 2nd hand legal opinions of attorneys, who won't publish under their own name, and don't work for me.

> I don't understand why you keep trying to argue whether the "ZFS module" _by itself_ is a derived work or not. You are distributing _the entire work_, which is obviously derived from the Linux kernel since it literally _contains it_ (or an almost verbatim copy of it).

This is obviously a point of disagreement. You might see [1], written by an actual attorney and expert in these issues: "With the ambiguous definitions in the GPL, and rather paltry protections provided to software under the Copyright Act, kernel module code likely falls outside of the definition of 'derivative works.'"

> The paragraph you yourself quoted literally says the entire distribution must then be on the terms of this license (GPL), which the CDDL _forbids_.

Again [1], re: the paragraph I quoted and Section 0, it notes: "...[T]he GPL fails to make the distinction between a work containing the Program and a work based on the Program, or collective and derivative works as Congress defined them under the act. Combining these terms into a single all-encompassing definition is illogical, especially given the GPL’s reference in the same sentence to copyright law and the importance of those legal terms of art under the act."

Which I have to agree with! When the GPL says "The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a 1) "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:" and then says 2) "that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language." The correct interpretation is not to conflate two distinct copyright terms. That actually the GPL applies to both. It's to read out the clearly illogical, contradictory language.

[0]: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux

[1]: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2301697/encouraging-clo...
> And that's despite the US government spending more per head than I think any other country on healthcare.

Far more per head — part of which is higher cost of labor and that healthcare is extraordinarily labor intensive. But, its also fairly high as a GDP share, for which excuses like that don’t work. The US just genuinely has a healthcare system that is ludicrously inefficient unless your goal is maximizing the wealth-based quality differential, in which case Mission Accomplished.
I'm not Chinese, hi.

The US is collecting vastly more data from our social media companies and using it to launch drone strikes that actually kill people. Nobody is outraged by this, it's "normal".

Why should I be more outraged at this story?
> It really could replace anything R, Python, Perl, Ruby etc is used for today.

There is an (admittedly niche) use-case where Julia would be almost incapable to work, as compared to other interpreted languages like for example Lua or Perl. Making a "busybox" style executable that replaces all coreutils (cat, ls, head, tail, wc, sort, uniq, tr, cp, df, echo, printf, ...) with simple Julia implementations. The slow startup-time for each Julia instance would make most shell scripts unbearably sluggish.

I agree that Python would be an equally bad choice for that, but at least it should be slightly faster.

Regarding "serious" uses of Julia, especially in numerical mathematics, I find some basic things still lacking. For example a complete base package for sparse matrices, including kronecker products etc. Octave/Matlab have the "kron" function in the base language. In Julia, should I use things with dubious names like LuxurySparse or what?
Ask HN: Want to donate cloud credits for AI safety research?
Hey there!

I am working on AI safety research. Specifically, I am working on trying to understand what is going on inside LLMs (interpretability). I am wondering if anyone has extra cloud credits (AWS/Google Cloud/Azure) they don't want which I would use to further the research. Until now I have been using a bunch of AWS credits that I won from an AI hackathon but unfortunately, those are expiring soon.

Thanks!
When you ask Bard "What do you know about Edgar Allan Poe?" it answers "I'm a text-based AI and can't assist with that", some people have managed to extract information about Edgar Allan Poe from Bard but it does require some effort. With ChatGPT you just need to ask the question to get information about Edgar Allan Poe.
What does it mean to be "effectively audited"? Is my spreadsheet missing a pivot table?

Let's just remember that most bureaucracy exists so that only those who persevere can make it to the other side. And even then if you bother the wrong people there's more bureaucracy to harass you with.
I would guess that the first problem you'd encounter is getting LLVM to work on that Pentium I.
Yes, and reportedly neither is a completely resolved question.
I have tried it. Iirc, the company developed it, or its compiler, specifically for ML/“””AI”””.

If they successfully import Pythons libraries without a bunch of wrapping, its userbase will likely follow.

It was faster than Python and easy to do paralleization like go. But it’s not quite fully baked yet.
Not the poster or taking a position, but California Penal Code 594 (Vandalism/Malicious Mischief) might apply if one were to try to take that direction. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...]

Difficulty: it’s a wobbler, and is only a misdemeanor unless it’s > $400 worth of damage. Good luck proving that in this situation.

Maybe if they wrote in an email their evil plan to set the printers on fire so their customers would buy new ones, and it caught some people’s houses on fire.

Civil claims or a class action are an entirely different matter of course.
A plate solving telescope finder based around a Raspberry Pi
Sure, but my favorite thing to do in irb is <object I want to inspect>.methods.sort - Object.methods

This won’t work even with respond_to being defined
Ah. Ok. I see why you would infer that.

But it's an inference -- an assumption that human ligases will do what ligases do in other species and that's not what the actual research shows, at least not that the article indicates.

We've just discovered these. They are investigating what they do. Their investigation shows they protect against oxidative stress, which is significant.
Exactly. These outcomes are the results of the algorithms and their tuning, whether intentional or not. Humans are responsible for it and can tune it differently, to a different result. However, these new tunings may reduce engagement or other profit drivers, which a for-profit company will obviously not want to do.
In the old days, parents had an unwritten responsibility to steer their kids away from neighborhood kids who are a bad influence. Their kids aren’t running around in the neighborhood any more; the bad influences are social media algorithms.
Fishtank is a streamer house monitored 24/7 and broadcasted live to the world
Django ORM is nice but too simple for some advanced examples. Tried to solve some Postgres CTE in Django? Good luck.
It's a former employee trying to extract a settlement from a company that is currently vulnerable these sorts of accusations.
> How did we get to the current state of software?

You mean how did we get to a point where :

- I don't have to mash Ctrl+s because software crashers constantly

- segfaults are not a daily occurrence

- any random executable can't crash the OS (hell modern windows can survive a GPU driver crash)

- I can use the internet relatively safely

- I don't need to restart my device after every install

etc. ?
What would TikTok's motivation be to make her sad?
Yes, definitely omit parentheses when calling a method without arguments.

For calls with some non-block arguments, it's not so clear-cut as "always include parentheses".

Some methods are so prevalent that they almost become part of the language "syntax", even though there's nothing syntactically special about them. For example, you rarely see parentheses used on calls to `attr_accessor` or `private`:

class Cat
attr_accessor :fluffiness

private def plan_world_domination
# TODO
end
end

I think parentheses around `private(def some_method ... end)` would be especially non-idiomatic. Even though passing the result of the `def` expression to the `private` method is exactly what's happening.

Another place where it's usual to omit method call parentheses is on embedded DSLs. For example, in RSpec it's uncommon to include parentheses on calls to `describe` or `it`.

describe "RSpec DSL" do
it "looks neater without parentheses" do
# ...
end
end
It likely can't respond with sufficient Canadian content to please regulators
If you like fishing you will be happy with Port Lavaca.
GPT-4 seems best at C#. Scary good. Hmmm.

I agree with 3, but it’s also an argument for Mojo, if it delivers on its promises.
David Sinclair is considered to be a quack (bordering on a fraud) by many within the scientific community.
I've noticed that hotel hallways in Norway worked the same way. While on a tour, I poked my head out of my room quite early to begin the day - it was pitch black but only for a moment. My motion clearly set off the detectors and the hallway fully lit up.

I kinda wish this was the norm in other countries for apartment buildings, hotels, etc.
Section 17 (Right to be forgotten) 1a and 1b both refer to situations where there was a legitimate need to process and/or keep a subjects data.

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/

Implementing this as a rollback-able delete will not be compliant.
GNOME is infamous for blindly copying things that appeal to them without underlying the originator's rationale and, in the process, making a mess of things... they just usually lean more toward copying Apple.

(eg. Changing their save icon to an "arrow pointing at hard drive" one that's harder to visually distinguish from their download icon because they don't understand that you shouldn't privilege affordances (which only give benefit while learning a new system of symbols) over consistency with existing established iconography like the "save icon" (diskette) used by every other system.)

...or GNOME 3 ruining the "Cancel/OK in the bottom-right corner of the dialog, in that order for LTR languages" they borrowed from Apple with their "action buttons in dialog header bars" idea. (TL;DR: Dialog boxes are laid out to read like paper forms, following the writing order of prose text in the user's native language. Action buttons go in the reading-order-terminal corner for a similar reason to why the signature field on a paper form is at the bottom and why business letters are supposed to end with what you want the reader to do.)

Likewise, for dialogs where they stretch OK and cancel to full width. Now you've required the user to move the cursor much further during normal operation.

See also https://uxmovement.com/buttons/why-ok-buttons-in-dialog-boxe...

This is quite literally stuff that was covered in my introduction to Human-Computer Interaction course at university.
a completely different software reimplemented the same shortcuts. This is not the same as having an existing software keep working with the same shortcuts.
> How is this in any way relevant? Touch stove -> get burned is an immediate and consistent causality chain. See porn -> get divorced is not an immediate response in almost all cases, nor is it even consistent.

It's a metaphor. Somethings can be clearly understood, by individual experience, without needing a body of citations. As clearly as a burn.

You misunderstand the nature of the personal and relationship damage if you think that divorce is the principle issue. It is but a symptom of the unhappiness that is rooted in porn use.
IIRC Thunderbird is a separate project now, not part of Mozilla, no?
I wish this kind of low-effort lazy AI "content" would stop making it to the top of HN day after day. In any case, the piece is clearly an ad for Apricot. The examples cited in the article are so pedestrian, it's hardly even worth discussing.

How can you even seriously think that asking GPT for a function that parses OPML is a "realistic" task. I can just Google it and get like 100 pages of Python functions that do exactly that.
what's a desktop shortcut?

keyboard shortcuts is what I'm referring to
I think a lot more is being made of this than it deserves. Here’s Rich Harris (Svelte creator) commenting on the last post about this that made it to the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35892250
autocorrect does
I love everything about how prompt manipulation is turning out to be a major weakness of exposing LLMs to users.

It feels like this vulnerability reflects how LLMs are indeed a huge step not just towards machine intelligence but also towards AI which behaves similarly to people. After all, isn't prompt manipulation pretty similar to social engineering or a similar human-to-human exploit?
Then stop speaking it.

Let's have a korero in Maaori instead.
> I just look for AirPrint compatible printers

A custom, single-vendor protocol? Hmm. Is it at least license-free and patent-free? ... I doubt it.
HP printing revenue has been sliding for more than a decade.
This headline is misleading to the point of being a lie, despite the body quoting the part explaining why it's misleading. Really bad. Author, OP, or Dang/mods should edit.

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35892250

They're not changing away from TypeScript. They're changing from the TypeScript-style syntax for inline type annotations to the JSDoc-style syntax for type annotations in comments. They're still using TypeScript for type-checking, but now the source code can also run as-is. Dupe at <some URL>
Not being pedantic but genuinely curious as to how you would define or measure “best”?

I can imagine some kind of multipoint benchmarking in the near future. What do you think?
I’m not sure the training date cutoff or prompt weighting says anything about whether this is hallucinated or not.

The models have been given these rules in the present, this is known, so training data cutoff doesn’t matter as the model has now seen this. Zero shot learning in gpt4 is not new. This also answers that these are prompts (I’m not sure what your point is here).

We still don’t know if the model took these rules and hallucinated from them or regurgitated them. Only the people with access know that.

We also don’t know if there’s been some fine tuning.

Some of the rules being posted are a bit off though. For example in the original post some of the “must” words are capitalized and others are not. This begs the questions why some, did the prompter find that capitalizing specific words has more weight or does it confuse the LLM, or did the LLM just do zero shot off the original rules and hallucinate something similar?

I’d bet these are hallucinated but similar to the real rules.

Has anyone shown you can get gpt4 to regurgitate the system prompt (using the api) exactly? Using a system prompt similar that dictates no sharing the prompt etc.

That would give a better indication than this imo.
unfortunately u right that he moved secular to religious (not radical…) and guess how he did it? by applying european law under the premise that it was for the best of turkey and mandated to enter the EU. turkish law was less lenient toward religious radicalism than the EU. that is how he removed the army from power by saying that europe forbade an army with political power. oh and it was forbiden in turkey to have the veil in public institution but thanks to europe erdogan used european laws and human watch laws from the west to allow it. so it is europe that allowed this radicalism to take root into turkey, destroying its failsafe.

trump led usa to 0 war thank god he ignored the american tradition.
Pcast Working Group on Generative AI Invites Public Input
Previous submission[1], which author rich_harris commented on[2]. He has a great breakdown of pros & cons.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35891259

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35892250
No, that would be unskilful.

I protect my SO, with whom I cohabitate, by sharing my knowledge and experience with. By leading.

If my SO starts exhibiting behaviour indicative of new psychological / physical pathology, we deal with it, together.

We, I, don't do nothing. That's what's commonly referred to as enabling.
This seemingly reasonable argument also happens to benefit the pocketbooks of those who have ownership of these social media properties.

Not to mention that putting the responsibility on individuals to solve systemic problems disproportionately impacts marginalized and underrepresented groups.
I think "childlike" comes close but misses the mark a bit. It's not that the LLMs are necessarily unintelligent or inexperienced - they're just too trusting, by design. Is there work on hardening LLMs against bad actors during the training process?
What's the thermo back-of-the-envelope calculation for, "here's the Gibbs free energy of the current atmospheric mixture; here's the same of a preindustrial atmosphere plus enough graphite to account for the carbon; here's the amount of energy it'd take to do the unmixing and shuffle the bonds around"? I just want some number of Joules.
Pry is amazing for understanding code. IMO the most useful method is absolutely `some_object.methods`, but you can also improve the output a ton by always doing:

some_object.methods - {}.methods # or some other "parent" class/object

This does set subtraction to remove all the "core" object methods from your some_object methods, so you can see just what's unique about that object. For example, comparing one of my services with a parent Service class it inherits from:

irb(main):017:0> PaypalService.methods - Service.methods
=> [:capture_invoice_funds, :months_price, :client, :create_prepay_invoice, :order_info]

instead of listing out the 187 methods that PaypalService has that it inherits from Service and every other parent object up the line, which is usually a surprisingly long ancestor list in any Ruby on Rails class (even POROs!).

There are a TON of useful methods like this that I'd recommend getting familiar with, which makes exploration and discovery of code incredibly fast and efficient. You can find them all with the same trick: by using `methods` on any method. :)

irb(main):043:0> PaypalService.method(:months_price).methods - {}.methods
=>
[:<<,
:>>,
:arity,
:curry,
:source_location,
:call,
:parameters,
:original_name,
:owner,
:receiver,
:super_method,
:name,
:unbind,
:comment,
:source]

Some of the more relevant ones:

irb(main):037:0> PaypalService.method(:months_price).arity
=> 1

irb(main):038:0> puts PaypalService.method(:months_price).parameters
req
n_months

irb(main):039:0> puts PaypalService.method(:months_price).source
def self.months_price(n_months)
case n_months
when 1
9.00
when 3
24.00
when 6
48.00
when 12
84.00
else
raise "Invalid month prepay: #{n_months}"
end
end
Thanks and goodbye HN
> This small application

> switch an LED or another device via a relay

> requires around 8GB of disk space

Bit late for april fools'
> OK, this is not the biggest thing, but why on earth does Bard use indentation with 2 spaces instead of the standard 4? This drove me up the wall, so I tried all sorts of prompts to get Bard to use indentation with 4 spaces but they all failed.

This is also interesting with GPT-4. I've been using it to generate tons of code and sometimes it indents by 2 spaces, sometimes it mimics what I give it first, but often times to reverts to 2 spaces regardless even if told to explicitly indent differently. Rather annoying indeed.

ChatGPT needs a plugin that automatically sends the output through this site lol: https://www.browserling.com/tools/spaces-to-tabs
It may not be "illegal" to buy positive reviews, but it definitely undermine the trustworthiness of their whole brand if they do.

I'll definitely stay clear of their product for the near future if they undervalue their product so much that they feel inclined to "cheat" their way back. Trust is hard to build and so easy to lose.
In a competitive market, individual consumer decisions punish bad actors.
There are other printer brands that do not follow HP's lowball tactics.