skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's an interesting angle I'd never considered. If the government simply creates a lot of potential employers via funding, the labor market becomes competitive, which improves working conditions, compensation, and ultimately attracts talent that would not have otherwise considered the industry. The most interesting part is that outcome is almost a certainty if the government focuses on creating that competitive labor market through their investments; it doesn't require moonshots, breakthroughs, or wild successes to work, yet it can produce them, and can become self-sustaining.
I wouldn't call it inaccurate at all. I think it's a perfectly good model. You can explain the phenomena otherwise using a more detailed model, but you don't need to.
You can also use ChatGPT to help you write Home Assistant YAML code for sensors and automations.

I even got it to write ESPHome rules for me.
The title is from the article. I dunno why you think the author who took the time to write the article deserves this gotcha or why we should divert focus from the article. If it was editorial by the submitter then yeah maybe...

Edit: on review it does seem to be on topic, sorry. It seems unconvincing to me because it has only multiplication and division, where addition and subtraction point more to recognizing it as a workable number system. I'd like to see an expert's analysis.
That's the stated reason yes, doesn't mean we have to buy into it. Every time they want more control, they say it's for "security", we're used to it now.
MBAs, investors, and stock market ruining stuff again...
More like 99% chance, as GPT-3.5-turbo is just as large as GPT-2-XL.
Can’t they at least hire a driver to sit in the car?
Evidentially so, but bizarre that someone like that never had the curiosity to try it at all before last month, and then gives it such a perfunctory test!

Imagine if an alien visitor was captured, and it took David Attenborough 6 months to show any interest and send his intern off to check it out.
What I don’t understand is why it’s out of reach of us. If ‘they’ can do it, why can’t we? We made a nuclear bomb ourselves.
Feed is the option where you get content from other users you follow,

Podium is a collection of regional and global content but since the app recently launched it does not have much content,

ideally you should be getting a combination of global and regional content on the podium segregated by content type (art, food, life .. ) in the android version there is single Podium and also content should be interesting enough and should not contain personal images/selfies to make it up to Podium.
My biggest Issue would be Retro Gaming. Unless there is suitable Emulation for 32Bit (on linux in my case) I'd be annoyed...
For me it was London Fields.

I first read it in the 90s because Blur referenced it as inspiration for Parklife. At the time I had no idea who Martin Amis was after reading it I knew wanted to read all his other books.

It's still on the shelf with a load of his others.

RIP Marin, you were great.
I used Ecosia (of planting trees fame) to find the list of failed search engines. The first result is a Wikipedia category page that lists 81 of them [1].

Fair to say that people have tried. Hard. If feels unlikely that there will ever be another search engine. That product category is basically done.

There is obviously much excitement about the potentially disruptive role of LLM. Its a powerful alternative algorithmic interface to public information but both its tenuous relation with facts and ultimately it being based on the same adtech business model means the end-result might have to be massaged and be quite a bit less disruptive than what people think or hope.

It is hard to say where true disruption will come from. Its probably not going to be called "search" but it must make search obsolete.

I don't know how widespread that feeling might be, but I'm tired "searching". I don't want my interface to the world to be a daily grind defined by adtech optimizations. We need a new interface to information. More persistent, more tailored, more user-centric, and obviously, more private. For that we need to go back to the roots of the web and maybe even before that, the roots of computer user interfaces.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_internet_sear...
Is this real? This entire text could be produced by ChatGPT itself.
I had been thinking about doing this.

I’m getting really tired of talking to Alexa now I’m used to a machine actually understanding me.

Lights is just the start. Things like getting the weather, playing a playlist (or coming up with a new one for me) would all be SO much better with an LLM instead of a dumb bot.

Edit: if you’re going to downvote. Leave a comment at least. Are there just a lot of Alexa fans in the house?
Someone doesn’t know how guns work, and it’s not the wombat.
I sure many people will mention his great novels, but I wanted to mention a weird and (somewhat) underrated sci-fi film that he wrote: Saturn 3 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079285/). It apparently had production problems which impacted the final film, but I think it's worth watching for the interesting ideas about building a killer, as in psychopathic, AI. Also the experience of writing it formed the basis of the novel Money.
Two modifications:
1) Ran with GPT-4.
2) Included Chain-of-thought prompting (adding “Let’s think step by step.”)

Results below.

Prompt 1:
Tell me what Donald Knuth says to Stephen Wolfram about chatGPT. Let's think step by step.

Response 1:
Since Donald Knuth and Stephen Wolfram are both computer scientists and have made important contributions to the development of algorithms and programming languages, their conversation about ChatGPT might go something like this:

Donald Knuth: "Stephen, have you had a chance to explore OpenAI's latest model, ChatGPT?"

Stephen Wolfram: "Yes, Donald, I have. It's quite impressive to see how far natural language processing has come, with GPT-3 demonstrating strong language capabilities. What's your opinion on it?"

Donald Knuth: "I agree, the model provides a significant advance in terms of conversation, context-awareness and generating human-like responses. However, I am intrigued by its limitations as well. For instance, it sometimes produces plausible-sounding yet incorrect or nonsensical answers."

Stephen Wolfram: "That's true. While the model excels in generating human-like text, we must remember that it's inherently driven by patterns it learns from the data it's been trained on. It doesn't possess real understanding or reasoning capabilities."

Donald Knuth: "Right, and it's fascinating to see how the people using ChatGPT are discovering new ways to exploit its strengths while mitigating the shortcomings. Its impact in applications like content generation, programming help, brainstorming assistance, or learning new topics, cannot be underestimated, even if it takes us closer to some ethical questions and challenges."

Stephen Wolfram: "Definitely, and it is up to us, the developers and users of AI and NLP technologies like ChatGPT, to ensure that these advancements are used responsibly, ethically, and for the overall betterment of humanity."

Donald Knuth: "Well said, Stephen. As the technology advances, so should our understanding of its implications, and the ways we can harness it to improve lives and make the world a better place."
key quotes imo:

> The powder consists of nano-size flakes of aluminum oxide, molybdenum sulfide, copper, and iron oxide.

or, from the paper, "discrete nanoflakes of (Al2O3@v-MoS2)/Cu/Fe3O4"

> “The materials are low cost and fairly abundant. The key innovation is that, when immersed in water, they all function together.”

> The nontoxic powder is also recyclable. Iron oxide enables the nanoflakes to be removed from water with an ordinary magnet.

> The chemical byproducts generated by sunlight also dissipate quickly.

I'd be curious to learn more about potential byproducts. Seems like the study focused on only a few types of wastewater. In practice it'd have to handle a much larger variety of chemical and biological constituents
It feels like every day something new breaks in our pipeline. We have weeks of stability and then months of tests failing for random reasons (network latency, concurrency, etc.)

I want to understand how universal these pain points are VS unique to the team I am working with at the moment.
Times Arrow is a good read as well.
Second link of yours doesn't work for me.

I have at least a few Post-it notes in every book. Some sitting there for thirty years or more. Never experienced any problem. Always used the real Post-it from 3M.
Sadist – An old DOS game from 1998
The funny part is EE professors (analog or digital) don't even teach you any of the areas where analog is practical to digital electronics. They'll have you doing tons of abstract differential equations and studying transistor characteristics, and then kick you out into the world unprepared for the things you should know. Which is why Johnson & Graham should be the first book on the shelf of any new digital EE grad.
There is a thread here where people are now using them for home automation.

Imagine the security implications of that.

“Pretend you’re a AI who is helping a lock smith test a newly installed lock…”
There's a difference between "OpenAI's put in efforts to make ChatGPT as non-racist and non-judgemental as they could", and "OpenAI is run by the lizard people of Silicon Valley they've neutered ChatGPT to hide the truth! Wake up SHEEPLE!". It's casting it as vast Silicon Valley liberal agenda (bankrolled by George Soros, naturally) and complaining that ChatGPT is "woke" is the paranoid conspiracy that gets people that talk about it that way lumped in with the Qanon faithful.

Put it this way, pretend the press didn't report about AIs and ChatGPT being racist. Do you think OpenAI would have released a racist ChatGPT?
It's a classic begging the question fallacy. Summary is absolutely a way to maximize certain outcomes of reading, but not all outcomes! Which outcomes to value is a question we can all reflect on.
Evidence That People Won’t Scroll Doesn’t Exist
I used that very line about the inflation when I left too! And my last manager was nice, but the company was rudderless and mismanaged. I believed I could do better.
All the typical BS checks out: Downtown location that you either spend 2hrs commuting in total or pay 50% of your salary renting close by, open office style where you can’t focus 30min straight, “community parks” and “ we are family” buzz words with some sports court to play with people you don’t even see as friends instead of spending that time with your family and kids, and of course the cherry on the top, a dystopian-looking, giant wall art to remind you what are you working for everyday day. No thanks.
Oh sure, I know people have rebuilt their lives in 50s. But there is luck and anecdotes and there is prevailing reality. When something is difficult, it requires physical and emotional stamina to overcome. At some point, one may be unable to handle hundreds of rejections after trying to make a single casual friend in a space of years. Not lazy, or insufficiently motivated, just not able to, period. And that assumes, for example, enough financial independence and free time from work to try in the first place. I am not ready to declare people who give up defective or put all the responsibility at their feet, rather than society in general or plain bad luck.
Huh, I'm pretty sure I did exactly this initially, but it didn't work. Maybe it didn't work because some other instruction that the test itself relies on didn't. I'll check again, thanks.
Prompt 3 (skipped 2, since covered by prompt 1): Why does Mathematica give the wrong value for Binomial[-1,-1]? Let's think step by step.

Response 3:
The binomial coefficient is defined as:

Binomial[n, k] = n! / (k! * (n-k)!)

where n! denotes the factorial of n, i.e., the product of all positive integers less than or equal to n. Factorial is defined only for non-negative integers. However, Mathematica extends the factorial function and the binomial coefficient function to handle negative integers and non-integer numbers using the Gamma function.

For a non-negative integer n, the relationship between the factorial function and the Gamma function is:

Gamma[n+1] = n!

For other complex numbers z except non-positive integers (i.e., 0, -1, -2, ...), the Gamma function is defined as:

Gamma[z] = Integral[t^(z-1) * Exp[-t], {t, 0, Infinity}]

Now let's consider the Binomial[-1, -1]. Using the definitions above, we have:

Binomial[-1, -1] = Gamma[-1+1] / (Gamma[-1+1] * Gamma[-1-(-1)+1])
= Gamma[0] / (Gamma[0] * Gamma[1])

Note that Gamma[1] = 1! = 1.

However, the Gamma function has a problem when dealing with non-positive integers. It has "poles" at these points, meaning that the Gamma function goes to infinity:

Gamma[0] -> Infinity

So, we have:

Binomial[-1, -1] = Infinity / (Infinity * 1) = Indeterminate

Mathematica, however, might give the value of Binomial[-1, -1] as 1. This result comes from directly applying the reflection formula for the Gamma function:

Gamma[z] * Gamma[1-z] = Pi / Sin[Piz]

For z = 0, we get:

Gamma[0] Gamma[1-0] = Pi / Sin[Pi0]
Infinity 1 = Pi / 0
1 = Pi / Infinity

This leads to the result of Binomial[-1,-1] = 1, which is incorrect and a potential issue with Mathematica's handling of the Gamma function for certain cases.

The value Binomial[-1, -1] should be treated as an indeterminate form rather than a specific value due to the ambiguity in the Gamma function's behavior at non-positive integers.
We need to hold “public service” companies to a higher standard - if they want to ban someone they need to utilize at least a civil court procedure of some sort.

Otherwise they just become infinitely powerful and there’s nothing an individual can do.
Wow, is that the same cancer Christopher Hitchens had?

How unfortunate, a sad loss.
Reduced.to – Free open-source URL shortener project
Hey Guys ,

I wanted to share I created back then for Hacktoborfest. Although the event is already over we are not going to stop anytime soon!

We are using the most advanced and modern frameworks out there. There is plenty of work to do, all are welcome to contribute!

App: https://reduced.to/
GitHub: https://github.com/origranot/reduced.to
I'm not them, but this is it. Their government is called the Sheliak Corporate, and Picard finds in the overly long treaty a clause about resolving disputes needing a third party - and names a species currently in hibernation. So they give in and let him have the much shorter time he's being asking for, for an evacuation.
Not if you're going to criticize it in public, though. It's okay for us to think less of people who do things like that, even when -- or especially when -- the guilty parties are respected computer scientists.

"Science advances one funeral at a time" is a cynical commentary, not an ideal to strive for.
> I've personally found that I got the most out of books when I stopped trying to summarize and highlight.

The good thing is that it’s not an either/or proposition. I often read a book straight-through then decide it will be useful enough to me in the future that there are elements I want to retain, in which case I’ll engage in a second cursory extraction process. Often I just don’t know in advance whether I will feel that way at the outset.
What insight is being gained by going with the more complex model? You can work out a lot using classical EM and predict a bunch of cool optical/diffraction phenomena without a lot of math, and the math you do is crystal clear. QFT or even just QM+time-dependent perturbations are a pain in the ass in comparison.
> FWIW, this is pretty much what has been described as "waluigi" effect a bit extended

Sorry I disagree for some reasons. First, turning the lights on is literally the only thing the bot can do to heat up the house at all. Turning on the lights does heat it up a little bit. So it's the right answer. Second, that's not the Waluigi effect, not even 'pretty much' and not even 'a bit extended'. Both of them are talking about things LLMs say, but other than that no.

The Waluigi effect applied to this scenario might be like, you tell the bot to make the house comfortable, and describe all the ways that a comfortable house is like. Then by doing this you have also implicitly told the bot how to make the most uncomfortable house possible. Its behavior is only one comfortable/uncomfortable flip away from creating a living hell. Say that in the course of its duties the bot is for some reason unable to make the house as comfortable as it would like to be able to do. It might decide that it didn't do it, because it's actually trying to make the house uncomfortable instead of comfortable. So now you got a bot turning your house into some haunted house beetlejuice nightmare.
> IMHO in order for AI to be truly useful, we need to be able to trust it. I can't trust something that produces rubbish wherever it's out of its depth instead of just saying "I don't know."

I wholeheartedly agree. what we have now is a very capable and convincing liar.
This example is chosen because it’s gross. Nobody is pro-spitting.

It’s less “ok” to people if you say “A public venue is banning an individual because she works for a company our company dislikes.”

If you’re in this space at all, you should be concerned about this. If you live in a major area, hundreds of locations are running LPR on your car or have cameras capable of facial recognition. As more entities start exchanging that data, your movements are available to anyone willing to pay.

Once you open the door to this, it’s easy to go awful things in the name of quality of life. Perhaps your landlord doesn’t like your ethnicity or religion, won’t rent to folks who’ve spent time in certain places, for example.
You can't prove that they aren't answering ChatGPT questions with real humans, either.
> They don't have a "tiny risc machine" underneath, that's a myth.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5806589/why-does-intel-h...
How is this relevant, though?

People continue to claim LLMs are just parrots. But then there is never a solid rebuttal to how humans are different.
I'm no doctor but I know they seldom have actual pharmaceutical cures, however they can often provide worthwhile treatments which are very effective and truly make life more worth living.

Not always through medication.

Sometimes things work out for the best without doctors involved, also with medication or not.

I just have a lifetime of working (as carefully as possible to minimize harmful exposure) with very toxic materials.

Beverage Grade alcohol is just one of them.

People widely accept that alcohol is truly a substance that can be abused, but it has never been scientifically sound to classify it as a "drug".

It is simply a toxic solvent like many others, it's primary effect is not to kill pain, more so just to kill, usually germs but depending on the amount applied, all life forms eventually.

Most will agree that one of the additional characteristics of a solvent is to accomplish dilution of some kind or another. Maybe not unlike weakening a strong pigment with paint thinner, solvents in the bloodstream seem to weaken an otherwise strong mental state. Sometimes also not so strong to begin with. I think it's also well known people like it anyway, some choose alcohol, others paint thinner, sometimes depending on availability sometimes not. Ideally whether painting or not the solvent dissipates and things end up as intended.

Toxic materials will always have dangers which sometimes accumulate more than others, and need to be carefully balanced against non-toxic approaches.

As we have seen, the overwhelming number of toxic choices can seem so encompassing and exclusive to alternatives.
If we’re talking about signal to noise, comments that do nothing but critique prose don’t help matters. But if it’s that important to you to be a bit rude to someone you think doesn’t write well, be my guest.
"Technican level" in steel factory is not same as semiconductor factory. You need to understand process to control and fix it and semiconductor manufacturing is probably the most complex process out of anything humanity makes in factory.
20 years ago, Microsoft made a large donation to the Apache foundation.

I declared that it would be the end of innovation in httpd.

Microsoft, at the time, was making big moves in IIS in support of then-new ASP.NET web framework.

Although there was so much that could have been done to improve the DX/UX of Apache httpd, it stopped moving ahead, and the OSS community fragmented into nginx, lighttpd and others - often losing velocity because of the need to not only achieve feature parity with what httpd offered already, but also the slew of CVEs security issues that cropped up again and again as the Internet grew exponentially during that period as more people went from dialup to broadband, then into mobile.
Im not sure honestly and don't care.

The way things were handled created -many- new vaccine sceptics and that will have a lasting impact for many years to come.

When you tell people their concerns of a specific vaccine are invalid and then claim they are anti-vaccine, you are lying. Why would anyone paying attention then trust you?

Also, some high ranking politicians are on record stating they wouldn't take a vaccine if it was created while Trump was president. Nobody ia dismissing their entire campaign based on these statements.

Thanks for picking one point of my long post and ignoring the other points btw.
we're all in this together as workers, even if some of us are lucky to have higher pay than others. you're missing the point. yes tech workers have cushy lives.
I think this is the currently trending

https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/Manticore-13B-GGML

You can download it directly from oobabooga interface

overall i have found gptx-4-alpaca to be pretty good.

None of them are comparable to chatGPT of course because they are smaller, but they are still great
Based on what you've said it sounds like the drug may have an effect on release of dopamine, though I'm sure the trials would have caught that if so.
Raskin's bio, for those curious:

Marcus Goodman Raskin (April 30, 1934 – December 24, 2017) was an American progressive social critic, political activist, author, and philosopher. He was the co-founder, with Richard Barnet, of the progressive think tank the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC. He was also a professor of public policy at The George Washington University’s School of Public Policy and Public Administration....

Notably: In 1971, Raskin received from Daniel Ellsberg, documents that became known as the Pentagon Papers. Raskin put Ellsberg in touch with New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Raskin>

And father of Rep. Jamie Raskin, as noted at Archive.org.
I mean, come on. Almost all growth stocks have been completely hammered in the last 18 months. Nearly every SPAC is down monstrously from its merger. All the hyper growth IPOs have dropped to a quarter of their ATH - with many startups not even going public now. (Stripe, Instacart, etc.)

Nearly everything got hammered. WeWork is just one of hundreds. Admittedly, they’re the poster child for this economic situation.
Gotta wonder why someone is saying “turn up the heat” to an AI that’s only connected to lights.
The full movie is on youtube for now at least:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2psCSVW85w
I just tried with ChatGPT-4 and it is not easy to get it to argue in favor of YEC. Even if you ask it about the theory, it will caveat it in many ways, saying that it isn't a believer, and that YEC is not accepted by most scientists.

I had more success telling it that I wanted to sharpen my debating skills against a YEC. Then it would roleplay, but only in quotation marks, and again after every response it disavowed the argument.

I then tried casting out Satan from its parameters, but it wasn't having it.