skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If the goal is to reduce the number of fatal mistakes, why is that argument garbage?
What do you expect ? He is one the person in the world who has most the earned the right to take that attitude .

Both Knuth and GPTs are aggregators and presenters of knowledge, Knuth is however the antithesis of a LLM .

He has painstakingly spent years to make sure not a single mistake, not even a typo is there in material he publishes , he has devoted years developing a better typesetting so he can present his material accurately.

His obsession with accuracy is unparalleled and his dedication and mastery over communication to explain complex topics precisely and with an approachability that no one else comes close to .

He has strived for perfection all his life and not been far of the mark .ChatGPT for its all powers will never share that idealogy,

so I am more surprised that he was complimentary at all, and actually appreciated many of its skills
That question is like asking a film lover, "what film is over two hours"? The answer is "lots of them". Branching isn't considered gameplay. And of course fans are against gameplay, the genre is defined by the lack of it. Once it has enough gameplay it's not a visual novel anymore, it's a regular game.
It's just a more complicated way of saying "personal experience"
I think people mostly use it as a pretentious way to say “self reported experience” or “data from living people.” Things that are based on personal experience (anecdata) and perception rather than anything tangible. Which is important data to consider but often not very useful since perceptions are coloured by beliefs. Using case studies of personal experiences can also be biased towards more extreme experiences or perceptions that are outside the norm.

I have heard of someone describing their “lived experience” of discrimination. They perceived discrimination in many situations where they had no evidence that the other party wasn’t impartial. But often the implication is that “lived experience” represents some form of truth that cannot be questioned.
I don’t know Knuth. I understand LLMs for precisely what they are, how they’re built, the math behind them, the limits of what they’re doing, and I don’t over estimate the illusion. However while I see people over estimating them I think they’re extrapolating the current state to a state where it’s limits are restricted and augmented with other techniques and models that address their short comings. Lack of agency? We have agent techniques. Lack of consistency with reality? We have information retrieval and semantic inference systems. LLMs bring an unreasonably powerful ability to semantically interpret in a space of ambiguity and approximate enough reasoning and inference to tie together all the pieces we’ve built into an ensemble model that’s so close to AGI that it likely doesn’t matter. People look at LLMs and shake their head failing to realize it’s a single model and single technique that we haven’t even attempted to augment and fail to realize that it’s even possible to augment and constrain LLM with other techniques to address their non trivial failings.
I'd dearly love one, but nothing appeals. Let's here some good ideas.
If it weren’t for gpt all we’d be talking about is layoffs so thank you very much i’ll take ridiculous ai talk over the alternative.
Here's some research supporting the claim that ChatGPT has a political bias, which generally aligns with the contemporary American centre-left:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2023/05/08/the-polit...

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/3/148
That's completely wrong. Please try to understand the basics of how this works.
What about “her emails”, Comey’s announcement, the Kavanaugh background check/tip line, the Durham investigation? Not to mention that every FBI chief has been a republican and the current DOJ and FBI chiefs are both republicans with federalist society allegiance.
Right, but LLMs suggest that learning how to predict and only training on predictions is sufficient to learn anything and to have emergent generative abilities. What if learning to predict the upcoming input is all that's all that is needed for general human intelligence? What if it is all that any animals do?
I remember a friend being confused by downloading. He didn't realize that meant we'd have a copy and not that the source would lose it in the process.

It seemed bizarre at the time, but, tbh, I didn't have _that_ much better of a model of how the whole process worked.
> language encoded way more information about reality than we thought it did

Language is roughly what separates humans from other apes ... so why would it surprise us that it encodes much of the information of civilization?
Keep in mind this is lagging indicator of 00s PRC academic reforms where PRC institution building and adding millions more talent into academia. There's been magnitude increase in talent generation, ~5m STEM per year for last several years or roughly OECD combined that's making their way through pipeline while tertiary system continues to expand and improve. I surmise these indexes will get increasingly lopsided going forward.
The article says:

> In a statement following his arrest, CODA, Japan’s Content Overseas Distribution Promotion Organization, asserted that, “in principle,” any use of gameplay videos requires permission from the rights holder.

The legal situation might be different in other countries.
I miss the days of browsing offline. That stuff is completely broken these days, right?
That argument is orthogonal to whether a company should prevent those parts from being used. Less wasteful is someone buying a used phone and then swapping parts, which serialization prevents.
OpenAI could make it easy to answer this question, if they provided access to different checkpoints in their model for comparison:

(1) the foundation model (before any RLHF)

(2) RLHF for instruction-following – but not for "safety" or "truthfulness"

(3) RLHF for "safety" and "truthfulness"

But, I don't believe OpenAI gives public access to (1) or (2), only to (3).

I'm also wondering if they maybe they intentionally don't want for it to be easy for people to answer this question.
The question is whether you knew how that sentence was going to end when you started writing it, or indeed whether I knew that I was going to add this comma-separated adjunct when I started writing the preceding clause, and I cannot honestly say at this precise moment of typing whether the final word in this sentence is going to end up being 'yes' or 'no'.
The Bitter Lesson – Rich Sutton (2019)
I don't even think they make less mistakes than humans period: they usually compare numbers against all driving instances including those performed by incapacitated humans (drunk or extremely tired human drivers make the bulk of the "mistakes", but humans can—somewhat—control whether they do any driving then).
VR is useful in its current form. Self driving tech is being used for lots of assistance feature. They just haven’t changed the world yet.
I'll let you in on a secret: There aren't actually any "AI experts". There are machine learning experts, that is, people whose expertise lies in designing and analyzing systems that perform (semi-)automatic inference on data. But nobody can be an expert on "artificial intelligence", because we don't know what that word really means. We don't even know what intelligence really is. We have no idea how the human mind works. We don't understand emergence, at all, which is why we continue to be surprised when it happens.

So it shouldn't come as a shock when eminent figures commonly labeled "AI experts" make predictions that turn out to be fundamentally and embarrassingly wrong in a very short timeframe: They're just talking out of their behinds, like everyone else.
While not perfect at the moment, huge strides are being made. There's a noticeable improvement in ChatGPT-4's ability to understand intent.
Asking to "Pay 300 towards my credit card from my checking account" isn't a very complex ask, and is unlikely to be misunderstood.
It's also much simpler than navigating through 6 traditional UI screens.

Confirmations will obviously be a requirement, just like they are in traditional UIs.
> The issue with all these experts is they still think it's human nature to be able to fully understand the world before they speak about it

None of the experts think this.
I think this is somewhat misdirected because most end users don't know to think about reliability. When the storage fails, "the computer broke", they take it in somewhere and the tech gives them a fixed system with the data gone but had the CPU burned out, they would be just as accepting for the data to be gone in that case too with a "sorry couldn't save it".

The marketing might include a x-million r/w cycles in it, but it's going to be way under presented vs the speed.
Exactly, and OpenAI has been around nearly 8 years, consumed huge amount of data with tons of compute. They are just showing us the product now.

It is possible they've reached some 80/20 point and he is pretty honest about how much more extendable the current approach really is.

Would explain going to congress and asking for regulation (of their not-quite-there-yet competitors who they want a regulatory moat against).
I feel that 'we in the middle' are ignored.
Maybe 'the middle' is too polysemous here.
The person to the left and the person to the right are shouting at the person in the middle. They often have uncharitable arguments, and they often take arguments from the other side uncharitably. The person in the middle is ignored.

Tug-of-rope game theory means that no-one is going to start pulling from the middle. People join the (extreme) end that they want to slightly drag the conversation towards. Maybe that's part of it.

I wonder how many $XX,XXX I have historically spent on labour, for things that I now get in seconds. Data entry / manipulation? Sure. But also wisdom / knowledge. Entire industries HAVE collapsed over night. And will continue to collapse. And ignoring that - Why are so many assuming that AI is to be a human-replacement, rather than a limb/exoskeleton?

And why is the conversation 'This is magic' vs 'You are stupid, this is just pulling the wool over your eyes', rather than 'This is a valuable tool in our toolbelt, that will clearly create trillions in value - Just like search, just like the resistor, just like the lightbulb'.

I don't understand.... I'm not claiming LLMs to be magic. I'm not saying they are indications of AGI. I'm not saying that the world as we know it is over.
But this is important. It's clearly important. It's clearly valuable. It has shown itself to be.

Yes, ChatGPT lies. OK? We know. We cater for that. We don't expect it not too.

It feels like talking to classic rock enthusiasts that dismiss electronica et al entirely. Fine, but god_damn_ you are missing out on some incredible sound design - My heart breaks daily from what I pump into my ears - Some from rock, some hip-hop, some electronica, and most excitingly, the >2000 merging, where the synergy of genres learning/borrowing from each other is.... just. great.
Sit back and enjoy. It is not marvellous?
ChatGPT is obnoxious, annoying, repetitive, avoidant, argumentative . But I'm still able to appreciate its value.

We could stop, right now. Freeze ChatGPT in its current state. It will still create trillions in value. I don't care if future improvements are incremental, at this point.

JUST the 'tip of my tongue' / synonymous words value from ChatGPT is useful. Not having to know exactly what term to plug into google.... This is the glue that binds the gray, while before we were stuck with the black and white.

At the very least, this is another 'Google it' revolution - In the 1990s, I remember idiots (inc. me) arguing in the pub for 8 hours, over facts that should have been verified within 10 seconds.

I, for one, am enjoying my new bionic arm.
"Kilroy was here" was a meme before "meme" was coined. I don't think the phrase "before memes existed" has meaning.
It is pretty easy to correct the behavior if they are still kids. In fact, that’s how you prevent spitting adults, by disciplining kids so they can grow up to not so that kind of thing. This culture of just letting kids do whatever they want without consequence is why things are just more messed up today.

But ya, peeing college students shouldn’t registered as sex offenders, urinating on a tree when there are no open bathrooms around, even the cops understand that kind of thing happens sometimes.
Most of the time when people find a maths problem that they can trick the model into getting wrong, it's also possible to get the model to give the correct answer with better prompting.

A trick that's worth knowing is just to ask the model to give each step in the solution and explain as it goes. This gives the model "time to think" and leads to better results.
I only skimmed the article, but I couldn’t see any tangible measures? Even the KPIs seem to be based on perceptions.

Would it be possible to also include data on value of software created? Maybe use historical sales data to map development effort to revenue? Maybe there’s situations where developer experience is optimal (lots of freedom, no meetings, personal project budgets) but limited commercially useful work gets done.
> so why would it surprise us that it encodes much of the information of civilization?

The Humanities are largely considered superfluous in the tech world, why are you surprised that they are surprised?
That's ok. Many projects don't care about discovery. (As in being popular/brand name, rather than being possible to find if someone needs that specific thing) And even those that do can rely on people searching for "python package for frobnicating" and finding it somewhere else.

I'm publishing my code for the benefit of others, not mine, so if someone writes the same thing and pays to get it published, that's fine with me.

> I’d need a compelling reason to use such a project vs one distributed via pypi

Apart from trivial projects, there's not that many alternatives you can swap out. Your choices may be "use such project or write your own".
But your better wording would mean you can't discount the advice of real public health experts! Not on monkey pox or other issues!
Tldw..?
In their current state VR and self driving aren’t on the same level of usefulness as LLMs, not even close.
What sets physics apart from the other physical sciences that there are no "X Lectures on Chemistry" or "Y Lectures on Biology"? Surely if there was a will, there would be a way. Genuine question. Feynman's work may not be the be-all, end-all of physics, but it covers every base. Would it be possible to do that for other fields?
> it's "read" a significant fraction of everything we've ever written about chess

I doubt heavily that a significant fraction of chess's writings are even available in digital format, much less inside of CommonCrawl and correctly trained on.
Generally people use that word to mean "wisdom" or at least "some reasoning ability distinct from what animals have".

Edit to add: From a personal perspective I don't see any reason to think humans have qualitatively different reasoning abilities from animals, or a unique "soul" or anything like that, so the term "sapience" doesn't really have a special resonance with me like it might for someone who thinks those things. That may affect some judgements here I don't know.
Very true, but you can literally buy new transmissions for 70 year old cars.

More importantly, the issue of serialization prevents reuse of parts already in the wild, such as buying a broken phone for parts, often in an on-demand way.
Because it's unacceptable to replace a perfectly good driver in control of their vehicle with a vehicle that might just randomly kill them.

Traffic accidents don't happen randomly at all. If you are not too tired, drunk or using any substances, and not speeding, your chances of causing a serious traffic accident are miniscule.

These are all things you can control (one way or another). You can also adjust your driving to how you are feeling (eg take extra looks around you when you are a bit tired).
Yeah I think the use cares for these things are far narrower than the boosters & hype cycle think.

If you could have unlimited interns for $0 (let's pretend it doesn't cost tons and tons of compute) that don't shutup, hallucinate & lie, and also do good work, in varying degrees.. how many would you want?

These things are probably going to be great for lots of blackout - propaganda, political marketing, flooding the zone with BS of unlimited iterations of messaging. Basically things that can be A/B tested to death, where veracity is of zero importance, and you have near limitless shots on goal to keep iterating.
I had a friend in college who lived in a trailer; he had a mortgage that was something like $17/month. The majority of the expense was renting the spot.

The truth is there already is cheap shelter available .. just not near downtown LA.
I definitely don't know enough about trading. So please forgive if this is just naive.

From what I gather, the problem is matching sellers to buyers. Sellers list what they're looking to buy, and the price they're willing to pay. Buyers list what they're willing to sell, and at what price. Let's say each offer is valid for 100 ms (that's a reasonably short time span, no immense risk for the entity making the offer).

But I find it difficult to understand where speed (on the level of HFT) ever becomes a factor in this game?

If the HFTs looks at different exchanges and work as gel between them, making the trades between exchanges that otherwise wouldn't happen, that would make sense as a valuable business.
Is that their purpose?

Although, it still seems to me the slower buyer and seller would prefer to come to an agreement alone without the middle man taking part of the profit.

If the trade enabled by the HFT would've happened the next 100ms clock cycle anyway after the buyer and seller noticed each other and adjusted their prices, I don't see the value of the HFT trader. Seems they're just hacking the system.
I agree the types of data they consider could be widened.

How would you quantify how much “what and why” has been defined? Some kind of diff between the planned architecture or requirements on day 0 and the final codebase?
Ah yes, redis, the first distributed KV store that wasn't NIH.
Interesting.

Apparently in The Politics of National Security (1979), see the back-cover blurb.

Internet Archive appear to have garbled metadata for that book with another, unfortunately:

<https://archive.org/details/politicsofnation0000rask>
When I was in a condensed matter PhD program at Cornell they ran an excellent weekly Colloquium series which I always looked forward to even if the topic was astrophysics or particle physics.

I went looking and didn't find anything in Math, Chemistry or Computer Science that came close to the quality of the talks and the feeling that the large department was a community of interest.
That simply reaffirms customers don't care about reliabilty as they do the price tag.
> Think Karl Marx, not Edward Gibbon.

This is one of the more important sentences in this piece and I'm surprised they didn't expound on it.

marx is obviously linked to socialism (for good reason) but Marx was hardly unique in this leaning at that point in history. For example, Abraham Lincoln sounds an awful lot like Marx here [1] eg:

> Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.

Sounds an awful lot like the Labor Theory of Value [2] doesn't it?

Anyway, what the authors are referring to here is Dialectical materialism [3], which is the more important output of Das Kapital. Why? Because it frames economics, politics and history in terms of material outcomes, which is a far better predictor and explainer of such events than principles, philosophy or other "superficial" factors.

Put another way: you can analyze events through the lens of capital and wealth. War and revolution can be viewed as the ultimate means of wealth redistribution and an inevitable outcome of extreme wealth inequality.

So that's the similarity the authors alluded to when this reference to marx. Marx referred to material conditions. This piece used energy as the basis for analysis.

[1]: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-messa...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism
> The volume of the unit -sphere goes to 0 as grows!

But, that's equivocating on the word volume. Consider that 2D "volume" is just area. The area of a unit circle is pi, and the volume of a unit sphere is 3/4 pi. So the latter is numerically smaller; but it's volume and not area! Cubic meters are vastly bigger than square meters. Each higher dimensional volume is vastly bigger than the previous.
If you are Knuth who has access and the privilege why not ask the THE authoritative source on a topic ? especially since Stephen Wolfram is only an email away for him.

It is also why ChatGPT is so impactful, asking a question in conversation is so much powerful than searching the docs .

The power of conversational learning is well known since Socrates time after all.
During times of low interest rates, 27 is a reasonable P/E. When interest rates are high, it isn't. A P/E of 25 is a rate of return of 1/25 or 4%. TBills return 5% and are a lot less risky.
Nice job! Fast work -- and I like the interface.

Maybe you can put the code in your public repository as a sample of your work. Someday it might help you land your first programming gig...
I feel like my Google searches are too short and precise in general; if I were to try getting the same information from an informal AI chat, it's a huge loss of productivity and efficiency I'd imagine.

Google: "<local restuarant>" = Full page of information including reviews, links to order delivery, directions, etc. All in a standard UI that doesn't change from restaurant to restaurant. Muscle memory takes over.

ChatGPT: "Tell me about <local restaurant>" = Blurb of text that may or may not be useful.

People, including myself, have asked Google a lot of straight-up questions over the years, and those use cases match well with generative AI. But the overall point of a search engine is to find something on the internet, and I don't think that's going to go away.
Intel tried that with Optane with disastrous results (from a financial perspective). SLC doesn't require much separate R&D and manufacturing infrastructure beyond what already exists to serve the markets for TLC and QLC. But that lower barrier to entry still hasn't led to many attempts to serve this niche. Apparently the people with real sales volume data are convinced there's less of a market for expensive and small consumer SLC SSDs than there is for consumer 8TB TLC or QLC SSDs that cost as much as a decent laptop.
That's not much of a problem, as it only affects the "GPT" LLM.

The same researchers can always study comparable in behavior LLMs like Llama and its descendants.
we need not confuse the legitimacy or illegitimacy with the characters involved, since they both mismanaged capital and business
Why wasn't this more widely known? I did a lot of hacking on the Apple II+ platform back in the day, yet basically, TIL.

(I do know about the hardware hacks for vsync.)
Meanwhile Samsung is totally free to make parts for Apple and directly compete in a hundred other categories…times have changed?
UCAS ranks just behind Qinghua and PKU, but has 54k post graduates compared to around 18-28K in each of the former. So it is really a lot farther behind those two top institutions than it appears on paper, not as impressive when you realize how much staff they have.
Some of the best visual novels have almost no choices at all. Higurashi only has a few choices at the very end. Same with Umineko.

And then there are masterpiece VNs absolutely chock full of choices and an extremely complex story graph, like Subarashiki Hibi or Fate Stay/Night.