skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Whether it is or not, the issue remains the same, i.e we are not the ones controlling the learning process

I think this is just uninspected, vague intuition. What does it mean to control the learning process? No, we control the data, the deterministic learning rule, weights and activations, every step of the way is controllable – it's just it's intractable to control it all. Moreover, if it were tractable, would we know what to do? How would that be different from the problem of programming an AI from scratch?

> There isn't really any solace in the other option (surprisingly human) in terms of alignment fears.

If there weren't, I suppose major AI doomers (Yudkowsky, Leahy, Besinger etc.) wouldn't have been putting such an emphasis in their Lovecraft-inspired rhetoric on the alienness and inscrutability of those evil matrices of floating point numbers. No, the idea that human mental architecture is safer (and that DL does not approximate it) is very much at the core of alignment fears. E.g. Besinger on why he expects AGI Ruin [1]: "We're building "AI" in the sense of building powerful general search processes (and search processes for search processes), not building "AI" in the sense of building friendly ~humans but in silicon … The key differences between humans and "things that are more easily approximated as random search processes than as humans-plus-a-bit-of-noise" lies in lots of complicated machinery in the human brain. … This doesn't mean the problem is unsolvable; but it means that you either need to reproduce that internal machinery, in a lot of detail, in AI, or you need to build some new kind of machinery that’s safe for reasons other than the specific reasons humans are safe."

> Let me put it this way. Unaligned intelligence is dangerous.

I would ask you not to condescend but I have learned that this is an impossible request with the AI risk crowd, because you never really encounter pushback in your para-academic hothouse and so come to believe that, indeed, pretty basic intuitions are knockdown arguments only silly people could dismiss. You define intelligence in a certain way that has nothing to do with how you identify it in the wild. The definition is something like "intelligence is an optimization process"; the thing under consideration can be an LLM or a diffusion model that seems really good at its job. You mean to say "processes shaping real-world outcomes that are not optimizing for outcomes people consider good are dangerous". This is true but trivial. The onus is on you to tie this consideration to intelligence in general or to "capabilities" of arbitrarily powerful ML models.

1. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eaDCgdkbsfGqpWazi/the-basic-...
Shepherd's Oasis Statement on Rustconf and Introspection
The obvious solution would be to use john.smith+me@example.com and treat john.smith@example.com as a semi-spam folder
well you see! What we can do is to namespace our functions, e.g. by naming them component_create, component_add_button, etc. We then create a plain dictionary with key value pairs that gets passed onto these functions! The functions then possibly return a new map, which is a modified map! This allows us to write code like

dog = dog_create({name: "foo", age: 12})
dog = dod_add_friend(dog2)
print(dog["friends"])

and we can avoid OO completely.

oh... wait a minute
Let's record every conversation on Android to collect training data! Anyone can do the math?
Ask HN: Web apps on 4K monitors?
What solutions do you use to scale your web apps for 4K monitors? It seems like a lot of major websites are not optimized for 4K resolution.
Illuvium is just a trading game with 3d graphics.

This is not what I meant at all

Their videos which tease advanced game mechanics look like pure hype to raise money from the gullible. Their white paper says nothing about how this works and their repo has no code.

Here's what I want to know:

Player 1 shoots. Can player 2 see the trajectory of the shot before it hits them?

If yes- how do they avoid cheating?

If no- how is this on-chain?

Eagerly waiting an answer to that

There are many more problems for on-chain games (that are not just trading with pretty skins), but let's start here

(probable spoiler alert: they don't have an answer to that, they don't actually have any on-chain physics or game mechanics beyond trading crypto assets, they only made the demo video to dupe investors)
These 100T rumors were ridiculous from the start, not just in hindsight.
It does not seem like the end of property - somebody keeps owning what you license from him.
I do have a Gmail account because of Android and maybe I self squatted a Gmail account before I had an Android phone. I can't remember.

However I have a POP3 mailbox bundled with a domain I own since last century. That's my personal email. I never moved it to Gmail because I always downloaded my mail: some emacs package, then Netscape, then Outlook express, then Thunderbird. As a software developer I'm always close to my laptop and before smartphones it was normal not to access email when we were on vacation or on weekends, holidays, etc. When I'm on vacation now I read my mail on my phone, reply and bcc me, leave all messages on the server and download them when I'm back home.

My work email is managed in the same way. Another POP3 account bundled with my own work domain name. No friend or customer ever complained about anything in almost 20 years, hence constant access to the archive of past email is a nice to have feature but not an important one.
I guess the shortage of chips did not affect the toothbrush industry.
> supercomputers ever produce something meaningful

Absolutely, they contribute to research all of the time.

Some of them have pages where they list research outputs that they enabled (though this is of course limited to those authors tell them about!).
I found it rather annoying that you cannot organise your code to be readable from top-to-bottom in a file, going from the big picture to finer details. Which, I think is much easier for humans.
>However, this is unrelated to acceleration - these are constant angular velocities.

If it were not for the force of gravity, an object in motion would move in the direction of its instantaneous velocity. It does not do that, it instead accelerates toward the center of the gravitational body.

>In orbit this g acceleration is cancelled out by centripetal acceleration to produce 0 acceleration, or free fall.

But again, they do not "cancel out," otherwise how is the instantaneous velocity constantly changing direction?
I worked through a few in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36134733.
I love using "mixed" dynamic/static typed languages in these scenarios... you can do that data manipulation without types, but benefit from types everywhere else... my two favourite "mixed" languages are Groovy on the JVM, and Dart elsewhere... Dart now has a very good type system, but still supports `dynamic` which makes it as easy as Python to manipulate data.
Except the real world is experienced with more senses than the eyes. VR is currently still visual-only. In the real world, any visual defects are worked around by the brain using other sensory inputs. No such possibilities with visual-only VR.
I think originally from SLAC! https://www.slac.stanford.edu/vault/collvault/greylit/cgtm/C...
I’m mystified by one thing about JMAP: JMAP is supposed to support offline clients, but the Fastmail iOS app has no offline support whatsoever. What gives?
This reminds me of the "It's Time for Operating Systems to Rediscover Hardware" talk by Timothy Roscoe:

https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi21/presentation/fri-ke...
Take a look through https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36134733 to see some of the concrete problems JMAP solves.
the flaw in your logic is that things (!russia) does don't affect the high probability that russia is lying, which is, again, the bayesian prior

only the changing behavior of russia can change russia's history of behavior, and it can choose to change in a more honest direction anytime (but has not done so)
It's not a holodeck but Google has an interactive display now that feels like an open window. It doesn't even register in my mind as a display, it feels like looking through a literal portal to another location in physical space.
As far as I can tell, the "100 trillion" number comes from an interview with the CEO of Cerebras when he was doing press for the WSE-2 release in 2021: https://www.wired.com/story/cerebras-chip-cluster-neural-net...
Some photos:

- https://www.officelovin.com/2015/03/another-look-inside-gith...

- https://homeworlddesign.com/github-office-space-san-francisc...
I think it would make a lot more sense to put stuff like this on the Moon. There's gravity, but only 1/6 as much, and you don't have to worry about environmental problems or generating vacuum. There's also water on the Moon.
Time to jailbreak GPUs, then. That or import "international" editions grey market from Taiwan.
2PC tends to have limited throughput due to the participants needing to hold a lock between the voting and commit phase, and all the participants need to support the protocol. Sagas work across different services and data stores and can have high throughput.

However, if all of the data you need to update is in a single database that supports atomic commits, I'd go with that over sagas.
KDE's okular might be a good choice. I haven't personally used it for epub but I know it supports it.

https://okular.kde.org/
I'm not sure what are you asking about but let it be nohello.net - it is very basic and definitely shares some info.
Not the author of the comment, but based on how I understand the comment, I feel essentially the same way.

I would characterize it a bit differently, seeing as, for example (and to your point), a purely functional lisp program is a tree of lambdas and macros. The same could be said of Haskell.

For me the issue is that classes and objects are actually pretty complicated things for what they are. It’s easy to not notice when you’re in the habit of using them, but really pause and think about how complicated they are. They have both structure and machinery that probably aren’t required for most abstractions: regardless, in OOP they get shoehorned into every problem.

This is why OOP ends up with a bunch of well known design patterns, whereas in FP they’re not reaaaaally a thing (arguably).

A tree of functions is probably the simplest possible way to build programs, at a fundamental level: I am not speaking in terms of individual preferences here, but really mathematical simplicity.
https://markwhen.com - very cool. however, If I could share with you, I would see the value in following case: if I could connect my calendar(s) to it and see what is going on and overlay it with the data here in comment. Use case is both - for retrospective and for planning (for example if you're preparing the meeting and don't want to share content just yet, or jotting something for time in-between meeting what to do, etc)
Someone else asked this upstream, but don’t you “share” your privileged communications with your (and your lawyer’s) email provider when corresponding without E2E encryption?

A third party can be necessary to facilitate the communication between the client and the attorney. A clearer example was if you needed an interpreter to speak to your lawyer - surely that conversation remains privileged and the third party in the room cannot disclose what was learned?
For me I actually moved from Seattle, WA back near family by the beach picking up surfing and enjoying old and new friends for a bit. Church helps a lot for sure, and because I grew up here I have connections to people all over town which helps so different than Seattle, where there was tonnes of churn through covid both in the groups and the people who lived there.

It's something I think about quite a bit in wanting to potentially move to SF/SV or Austin, TX and get back closer to the kinda work I was more interested in on the American side of tech.
What you're describing looks like magic to me. How would your ticket system know, without it being told (in some way, e.g. through backreferences from the tests), that a particular feature has been implemented? That's very likely going to be a formally undecidable problem.
teletext is still huge in Denmark, especially for news. Something like 50 % of all danes read it at least once a month. Also, it really avoids clickbait and long news, just straight to the point! Here, try reading some news in our national broadcasting's teletext http endpoint! https://www.dr.dk/cgi-bin/fttv1.exe/127 (url might look super sketcy, but DR.dk is basically our BBC)

We have the character å now, no clue when that happened
jacamera is on point. Perhaps it's not "leetcode" but it's a seemingly one-dimensional, time-constrained quiz on a specific skill, parsing messy JSON (your words), with you as the sole judge. Personally from experience, when I approach a new API, I recognize it's likely to take a few iterations, based on how that API's data integrates with the rest of my program, to determine the best way to deserialize the API's responses into objects. If I've only got 45 minutes, yea, I'm just going to map it quick and dirty and it's going to look ugly.

Your observation about F# may be valid, but this does appear to be a test of one specific use case for a language, not how productive people are when building entire applications with them.
You are both completely misinterpreting my point and the tone I was intending.

I'm aware there's no warrant. You said it would be "secret", which I interpreted to mean that the parties in question may not know the information was gathered by the government from the other parties in question. I'm not sure whether that's any different than a warrant, and so if it isn't, I'm not sure your objection is well formed.

If, instead, you are upset about a lack of oversight, then you should form your objections along those lines, so people actually can engage with you on the topic fruitfully. I am, in fact, fairly open to an argument along those lines, as oversight and the lack thereof seems to cause a lot of problems. I would want to know what the thoughts of the jurists on SCOTUS was regarding that. It's probably spelled out in the majority and minority opinions to some degree.

> So much ridiculous, wordy justification of the unjustifiable! Is it just AKTCHUALLY dialled up to eleven or something else?

Perhaps what's going on is instead that you're not really communicating your point clearly, and when being asked for clarification your combativeness is causing you come come across as an asshole, and people are responding as such.
I have not found that to be an issue at all. Most F# modules are just types at the top and then functions. This generally does mean that F# modules start with the big picture (i.e., the types) and then move to the details (i.e., functions). If a module is doing something more complicated than that, then I think it's a problem of the module's design likely being too broad.
Yes, absolutely. Most climate models run on supercomputers, same with molecular dynamics, large scale fluid dynamics, energy systems simulations and of course a whole lot of weapons research.
I think there is a certain moral code we should abide by when it comes to harvesting animals in general. Taking a life to sustain your own is part of the natural order however.

Given an octopus can regrow a limb can we farm them more ethically than we do mammals?

Almost all animals that don't have an economic basis in human politics are going to go extinct so we better find something meaningful to justify their protection.

Of course there are some truly resilient ones like rats and roaches that seem to have actually adapted favorably but the vast majority haven't.

Don't most vegans just want livestock to go extinct too?
This comment shows a total misunderstanding of what functional programming is…
i coded the WASIX fork syscall, so I understand all this (f.y.i. I much prefer rust to C as its got a much better designed threading system).

what you must realize is that one does not have to use a syscall if they don't like it in (e.g. just use rust to code your app and it will never call the fork syscall)... but taking that choice away from others who want to use it is unfair as its denying them access to the WASM ecosystem (e.g. bash)
> Those rumors seemed ridiculous in hindsight

No, those rumors seemed ridiculous even then. Many AI influencers were posting some of the most absurd material, often makes basic mistakes (like confusing training tokens with parameters), but anyone in the field could have easily told you that 100T parameters sounded ridiculous.

On that note, "100 Terabytes of GPU memory is exactly what you need to train that class of model." is also likely false. That's how much you'd need to fit such a model into memory at 1 byte per param. Not train it.
Back when I was a customer (before Photon was released, also during) they had a very good tuning, in the order of around 2x faster for the workloads we had at the time (very large graph computation and a “simple” filtering)
The mania had to end since this whole tech culture was built on very cheap money running wild and pumped with VC money with the whole economy on a decade long QE cycle with an extreme amount of over-valued companies still unable to make money.

As soon as the interest rates went up lots of companies started cutting. GitHub included and almost all the benefits went away.
I think most Americans are kind of blind to how absurdly expensive American housing, and the entire American lifestyle, is. It's not just housing, it's everything: healthcare, restaurant food, car culture, heating/cooling/lawn care for the enormous houses, I could go on and on.
Could that be considered tortious interference now?
> used to be able to tell what the machine was doing from the HDD whirrs

This is a tell. You’re old enough that stacks used to be shallower and you were closer to the OS.
It's also problematic because it implies a subjective "feeling" that we associate with sentience (a property of AGI) - not AI systems.
because, in highly technical research area, there are zillons of somewhat similar effects. Some are interesting, some are not.

They need a word for each interesting effect. Sometimes they make up new words, sometime they reuse a rarely used word
I work in the space (doing tech stuff that isn't direct research). The best argument I've seen for alignment by default is something like "morality comes from training data, and therefore the fact that LLM training data sets contain human moral intuitions will mean that an ASI stemming from such a training regime will share enough human values" (Quintin Pope believes something like this, as far as I can tell), which is deeply unconvincing, since it contradicts the evidence we _do_ have from human & animal value formation.

Happy to entertain other arguments that alignment-by-default is reasonable; most arguments I've seen are much worse than that one. I haven't seen many people make an active case for alignment-by-default, so much as leave open a whole bunch of swath of uncertainty for unknown unknowns.
It is just unreasonable for the masses generally. It is a computer you need in addition to your computers.
Hmm I looked into it, and looked at papers/pdfs in google scholar's advanced search with her as an author that mentioned LLMs or GPT in the past 3 years. Every single one was a criticism about how they couldn't actually understand anything (e.g. "they're only trained on form" and "at best they can only understand things in a limited well scoped fashion") and that linguistic fundamentals for NLP was more important.

Good to know my hunch was correct
Systems Engineer means different things in different contexts. The fact that you are getting your Masters in Systems Engineering and work for a large aerospace corporation suggests you mean the tradition term, whereas the article and person you commented on means systems software engineer.
AWS RDS, AWS Aurora or Retool database?
Living in a Frank Lloyd Wright House
APA pool is a good place to meet people
Prince Rupert Awakes: https://youtu.be/zHIapFdzRM8
> Don't you think that this is all a bit anti-intellectual?

Quite rich considering what the GP post was.
India sells refined goods to Europe. They buy crude oil from Russia because Russia has no market to sell it to, and have to sell it at a discounted price. If Russia puts any sanctions on where India can sell their refined goods they'll just buy crude oil elsewhere. Europe isn't the only market, and Russia isn't the only producer of crude oil. India is just making a premium buy using Russian crude oil.

The biggest loss for Russia isn't the loss of crude oil sales, it's the loss of sale on refined goods. They were a massive supplier of things like diesel to Europe.
Increasing density to the point where folks don't have a yard to grow produce in would be even more positive than families growing a small amount of produce that still wouldn't cover their nutritional needs. That's also a real sacrifice, and like your proposal, it's not one that would be accepted, and not one that meets the needs of varied people.

You're taking an extreme, untenable, position as an alternative to an incremental solution that generally fits everyone's needs at a slightly higher cost.

Electrification is inevitable.
This is just brilliant! It makes all the difference in a neighbourhood to have folks who seem to genuinely be friendly and caring staying very close by. My wife and I try to do this in neighbourhoods where we stay without being intrusive or too chatty. Works wonders.
> The risk of MAD is real, and yet the scenarios unleashed by MAD are scenarios that humankind has never seen. We still take the the risk seriously.

Yeah, because nuclear weapons are real and the science behind them is well-understood. Super intelligent AI is not real, and it is nowhere near becoming real. It is a fantasy fueled by science-fiction and wishful thinking.

> And what of the very real impact that generative AI is already having as it exists in production today?

This is a real concern, but it is not what is meant by "existential risk of AI". Losing jobs does not threaten our existence; it just means we'll need to figure out different ways to build society.

> The fact that it's so difficult to define lies at the center of what makes it so risky.

The fact that it's so difficult to define lies at the center of what makes it so profitable for many of these people.
I really hope you're not relying on that, because it's not every original variant ;) although probably most of them are.
No, not just you. It’s frequently
abysmal nowadays. Tragic. And no
version change-log or any other info from OAI about what they’ve done to it (probably GPU sparing optimized distillation + overly aggressive PR safety satisficing RLHF) and an advertised weeks long support query lag (I’ve yet to receive a response).
> Belderrain cited Kalt's paper "The Perfect Crime" to explain why he believed it was illegal to have his trial with a jury from a state other than where the crime was committed. The court dismissed this argument.

Realistically, this is all that's going to happen if/when anyone commits a serious crime in one of these loophole zones. The court isn't just going to throw up its hands and say "you got us" to a murderer.
Also, you correctly anticipated that Swift would become mainstream long before F#, which happened. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but this wasn't that obvious back in 2015. Your reasoning was sound.
Really? Which Supreme Court cases would those be?
C++ doesn't compile that much faster than Rust.
Yeah 100%. Tldr: weight isn't visible to anyone at the gate and is not associated with a passenger. Article is a nothingburger.