skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In the end octopuses evolved to be quite smart. That would imply some similar brain development, even if it was being done independently

It would be profound if two independently-evolved intelligences developed a need to dream.
> it's not spec-compliant for servers to parse and interpret this data.

That's wrong. A lot of people just don't understand the difference between SHOULD and MUST when reading standards. The standard just says that you shouldn't rely on servers accepting it unless they tell you.
Thanks for shedding light on this and thanks for the compliment! Have a nice day
Lying implies intent, and knowing what the truth is. Saying something you believe to be true, but is wrong, is generally not considered a lie but a mistake.

A better description of what ChatGPT does is described well by one definition of bullshit:

> bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what they say is true or false

-- Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit, 2005

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

ChatGPT neither knows nor cares what the truth is. If it bullshits like a duck, it is a bullshitting duck.
I don’t think that’s very generous - I think it’s “wow that’s amazing I’d like to find a way to integrate it” which I think is perfectly reasonable given it is amazing (even though I think it’s overestimated in its current form, and underestimated due to its current form)
NYC post tax 3.5g is $50-$60 which is almost $20/g
I’d also like to know which venues are serving Halal food. But for different reasons to these women.
>On March 22, 1622, Opechancanough and his allies attacked outlying English farms and small communities. On a single day, the Native warriors killed 347 colonists of all ages. Colonists soon launched a series of reprisals, but they couldn’t get past the shock of the event they quickly labeled a “massacre.”

Doesn't this line state a warcrime? This occurred before the poisoning.
Punishment is not technically the point of prisons. Your unhinged comment will pass as normal to so many people who think punishment is the point and that's scary as hell.
Perhaps but I’d argue society has moved to where this is better (children must have an education) vs the alternative say getting a job or whatever children did 100 years ago. Also it is being paid for, at least in my area, through quite high property taxes where over 60% go to school. So if the alternative is find day care or educate them myself I expect my taxes to go down where I can use that money for education and day care.
Good job. Please add a few words about debugging.
What were the light losses like?
If they were "due to die", you'd see negative excess mortality in future years because the people who were going to die in those years already died. And excess mortality has continued to be positive and high.
Did you just have ChatGPT make up all these cases for you? My ChatGPT can't find any of them.
Are we really doing this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_Movement_(China)

Landlords — had their land confiscated and they were subjected to mass killing by the CCP and former tenants, with the estimated death toll ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions.
That does sound cool, but I’m not sure that’s what most folks mean by “chatbot”. My understanding was that a chatbot is an automated chat program that will generate responses to your messages, simulating a live human.
I've talked to a non-domesticated animal.

The wolf didn't even look up, much less reply.

Joking aside, between this and Neuralink, how close are we to cybernetic uplifting?
Since you are here, want to say this is one of the most useful posts I've seen about pragmatic development on top of LLMs!

And agreed re: development effort - compared to other hype cycles of AI, it's important for folks to understand that the results they see are coming at a fraction of the experimental budget.
Trying to get to root cause of what's actually wrong with my communication capability, I've come to the belief that transplanting a thought from my mind to my wife's mind intact is really hard. Fidelity can break down in several transformations: how clearly the thought is formed in my mind, the words I choose and arrange to express it, how fluidly I can speak them, whether there is impedence in the environment or emotional state, how accurately she hears the words, the precice meanings she applies to each word, the context she overlays and finally, any bias that modulates the meaning.

Even if all of that goes reasonably well, my expression of thought encounters the intent modulation. What does she believe I am trying to accomplish by communicating this thought?

To a large degree, having a positive outcome from any conversation relies on the trust between us, the value we place in the relationship and the willingness of each of us to monitor for and correct misunderstandings so that even when conflict develops, the understanding of the situation is the same for both parties.

What gets me down is knowing that for some (most?) people, the above is so intuitive, they've never had a problem with it. Alas.
this.

don’t learn gcp if you know aws. don’t learn android if you know iphone. don’t learn ruby if you know python.

instead use that time to building interesting things. these tools are much more similar than different, and their differences are inconsequential.
It's really disconcerting how many people don't understand that these LLMs are programs not people.
>Lying implies intent, and knowing what the truth is. Saying something you believe to be true, but is wrong, is generally not considered a lie but a mistake.

Those are the semantics of lying.

But "X like a duck" is about ignoring semantics, and focusing not on intent or any other subtletly, but only on the outward results (whether something has the external trappings of a duck).

So, if it produces things that look like lies, then it is lying.
> Isn't that a false dichotomy and a strawman?

I don't see how.

There's no dichotomy that I am aware of; when responding to a "safety" argument, demonstrating the relative safety compared to activities considered "safe" is not a dichotomy.

I also don't see a strawman - I'm making no argument, which is a requirement for making a strawman argument. If I don't make an argument, I can't be attacking a strawman.
> Applying the same NAT system that is used for IPv4 to IPv6 is probably the best way to get this layer of security.

...why? Routers have (stateful) firewalls, entirely separate from their NAT-ing abilities. You can still have the firewall without the NAT. (And the protocols that IoT devices rely on, like UPnP, are technically protocols for manipulating firewall rules, not NAT port-forwarding rules; so they still work fine without NAT in place.)

> But how many Internet of Shit devices are there in the average household that probably shouldn't be trusted?

I'm not sure about IPv4, but in IPv6 a given single logical interface can acquire multiple IPv6 addresses — meaning that your laptop or phone will have both a public global IPv6 address, and a link-local fe80:: IPv6 address. And things like multicast, DHCP discovery, etc. will only be attempted or accepted through that link-local address.

Now imagine a router that combines that firewall rule, with a bit of logic to automatically assign devices that join the AP, to separate VLANs, depending on their MAC address vendor part. So laptops and phones go on the "home" VLAN, while IoT devices go on the "sandboxed" VLAN. Where these VLANs are peered, but with stateful firewall rules between them: "sandboxed" devices don't get to speak to "home" devices, unless the "home" device speaks to them first; and multicast packets from "home" devices won't reach "sandboxed" devices.

In other words, a home-network gateway-router should have all the same defaults that an IaaS-tenant VPC does: nodes on the network have public-routable IPs; but all inbound ports to them are closed unless a device asks; and traffic flowing between those devices can only be seen by other devices intentionally put into that same VLAN, not by other "tenants" who happen to be sharing the same pipes.
I recently had to debug and profile an edge case with certain CSS that made applications using our library somewhat slow. And it all was due to style recalculations. Interestingly, it was mostly a Chrome problem and Firefox had not a single element style-dirty, let alone 8000 of them (which was basically all of the DOM in my test case). While I could coax Firefox into also considering all those elements as dirty, recalculating the matching CSS rules took just a fraction of what Chrome took. Was a fun learning experience in how browsers work.
Yeah I’m saying if that were the case it would be evidence for his story. I legitimately don’t know though the details of his actions and the extent to which they are unusual or not.
While I agree with your statement, I think you might be projecting a little - this is a simple comment, kind of like saying "nothing new under the sun". Not all statements are necessarily prescriptive.

This is used to keep things in perspective when talking about such emotional subjects, not be a final word, I believe
No, you don't save "real time."

People aren't clicking as many links as they possibly can. People read things. People browse.

You don't save any actual real time on the order of minimizing 2 milliseconds.

Even if you're a large provider, you save more time doing other things than responding to HTTP requests on the order of 2 milliseconds because there are other things to do.

What you are talking about is literal noise. 2 milliseconds on the web doesn't mean anything. On the web, meaningful request/response times are within one to two or more orders of magnitude larger.

2 milliseconds in simulation time means you might be doing something notably more expensive.

When a single req/res time is 2 seconds long, you can think to yourself "something is wrong." When it's 200ms, you can think to yourself "something is slow." When it's 20ms, you're within the order of magnitude of a display refresh time.

When you're talking about 2ms, you're talking about the amount of time that it takes to read 2 MB from an SSD.

You seriously need to brush up on your understanding of latency.

Try Googling "latency numbers."
Residential power here for single family homes -- the type which could reasonably do what you suggest -- is almost always single phase 120/240V. As an upper bound, let's consider 400A service. (Most homes have services smaller than 400A, and even 400A service is typically delivered to a pair of smaller panels to keep conductor and busbar sizes manageable.) Such heaters would be considered continuous loads, reducing the 400A service to 320A of current. Resistive heaters are a linear load, so we can multiply 240V * 320A to get 76.8 kW at maximum.

Hitting 76 kW is wildly impractical. Exceeding 100 kW is nonsense.
Everyone is talking about ChatGPT , but is it not possible to train a model with only actual court documents and keep “temp” low and get accuracy levels as high or better than humans?

Most legal (all formal really) documents are very predictably structured and should be easy to generate
And Sweden did nothing and got an equally good outcome and doesn't even have the benefit of being an island country.
What? I told mine to double-check and it was absolutely certain they are real court cases
My understanding is it largely exists in the confines of GCP as it targets infrastructure mainly
What needs to exist is a legal compiler that lawyers can plug responses into from these tools. Sort of how a developer would use chat gpt.

A giant rules engine for the law. I’m surprised one doesn’t exist or isn’t in progress that I know of. Seems like it would be very helpful
The Universe Began with a Bang, Not a Bounce, New Studies Find
Uh, no. Hypertension is a silent killer. Mole checks? Colonoscopies? Testicular cancer screenings? These are all worthless? Preventative medicine has a long way to go, but it's currently the best it's ever been. Thank God I don't see any of these doctors.
And those reasons are..?
I love how the current world is such that people on both sides of that would agree with your statement. :D

(Don't clarify it, it's better this way.)
At least in the US, I would argue your reply is not totally correct. The US has a long history of not really knowing if it wants prison to be punishment, rehabilitation, or both.
Why AI May Be Dangerous–Whether It’s Conscious or Not
So if this article is not against regular blood checkups then what...?
> parrot absurd official lines and slogans about russian interference because being seen to align with it is just how they are trying to survive

That was out of left field. What about people who believe it was plausible that Russian intelligence services were behind the leaks of the DNC and Podesta emails, that the intent behind those leaks was to interfere in elections, and that such leaks had a non-trivial influence given the election was so narrow? That seems like a reasonable set of beliefs to hold, not "absurd official lines". I don't have access to the evidence behind the set of claims, but it strikes me as highly plausible.

Many of these "spook-adjacent types" (why not just call them "NPCs", wasn't that the lingo as of a week ago?), don't believe such attempts are primarily trying to skew the outcome in favor of Trump, they believe a general effort is being made by Russia and China to weaken confidence in elections, liberalism, democracy and the West broadly. Not because Russia and China are intrinsically evil, but because they are rivals, and as rivals have found an effective tool capable of undermining from within. The DNC/Podesta email leaks being only one of the more visible outcomes of these efforts.
What do you think "inner city Chicago" is, and what do you think it's like to be there?

Just flag comments that violate the guidelines.
Why would it be any more profound than any other common needs or functionality of two independently-evolved intelligences? Isn't this assumption begging the question?

Only if we a priori consider dreaming something very unique, or put it on a pedestal, would this be "profound". Whereas it could be an essential attribute of intelligent function, a kind of garbage collection from the information acquired during the day for example...
What Is Paxlovid Rebound, and How Common Is It?
Yup. Anyone in power has an incentive to say “we’ve got this under control, trust us everything’s fine.”

This is true at every level. From downplaying mistakes in nursing homes in NY, to fudging numbers in FL, to Trump wishing we’d stop testing, to Biden proclaiming victory upon the vaccine rollout, it’s all the same incentive.
The real question is why the insurance companies are pushing the annual exams very hard, not just in consumer ads, but using lots of incentives for primary care physicians.

One would assume they would not want to pay for unnecessary tests for healthy people.

So either their own research shows they save money with annual checkups in spite of what the article says, or more sinisterly, they do want to spend money to be able to justify higher premiums, because in several states they are required to spend around 80% of the premiums, and this is one easily plannable way.

Does anyone know? Perhaps someone working for an insurance company?
100% developers leaked JWT token .
You could say that calling it "lying" is unduly anthropomorphizing the LLM, but then so is saying it "believes" something to be true.
Linux has a lot of window managers so you really have to say you aren't sure if you are talking about wibdoes or [gnome, kde, sway, hyprland, xfce,etc]. Depending on which you choose i may or may not agree with you.
The plants in Germany would have been due for expensive maintenance and they are old. (Maybe not EOL old but old)
Do Israel next, they export surveillance companies like nobody's business.
It's right there on the home page under "Limitations"

"May occasionally generate incorrect information"

Everyone knows gasoline is flammable but there's still people that smoke while filling their gas tank.
I make a map of everything interesting, then I just wing it. I leave plenty of stuff unseen, but it's a lot less stressful.

I use Open Street Map to find nice walks and bike rides. I use the local subreddit to find unusual ideas.
ChatGPT and Large Language Models: Six Evolutionary Steps
Then no one would ever sign. That's why it says "to the best of my knowledge" as part of the statement.
i would argue they did help. i have not gotten covid yet as far as I know. If and when I do, I guarantee I will be much happier to have gotten it when vaccines, treatments and therapeutics are improved compared to 3 years ago.
> React and Tailwind violate the previous principles of unobstructive JS and semantic naming that were the prevailing practices not too long ago. My cynical take is a lot of that is driven by consultants looking to stand out as thought leaders.

You're missing that people are adopting this on their own because they enjoy the benefits during development.

This is also my explanation for why apps with the same complexity as 15 years ago are now slower: What Andy Giveth, Bill taketh away. Developers (or rather their management) are choosing to make "lazy" trade-offs, i.e. prioritizing programmer productivity over execution performance. Which makes economical sense.

I wish there was a way to shift the economic incentives because that would change things very quickly. Maybe some browser performance limits.
Punishment is absolutely one purpose of prisons. Your unhinged comment will pass as normal to many people who don’t believe in retribution, and that’s why you all belong in Hell.
People are buying gaming branded PEG propping sticks and sustainer wires because high end PEGs are sagging, and neither the case nor the card support that front slot for full length cards. It’s well past the time for a card cage spec as far as I can see from the user perspective.
Spoiler alert: it lied.

For example, "Smith v. Johnson, 579 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 2023)" aka 579 F.3d 820 is actually American River Transp. Co. v. Ryan, 579 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2009) [1]

"Baxter v. Pennsylvania Legal Ethics Board, 100 A.3d 1095 (Pa. 2022)" aka 100 A.3d 1095 is actually Julius L. Worthy v. United States, 100 A.3d 1095 (D.C. 2014) [2]

"Rodriguez, 720 F.2d 124 (9th Cir. 2023)" aka 720 F.2d 124 is actually Specialty Equipment Market Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 720 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1983) [3]

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1358353/american-river...

[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2741033/julius-l-worth...

[3] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7902070/specialty-equi...
Steven Schwartz not only obviously lied re: "I was unaware of the possibility that ChatGPT could generate false information", his own screenshots prove it. He asked if one of the cases generated was fake!

I suspect that during the research his System 1 (fast, intuitive thinking) told him he was not responsible for the risk he knew he was incurring by relaying AI generated text. It was more like ChatGPT was his own legal secretary which he was within his rights to trust, just like the main lawyer in the case, LoDuca, trusted him to produce this research.

The proceedings would have been more interesting if Schwartz had been honest about this, rather than going with the easily discoverable lie.

On the other hand, it's always funny when people realize they've got themselves into deep shit and they decide the best way out is to essentially plead insanity.
you're papering over the important details

namely, urls are finite, bodies are infinite
>At what point does OpenAI (or any other company) become legally responsible for this kind of behavior from their LLM's?

When AutoCAD is responsible for an architect's shitty design.
Signal protects your messages while it's on the web, on the way to your recipient. During this time, it is encrypted - but while on your or the recipients device, its plain text (as you can read it).

There are many ways to get to those messages, like getting access to your unlocked phone/unlocking your phone, if your signal is not password locked (and if they can't break that password), or doing this with your recipient.

OpSec is a process, not single tools!
As I understand it, the Wikileaks DNC email dump was just a front for Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
> By the process of magic.

No, by other carbon sinks like dead ocean algae.

> Volcanic activity releases nearly 2 orders of magnitude less carbon than humanity does

But they have been around far more than just 2 orders of magnitude as long.

Between the great oxygen event and the emergence of woody plants volcanic processes releasing ~100,000x as much all of humanity across all of human history yet levels didn’t hit 90% CO2. Further woody plants didn’t increase the rate of carbon release by volcanoes so across such long timescales they had zero net effect on total carbon sequestration.

So, across long timescales it was on average 100% of all new carbon before they showed up and it remained 100% of all new carbon afterwards. What changed was where the carbon ended up, the ocean floor sees subduction into the mantle, woody plants stuck around on the surface.

Now, yes on human timescales these things seem slow but net zero + 1,000 years really will have a noticeable impact.
Check out US digital services and 18F
ChatGPT is perfect for generating company mission statements, political rhetoric, and other forms of BS.
This harks back to around 1999 when people would often blame computers for mistakes in their math, documents, reports, sworn filings, and so on. Then, a thousand different permutations of "computers don't make mistakes" or "computers are never wrong" became popular sayings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are never wrong, and they do not make mistakes. They are not fact machines. Their purpose is to abstract knowledge and to produce plausible language.

GPT-4 is actually quite good at handling facts, yet it still hallucinates facts that are not common knowledge, such as legal ones. GPT-3.5, the original ChatGPT and the non-premium version, is less effective with even slightly obscure facts, like determining if a renowned person is a member of a particular organization.

This is why we can't always have nice things. This is why AI must be carefully aligned to make it safe. Sooner or later, a lawyer might consider the plausible language produced by LLMs to be factual. Then, a politician might do the same, followed by a teacher, a therapist, a historian, or even a doctor. I thought the warnings about its tendency to hallucinate speech were clear — those warnings displayed the first time you open ChatGPT. To most people, I believe they were.
My understanding is that Go does a similar kind of optimization (where locals that don't escape don't go on the heap) but it does it automatically. This has the positive that you don't need annotations but the negative that you can assume some code is benefitting from the optimization when it isn't and there's no warning about it.

I'm curious whether the authors here considered this. I didn't see any discussion of related work in the post.
This is really a bad article, one that can actually have a net negative effect on the world. Vox is trash.
comon man, you mean to tell me you care more about this than learning how colors change the world? :)