skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I shovelled snow for the older lady who lived around the corner. She had the same given name as my mother. We talked shop about gardening. Occasionally she would invite my kids over for tea and cookies. We traded books.

Other neighbours would be working on projects in their yard. I offered to help. We get to talking. Some of us had kids around the same age who started hanging out.

I show movies in my yard when the weather is nice and invite people over. We make a big potluck dinner and hang out.

I care a lot about global warming and climate change. One of the biggest impacts we can have as individuals is at the local level. Help out with municipal elections and support councillors who are going to help reduce traffic, make streets safer, help develop community infrastructure, etc. Go to zoning by-law meetings and press for mixed-use neighbourhoods. There's lots you can do here.

I also play music and enjoy board gaming. I meet other musicians through gigs or friends and we jam together, etc. I've joined gaming groups at my local game store on and off when I get into a good game.

There are lots of ways to get out and get local. Start helping people in your community get what they need is a good way to start.
Why do you have to inoculate yourself from it to create havoc? Your analogy of “nuclear war” also has no vaccine.

AI autonomy is a hypothetical existential risk, especially in the short term. There are many non-hypothetical existential risks including actual nuclear proliferation and escalating great power conflicts happening right now.

Again my point being that this is an important discussion but appears overly dramatized, just like there are people screaming doomsday there are also equally qualified people (like Yann LeCun) screaming BS.

But let’s entertain this for a second, can you posit a hypothetical where in the short term a nefarious actor can abuse AI or autonomy results in harm? How does this compare to non-AI alternatives for causing harm?
The first car didn’t change the world, nor did the first plane, etc. At least not directly.

But they did pave the way for the examples that did change the world.

No different here. Generative AI will change the world. Doesn’t mean these models will in and of themselves.
JW are all or nothing, but lots of other religious communities accept various degrees of unbelief: various Jewish denominations, Quakers, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Western-style Buddhists, etc. Catholicism is officially all or nothing but if you're born into it, there are a lot of liberal parishes where you're not expected to actually believe it. There was an Episcopalian meme circulating in the 00s where it showed a picture of the controversial liberalizing American Archbishop with the text "Don't believe in that crap? Neither do we."[1] That's pretty standard among mainline denominations.

[1]: http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/11/apropos-of-episcopal-p...
I couldn’t care less what some gangster politicians are doing to brainwash people. Believe me, I don’t care a single ounce and I haven’t spent more than 30 minutes rummaging over it since the war began. I just don’t care. :-)
that's what I mean by "unusual circumstances". As you point out, the "usual evolutionary channels" don't really fit.
did you say 'Sorry to bee pedantic'?

hyuk hyuk hyuk
She’s contributed to many academic papers on large language models and has a better technical understanding of how they work and their limitations than most signatories of this statement, or the previous widely hyped “AI pause” letter, which referenced one of her own papers.

Read her statement about that letter (https://www.dair-institute.org/blog/letter-statement-March20...) or listen to some of the many podcasts she’s appeared on talking about this.

I find her and Timnit Gebru’s arguments highly persuasive. In a nutshell, the capabilities of “AI” are hugely overhyped and concern about Sci-Fi doom scenarios is disingenuously being used to frame the issue in ways that benefits players like OpenAI and diverts attention away from much more real, already occurring present-day harms such as the internet being filled with increasing amounts of synthetic text spam.
There is a section about boson stars at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_star

> [...] For this type of star to exist, there must be a stable type of boson with self-repulsive interaction; one possible candidate particle is the still-hypothetical "axion" (which is also a candidate for the not-yet-detected "non-baryonic dark matter" particles, which appear to compose roughly 25% of the mass of the Universe). It is theorized that unlike normal stars (which emit radiation due to gravitational pressure and nuclear fusion), boson stars would be transparent and invisible. [...]
Ive never seen Star Trek, but lets say you had an infinite food machine. The machine would have limited throughput, and it would require resources to distribute the food.

These are both problems that capitalism solves in a fair and efficient way. I really don’t see how the “capitalism bad” is a satisfying conclusion to draw. The fact that we would use capitalism to distribute the resources is not an indictment of our social values, since capitalism is still the most efficient solution even in the toy example.
I wanted to see what "crossed swords" meant, so I searched for what leashless might have meant.

Some examples of threads that I felt were representative.

https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1513184187498569729

https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1516610542588284931

I think the most generous summary of these interactions would be that leashless is solidly convinced of two things: blockchains are the answer to pressing world problems, and skeptics are simply not on his intellectual and moral level.

The home page of Mattereum appears to be a pitch to create one NFT per physical item and then make transactions about it on the blockchain. I confess I am also unsure of how this technology adds value to e-commerce. Nor does this scheme seem to be sufficient to bring about such levels of transparency that it could meaningfully combat slavery, or address issues of climate justice. I hope that leashless is correct about all of that.
What was the original meaning? When I hear "serverless" I think basically:

1. I don't have to think about or manage any servers

2. Usage is metered at a very fine-grained level (per X requests to the API/per GB of data/etc)

3. No fixed cost. You only pay for usage.

Was there a different meaning originally?
See my comment showing how to transcribe using Whisper:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35366778
Most of us aren't playing with multi-modal models yet. Text can describe any world, but when it starts coming AI watching live video feeds for learning, can it base itself in reality with that?
> relying on centralized entities which clearly is a problem

More or less of a problem than out and out scams?

> Web5

Did I miss web4?

Overall your complaint would be similar to if I complained that Bryan Krebs was one-sided in his coverage of cybercrime, in that he's never pro-crime.
I haven't read your report completely, but it's very interesting.

I would love to hear a bit more details about query selector performance. Could you maybe provide some details or a pointer where this was tested?

Also about websockets vs HTTP calls: HTTP calls do not open separate socket connection even when you're using HTTP/1.1 with keep alive, with HTTP/2 it's a default way of working, so should not be a problem. I guess something else is a culprit here?
Of course, but that doesn't change that fiber is typically a massive improvement to anything else.

Because that means proper last mile connectivity where DSL suffers and cable has poor latencies. There is also less contention in the last mile.
can you explain what we "know" now that changes the question?
Seems strange to me to prompt an AI to generate this kind of stylized isometric video game art that's clearly intended to look like it's made out of uniform, reusable "object assets"... but as a single-shot "gestalt" of each scene. (It's like doing an oil painting of a Minecraft world, and expecting the voxels to look voxel-y.)

For the sake of artistic coherence, wouldn't you rather those same tables and chairs and beds to be reused everywhere else you need a table/bed/chair in the game?

Which is to say: wouldn't it make more sense to ask the AI to generate individual objects; select the best ones, over many iterations; put those together into an asset library (i.e. a tileset/spritesheet); build some training-data tilemap "scenes" out of those objects for few-shot training; and then ask the AI to generate you more tilemaps, with the tileset provided as part of the input? (In other words, to do the same thing for levels that it's doing for music when it generates MIDI.)

(Heck, you might even be able to train it to do both steps at once — train it on screenshots of a tilemap-editor UX (e.g. RPG Maker or Tiled), where the tileset palette and the resulting tilemap are visible at the same time; and where the screenshots are composed such that the tilemap only uses tiles available in the tileset. You'd expect it to learn both to invent nice reusable tiles for you, and also to use those tiles to build you a scene.)
Obvious Quip: "Nothing that was really worth remembering, eh?"
They claim they did it. That's what we're talking about. Did you read the article?
Yeah, JW are, to put it mildly, nuts. They also outlaw blood transfusions. They literally expect you to just die if you experience any sort of trauma.
Yes, you'd have to do some own work to set up a direct competitor from the provided pieces.

They have published a new piece which is how they vertically autoscale Postgres in Kubernetes: https://github.com/neondatabase/autoscaling
Here's the link to the Florida Atlantic University article that this piece summarizes

https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/perfect-pathogen-storm
Fostering rescue animals has a double payoff–the animals themselves keep you company, and you'll meet a lot of people through the shelter or rescue you volunteer at. It's also one of the few ways to get to hang out with a litter of juvenile kittens.
It should go to showing fewer ads
Podcasting is a unique business. It's the talk radio of the internet. In 1996, the Telecommunications Act [1] passed and that allowed ClearChannel to buy every radio station in the country and consolidate it up into a boring homogenous product. No longer were there local DJs promoting bands that would create completely new types of music every decade. All the music genres froze in place and that was that.

Now we have podcasting which is incredibly cheap to run. It's incredibly cheap to host. Anyone can do it. It's even less cancelable than telegram channels. There's no app store. It's an audio file. There are plenty of independent podcast apps that do not go through a cloud provider. It's the greatest use case ever for RSS! It's also deeply intellectual, or stupid, or controversial, but it's a million different things to a million different people. In my opinion, it's as close to the true promise of the internet realized as any media that has come along since the 90s.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
link to the study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004313542...
Usually there’s a limited amount of genetic material to leverage.

If a bacteria adapts to eating plastic, you’d expect the rest to start degrading as it becomes unnecessary, and can be recycled to better plastic eating.
Binance Explores Letting Some Traders Keep Collateral at a Bank
Thank you. This is laid out nicely.
Get ready for your bill to go through the roof.
Yes, but usually when people express concerns about the danger of nuclear missiles, they are only thinking of those nuclear missiles that are at the direction of nation-states or perhaps very resourceful terrorists. And their solutions will usually be directed in that direction, like arms control treaties. They aren't really including "and maybe a rogue AI will secretly build nuclear weapons on the moon and then launch them at us" in the conversation about the danger of nukes and the importance of international treaties, even though the nukes are doing the actual damage in that scenario. Most people would categorize that as sounding more like an AI-risk scenario.
Get a housemate or two or move in with some. Make sure they are doing it because at least partly they like having housemates. In other words, you don't want to move in with silent bob who's just doing it because of financial reasons. Lots of folks like having housemates for the community.
_The Meursault Investigation_ is a worthy follow-up read to _The Stranger_.
I'm always fascinated by the supercomputers of the past. Sometimes we forget that the literally fastest computers in the world 40 years ago have the performance of a $20 NanoPi Neo (four cores, 200 MFLOPS/core, 345 or so milliamps at 5 volts instead of 345 kilowatts).

What makes me sad is that there was so much work to make software that took advantage of those awesome systems, but most of that software is gone now. It'd be wonderful if we could try out and learn from supercomputing software from the past.
That doesn’t erase the need of cynicism. Many people in academia come from industry, have friends in industry, or other stakes. They might have been persuaded by the rhetoric of stakeholders within industry (you saw this early in the climate debate; and still do), and they might also be hoping to get a job in the industry later on. There is also a fair amount of group think within academia, so if a prominent individual inside academia believes the lies of industry, chances are the majority within the department does.
There are still enormous savings that could have been made by taking climate action more seriously earlier.

Prioritizing efficient public transportation and the cargo train network. Reducing meat production. Insulating houses. Etc, would have prevented many net-bad investments that were made and would've alleviated the need to now very rapidly transition the economy at enormous cost.

Not to speak of the cost in the future if we don't fix this.
No idea if they're completely unique but the legal circumstances here appear to me to be at least unusual so this certainly isnt a common company bankruptcy story: shareholders agreed to pay money into the bankruptcy estate of the companies in return for a release of related, but separate, litigation claims from third parties against them.
The add image feature is not working for me.
This is a breathless, half-baked take on "AI Risk" that does not cast the esteemed signatories in a particularly glowing light.

It is 2023. The use and abuse of people in the hands of information technology and automation has now a long history. "AI Risk" was not born yesterday. The first warning came as early as 1954 [1].

The Human Use of Human Beings is a book by Norbert Wiener, the founding thinker of cybernetics theory and an influential advocate of automation; it was first published in 1950 and revised in 1954. The text argues for the benefits of automation to society; it analyzes the meaning of productive communication and discusses ways for humans and machines to cooperate, with the potential to amplify human power and release people from the repetitive drudgery of manual labor, in favor of more creative pursuits in knowledge work and the arts. The risk that such changes might harm society (through dehumanization or subordination of our species) is explored, and suggestions are offered on how to avoid such risk

Dehumanization through abuse of tech is already in an advanced stage and this did not require, emergent, deceptive or power-seeking AI to accomplish.

It merely required emergent political and economic behaviors, deceptive and power seeking-humans applying whatever algorithms and devices were at hand to help dehumanize other humans. Converting them into "products" if you absolutely need a hint.

What we desperately need is a follow-up book from Norbert Wiener. Can an LLM model do that? Even a rehashing of the book in modern language would be better than a management consultancy bullet list.

We need a surgical analysis of the moral and political failure that will incubate the next stage of "AI Risk".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Use_of_Human_Beings
I told it that it was a senior engineer and I was a random client and asked the same thing. It explained what monkey patching was for, creates an example where a function pulls from an API and we patch it. Depending on runs or prompts you can see more or less explanation. I like getting it to first reason about its role and task, then it has that in its context when replying.

Have you tried telling it who it is? You're coming at it with context about how it should act without telling it - it can role play a lot of things. I spoke to a teacher dealing with kids doing their homework too well with it, and showed you can just say "write X as a student with middling English" and get realistic mistakes.
> Another is the fact their lines of reasoning are literal fantasy.

Isn't this also to be expected at this stage of development? i.e. if these concerns were not "fantasy", we'd already be experiencing the worst outcomes? 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.

And what of the very real impact that generative AI is already having as it exists in production today? Generative AI is already upending industries and causing seismic shifts that we've only started to absorb. This impact is literal, not fantasy.

It seems naively idealistic to conclude that there is "no real risk" based only on the difficulty of quantifying that risk. The fact that it's so difficult to define lies at the center of what makes it so risky.
Burning biomass isn’t ideal when we’re dealing with an atmospheric CO2 crisis.

Maybe we should instead try to accelerate the blob’s growth so it would absorb more CO2.
my town of 10,000 in a larger school district of 40,000. Schools have parent run (not associated with ISD at all) associations by grade level. (pre school, elementary, middle, high) They put on social events at least monthly with smaller groups breaking out weekly. Pickle ball, tennis, mahjong, parties, clubs, etc.
Obviously these lists are incomplete. It was a lot harder finding major programming languages lacking a CoC than finding projects with one.

Language projects with a community Code of Conduct:

Python, Rust, Golang, Ruby, Perl5, Erlang, Elixir, Zig, ISO C++ (WG21 https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-4-wg21-practice...), ISO C (WG14) https://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2021/04/0444.php), ECMA/JavaScript (https://tc39.es/code-of-conduct/)

Language projects without:

Java (Oracle's, anyway), Nim
I think the idea is that OAuth token would allow sending emails as a specific sender, like if I allow say Lyft to send me emails in this flow and they pass the key to spammers the emails will appear to come with Lyft.
As far as I can tell, AI is about 10 years ahead of where experts were forecasting in ~2015.
What exactly are the repercussions for breaking them? Sure, Apple wouldn't sell me anything officially anymore, but how could they actually stop me? They evidently can't stop Corellium.
I wrote that constexpr is useful. In fact that is just my point, a useful feature brings controverse. My take on it is that it is because the language is f up.

constexpr, amongst other uses, cleans up code that was hard-to-understand templated code.

Static assert cleans up other complicated constructs.

Make_unique together with heaps of other primitives tries to clean up cumbersome memory management.

[[fallthrough]] tries to solve the fact that break is easily forgotten, but this time not forgotten, but explicitly not there...

You can name so many of new constructs that solve an earlier problem.

If you went through all the cpp standards upgrades, and knew the history, you understand why all these improvements exist. If not, it all looks overly complicated, which in fact, if you look at it objectively, it is.
> 99.999999999%

Eleven nines is very excessive. Frankly even six nines would still feel excessive, though I’m sorry to say that five might not be any more. Fifteen years ago, I think even three nines would have been excessive. Legitimate outgoing SMTP was fairly common in those days, and botnet SMTP probably proportionally rarer. You know what, even one nine might have been excessive less than twenty years ago.
> Hearing "no legitimate use case" arguments is awfully annoying when you get objective use from the thing being criticized.

What part of the article or Molly White's coverage are you referring to?
I started a chess club in my suburban city. It went from 1 person on Nextdoor (who turned out to have developed the original Carmen Sandiego game) and is now a group of 15 regulars. Of the regulars, I would call 4 of them good friends that have since introduced me to even more friends.

Chess isn't even something we regularly talk about, anymore.
Actually if you read to the end you'll see this article is from the future. So I think wired is doing just fine.

> This article first appeared in the July/August 2023 issue of WIRED UK
> It makes these arguments a lot easier to win if you have a mature design practice with good leadership who can say “What biz/sales/product are asking for is not feasible as it violates our established criteria for dark patterns”.

We don't really have established criteria, we're a smaller org and typically it's been the developers that have resisted implementing any dark patterns while offering alternatives and product has historically been supportive of this.

And yeah since we're a small org, we have a small design team with just a few floating designers. The example I mentioned was with just one in particular and the only one my team really works with.
It's the homeopathic theory of economics.
There is currently a LLVM proposal for -fbounds-safety that seems like a software version of this, although not quite as good:

https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-enforcing-bounds-safety-in-...

In particular, it will allow safety issues from type casting, which do not happen under Cheri C/C++:

https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-947.pdf

I hope that the two efforts could be combined. Having a software version of Cheri for "legacy hardware" would give us the best of both worlds.
As the author of https://superuser.com/a/347115/38062 and https://superuser.com/a/345333/38062, you have my sympathy about the "pack of lies" involving real mode and several wrong combinations of selector and offset.
Time to go back to bottles and paper. But, right now bottles, and paper are not recycled in any significant amount.

We are starting to see the costs of "cheap" plastics, this will probably take more then was saved in costs + some to cleanup. Time to force these companies to start paying large amounts for the cleanup.

As a very young child, I remember there were paper drives a few times a years were people would save their paper for these drives. The paper was then recycled. Bottles were also recycled also.
Finally there's something on the status page! https://status.heroku.com/incidents/2554
Wow you are right. The blog post doesn't even mention it but the home page https://bit.io/ does.
why is that a deterrent? just cut down into smaller size chunks just like we poke the earth full of holes to leak out the oil instead of sucking it out in one go.
> Bitcoin hit the scene in 2011. By 2023 crypto's mostly a failed get-rich-quick scheme with a couple actual possibly legitimate uses that you can see if you squint just right.

You forgot that already by 2022, you were able to use multiple slurp juices on a single ape!
If the promotions ruined the channel the price was too low.