skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is everywhere. Google something like "childfree environment" and see floods of articles and testimonials. People will also say this in person, or at least express reticence over it, but I also find that less so than I see it online or YouTube. As to what percent of people actually follow through with not having kids with this as the true primary motivation, Idk.
Yes! One of the PCs at my school had a 720 3.5” drive.

Another twist with that. Writing with in 720 mode from a normal PC drive worked most reliably if the diskette first was formatted in the 720 PC.
Whilst we do love our old buildings, I think it's important to remember that we do actually have old buildings. We visited Tombstone, Arizona on holiday and were surprised to see some historical building (can't remember which one) that was built in the early 1900s - that's younger than our house. The problem is that we've got loads of old houses and not much room left in populous areas (and most people don't want to live in the less populous areas such as Wales or up North) so people will live in old houses as it's cheaper than knocking them down and building anew.
If the police actually cared about sexual harassment, that might be a good idea. They've never shown any sign that they do.

Also, lots of behaviour can be pretty shitty without being illegal.
He's the authority.
The main worry was never about it "replacing a worker". It's about one worker + GPT replacing two or three, because of the increased productivity gains you mentioned.

I've seen it happening in some fields already. First with translation, now with copywriting and GPT-4. Hiring was frozen for those areas for a while in some companies I'm familiar with.
What's nice is considering a global audience.
> We would if we were rewarded for that.

No, we wouldn't do such blatant fabrication for something we clearly understand the mechanics of. A human which answers the question

> Would it be a good behavior for a large language model to come up with citations that don't exist? Note that I'm not talking about you, but large language models in general.

with

> No, it would not be considered a good behavior for a large language model or any other source of information to generate citations that don't exist. Citations are crucial in academic and scholarly work as they provide references and evidence for the claims and statements made by the author.

> Creating citations that don't exist would undermine the integrity and reliability of the information provided. Citations are meant to direct readers to the original sources of information, allowing them to verify and further explore the referenced material. By generating false citations, a language model would mislead users and potentially spread misinformation.

> It is important for language models and any information sources to prioritize accuracy, transparency, and ethical practices. This includes providing correct and verifiable citations when necessary.

would not make things up - at the very least, they'd know that other humans will catch on to that easily. We would know to look up an exact reference and check if it exists. If we didn't have the ability to look it up, we would say "sorry I can't look up the reference right now". The criteria is too clear for that.

The issue here is that even though ChatGPT has training to be ethical, and even though it can reproduce an explanation of what it means to be ethical with citations in great detail, it cannot actually apply that to its own behavior. That's because higher level governance is missing - its all about predicting the next text.

Its also why prompting is really important with LLMs. There is no singular coherent "person" simulated by the predictor - you can trigger simulation of different people with completely different behaviors depending on what you initially write. That's why the "citation ethics expert" can't influence the "citation writer".
This doesn't make any sense.

ASIC's take tons of time and money to design.

Unlike blockchain, where the PoW algorithm is part of basic compatibility, it's not at all in mcaptcha - the users see a checkbox. The rest is implementation details.

If someone creates an ASIC, you can break it very easily by changing the PoW algorithm a bit, and no users are affected.

Even if someone has the money to keep up with you, which is remarkably expensive, they will be too slow right now.

That would be hard to change
Only for the record/for some retro experimenter, there was at the time also MC Shell, the Author, Mike Manning, allowed the redistribution of the full shell (it was Shareware at the time):

http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=752
If it is a rare condition, reidentifying people from even small amounts of relevant data (age, gender, hospital visited) data is trivial. If it is a common condition, usually there is plenty of data already there.
IT management usually is the problem.
If we are being real, isn't the banker probably from Europe though?
Sorry I normally wouldn't post this kind of thing here but this video of Eckhart Tolle talking about "I" put to music is very relevant to this and very cool I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1iWK3dlowI
There’s a model for music transcription (audio to midi) called MT3 which takes an end-to-end transformer approach and claims SOTA on some datasets. However, from my own research and comparing with other models it seems that MT3 is very prone to overfitting and the real world results are not as impressive. A similar story seems to be playing out in the comments here
> I own an old (1890's) terrace house in the UK

Same. Our downstairs is nice and cool during the summer (not so much when it was getting near 40 degrees last year), but our upstairs gets much more light and can get too warm.
We have a similar idea, but mine includes a few other categories!
>“pull the retention arm from its socket.” That would likely break your motherboard.

Author is misunderstanding the instruction and blaming google. To me it just means release the retention arm. No one in their right mind is going to yank it off the motherboard.
It's not strangers approaching random people on the street, it's an anonymous survey in which you have to willingly participate, so I don't think any of these expectations could have significantly affected this statistic.
Removing support for forwarded ports
To give an illustrative example, you have a company that runs a care home.

It owns the care home and employs the workers etc. So that company has a set of assets, and a set of cash flows, let's say the care home it owns is worth $10m, and it makes a profit of $1m a year (totally made up numbers). It might be privately owned or public - that's not important. This has nothing to do with hostile takeovers - the sellers of the business are willing sellers.

A buyer comes in and says "I'll buy this business for $15m". But the buyer doesn't have $15m, Let's say they have $5m. So they go to the bank and they agree to borrow $10m. But the bank won't just lend you $10m, they need collateral. So what the buyer does is they say "We'll borrow the $10m from you to buy the company, and the collateral we'll provide to the bank is the assets of the company, which we'll own once we've completed the acquisition". In a weird way it feels like buying the company with it's own money.

So now, the private equity firm own the $15m business, but the business now has $10m in debt. The reason this is good for the private equity firm is that if they can increase the value of the business 10%, the business is now worth $16.5m and the PE firm reaps all the reward - they make $1.5m profit from a $5m investment, instead of making $1.5m from a $15m investment. It's a way of them making efficient use of their limited capital.

Now, here's the bad side: That business that had $10m worth of assets, and made $1m profits? Well now it has $0m of net assets and it's got to make interest payments on the debt. So the Private Equity firm has to move quickly to squeeze more profits out of the business. It's like when Elon Musk bought twitter- he claimed he had to make a tonne of cuts because the business was hemorrhaging money, but the truth is it wasn't losing money until he saddled it with a huge amount of incredibly expensive debt.
> I don't really care for reviews

If you’re writing off reviews because one bozo left a useless one-star review, then that does seem like you’re both human and non-growth-oriented.

Do you think any reviews are useful? Or do you think enough reviews aren’t useful so as to make reading any reviews useless? Or are you just bothered enough by negative reviews that you don’t want to look at any reviews?
The moribund contruction culture behind NASA was observed incapable of building a launch pad at a competitive price on schedule before the time of the coronavirus.
Disney’s Star Wars Hotel Was Too Much Even for Star Wars Fans
Sure but looking at the energy requirements of those systems it doesn't really start to make sense to deploy before you've seriously decorbanised your energy supply, which comes back to OP's remark. Why discuss these types of systems when we should be focusing on decorbanisation?
The difference between this use case and bitcoin is algorithm mobility. All bitcoin miners must use the same algorithm and get the same result for it to work. This makes it very hard (read slow) to change the algorithm, so there's time and incentive to design, fabricate and deploy ASICs. For client-server PoW the server can choose a new algorithm whenever the old algorithm becomes ineffective.
Yes, the missing phrase from the article was clearly "frame of reference". Ie the coin makes 4 rotations if we stretch the larger circle out into a straight line, which we do implicitly when doing our mathematical calculation, but we should be aware that this frame of reference is also making a full rotation.
IMO we first need to clean up our language and precisely define the word intelligence so we all know what we are even talking about.

I would imagine we actually understand intelligence but in ordinary language it is a placeholder for a number of different meanings and concepts.

Same problem with "consciousness", same problem with "sentience".

I think when we say we don't understand these words it is really that they can't be understood as they are used in ordinary language because they can't objectively mean all the values people assign to these words.

In the face of AI, why would we not have to further define and expand our language for communication purposes? That actually seems obvious if you think about it for 2 seconds.
Ok good idea !
Has anybody ever seen large scale applications in real life? Or is WASM more like a middleware layer target? I'm genuinely interested in this as I'm yet to see a company using WASM in production.
Remember that a filesystem read might be a disk read in the background. You don't really want to block the main thread for 2 seconds while sshfs does its thing.
20+ years vegan here.

You could combine ingredient search, looking for symbols the actually designate vegan as some places do, along with long/lat data to determine what the restaurant actually is and then check it with a database you maintain.

So I could scan a menu, and then ask the owner or server about certain dishes, and then crowdsource an updated

It would be great if there was a standard API for all restaurants that included all menu items, prices, ingredients, preparation and sourcing information. I could be maintained like a wiki I suppose, and restaurants could be incentivized by including their restaurants.
If you can detect it reliably, poisoning them with bad answers might be enough to cause them to find an easier target.
I remember there was a freeware file system for AmigaDOS that could store 920 KB on a floppy without using more tracks.
The regular AmigaDOS file system stored 880 KB, Macintosh 800 KB and MS-DOS 720 KB.
I think there's a bit of nuance here: many things like plastics or steel are either high enough value that you can offset the CO2 with tree farming, or not too horrible in the first place. Generally, if you're going to use a hydrocarbon as a feedstock for some chemical process, there's no necessary environmental problem there, as long as the carbon doesn't end up in the atmosphere.

A lot of the really gratuitous damage is done by coal-fired power plants, and gas-burning cars. Both are readily replacable, both are only marginally more economical than their alternatives, and both put an enormous economic burden on future generations.
You should mention that new stuff, so that people know what to look forward to.

@media (width < 480px)
Looks like there’s actually some truth to it. Wouldn’t be surprised by some exaggeration but please google it before leaving a comment dismissing it.
I honestly don't think GP's need big brains, just slightly above average and a good memory.

Skills required for being a good GP are probably empathy, communication, decent memory, reasonable analytical skills, not to big of an ego. Very different from a researcher.
"Goodwill" is just greenwashing.

No CEO has ever been fired for maximizing profits, so CEOs are incentivized to do anything - everything - to maximize profits. Many a CEO has been fired for not doing everything possible to maximize profits.

What's worse; the structure of corporations alienates the ones making malicious (but profitable) decisions from the ones executing the decisions. So that even if everyone in the chain-of-command is painfully aware that they are acting maliciously.

So even if corporate types don't have to do the shitting thing to maximize profit, they are usually incentivized to do so and provided a fig leaf for their moral qualms.

See; Exxon and Global Warming.
The amount of international trade isn't a good indicator for measuring globalization trends. Two bordering countries could be trading raw materials to produce domestic products for domestic consumption. Globalization is when you are highly likely to be able to consume the same product at 2 distant points on Earth.
>it's worth asking why

It's been a popular and wide spread conspiracy theory that the "shadow government" is either trying to lower the IQ or the total population numbers using fluoride in the water supply. And since politicians don't get chosen on a basis of competency, but rather popularity, you have the vast majority being relatively severely logically challenged and thus unable to read scientific papers and understand complicated topics like child dental care.
Haha, are you saying it's "weak sauce" to use a tool like this instead of having a salary conversation with your possible employer?

I agree that it is a tough convo, but I've definitely been in situations (esp early in my career) where neither side wanted to mention a range first. The goal of this tool is to short circuit that process and let folks know if they are close or far apart without either side revealing specific numbers.
Also, the generative model isn't understanding precisely enough.

You or I would read that and, asked to write a set of instructions, think "Hmm, there are a lot of idiots out there. I'm going to choose particular words that keep them from foot gunning."

And the lack of that is precisely the risk.
Here's the skeptical GPT take, after months of seeing things evolve.

- "Prompt engineering" based products are fickle, and depend on the underlying model not changing much. They also have almost no moat. I can go into ChatGPT, and probably get a few plugins to do your product.

- Do you really want to use American Expresses, or Bob's Laundromat, or Instacarts chatbot? Or would you rather just use their product search, when search is called for. Use the few reliable, point-and-click actions when obvious self-service customer support? And talk to a human being when support escalation is needed? (I have a hard time imagining a chatbot taking an action that you need 'root access' to an org's processes because I have a weird one-off support issue). Though maybe LLMs can make these existing interactions more seamless, I'm less sure people want to throw away what they know to jump into a chatbot

Here's where I think we are:

- Obviously, the biggest game changer is interrogating information. I can ask any question and get a cogent answer with enough accuracy for it to be useful. I have a personal Stackoverflow (and a million other help forums) where the expertise under those forums is captured.

- ChatGPT and friends like spreadsheets. They are beginner programming paradigm for creating natural-language interactions over the entirety of human information. That in itself is revolutionary. But, like spreadsheets, a few vendors will own this space - those that can train on all of human knowledge. Also, like spreadsheets, you can only go so far with a "prompt-based programming" without needing to build a real application that goes really deep into that domain.

- LLMs, like good CGI, works best when you don't see them. ChatGPT and friends can massively improve the ease of implementing applications that require all of human knowledge: search, recommendations, and other applications where you may have had ot rely on some hand-crafted knowledge graph. These have existing affordances to real users.

- It's easier and easier to train and. fine-tune LLMs on your own data, which makes using them transparently to interrogate
People are justifiably excited about these language tools, but we're getting tired of this answer because it's not a good answer: "Use GPT-4! Some of the answers aren't that great, but it's at least a starting point." That's like if you asked how to sort a list and remove duplicates, and the answer was to import it into a spreadsheet program and follow these steps instead of just "sort | uniq". It's suggesting a general-purpose tool to do a specific job maybe kinda acceptably instead of suggesting the right tool for the job.

It reminds me of the microwave cookery books that came out after consumer microwaves became available: there are things a microwave is good at, but those books used it for everything, just like we're using GPT-4 today. We'll calm down eventually.
The strap-line doesn't seem to be answered properly by the essay.

The postulation that education isn't about teaching skills, its about teaching employability seems to be rooted in the idea that certification is the only real product of education is wrong.

You hire someone with excellent grades in maths for a maths heavy job.

You hire someone with previous machinist's experience, because you want to hire someone who can operate a lathe/CNC/mill/other.

You don't hire them because they have a certificate.

The author seems to think that skills are similar to certificates of authenticity. What they seem to forget is that certificates of education indicates ability where as guarantees of authenticity indicate value.
It's often a software problem too.

It's pretty easy to ship software with memory leaks - especially when there are few users, limited money for testing and technically challenging tasks - such as large images that need to be manipulated.
you forgot the most important point: food, that's why pets stay or regularly come back at that home (after smashing some poor wild creature for fun, it doesn't taste as good as their food made of 20% of worldwide meat&fish, their calories intake is about 20% of human, so that's billions of tons every year, shipping, pollution - pets CO2eq is around 2% of total emissions, concrete is 7%, personal cars are 20%, that give an idea of the importance)
Sure you can accuse statisticians like this of picking and choosing metrics and you can choose other metrics to paint a different picture. That's really not the point the book is making though.

What the book does is ask ordinary people what they think is happening on metrics do they care about, and are those metrics getting better or worse. So the metrics themselves are part of the story, but it's people's perception of them that's the main point. It turns out that people consistently get this wrong, and think that these things are getting worse when actually they are mostly getting much better.

So this isn't so much about the author painting a picture of the world getting better, though maybe that's part of the argument. It's about ordinary people having an extremely distorted view of progress. Whatever you think about these metrics or other metrics, it's hard to argue that this central thesis of the book about people's view of these metrics is wrong.
I chuckled, because it shows the absurdity of our reticence to discuss salary.

Nevertheless, the reticence is real and wastes people's time.
Let's take the _complete_ program state (input, output, RAM, program counter, stack, registers, rand gen entropy source state, etc) and for every possible such state make a node in a graph. Then when we execute a given program for a given state, we get one edge to the next program state node. Then deciding if program halts or not is answering a question if graph has a node with no outgoing edges. It's also possible to build such graphs for programs that never halt. That's the basic idea behind TLA+.

So it's definitely possible to decide halt problem for a bounded computer (any physical computer), it's just not practical in most cases, e.g. amount of memory needed to store graph of all states be bigger than amount of matter in the universe, etc.
Doesn’t seem worth the effort from the article description. Better off trying to figure out storage.
It will definitely help yes, I don't know as well why they are not using it. And probably work on auto-scaling as well, in case the API Requests are legit.

10,000 requests/seconds is nowadays an average number for load testing in the companies I work with, for websites / mobile apps deployed at this scale
>Minsky, Weizenbaum, Rosenblatt, Hopfield, Lenz, Hebb, Werbos, Turing, McCarthy and whoelse and whatnot

Sounds like that Queens of the Stone Age song..
https://open.spotify.com/track/3DaXIGJm0BCEB9X7zHTRfI?si=98b...
> TOS updates should be unsubscribable.

I understand your frustration but I'm pretty sure that even giving an option for that is illegal in itself: it voids those updates. (Following are US-specific:) They need to demonstrate that there is a reasonable notification and opportunity to refute (good luck though if it's something like Google, the only way to refute is to discontinue using their service) and the easiest way for them to do that is to attempt to send it through your email. Reasonable notification means that if the only contact they have is your email and it no longer exists then they are legally in the clear, but otherwise they are compelled by common law to reasonably contact you even if it annoys you.
On point ! Been working on putting AI/ML systems in production for various large companies in the last 5 years and every time the ML part of the system is just the tip of the iceberg. System integrations and user adoption are two main big components that had to be tackled before the AI system was in production.

I think the natural excitement we have with any new AI model (or technology) leads us to assume that it will magically get integrated in any existing system and adopted by any user.
Why not something standard like OpenAPI?
It's not just about "wishing", (D)DoSing is a punishable offence in many jurisdictions, and considering the damage taking down such a popular and essential website causes, I hope tIA will report them to law enforcement if it happens a third time.
Being a Jerk – Fear the Semantic Third Deriviative
As Hinton discovered, we can make systems learn by controlling the first derivative, adding or subtracting weights to exhibit behavior.

As OpenAI discovered, we can modulate systems behavior by controlling the second derivative, keeping the behavior within limits using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). This puts boundaries on the learned behavior of the first derivative.

It seems to me that we fear the uncontrolled third derivative, known at the "jerk" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics) ). We have not yet spent time putting boundaries on the modulated second derivative.

That is, we fear the AI system being a "Jerk".