skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Think about how dumb the average person is, and then realize that half of them are dumber than that" -George Carlin

The wisdom of crowds, if it applies to teams, is in communication. I talk you out of cutting corners, and sometimes you talk me out of it. There's no communication in a training corpus. You just get the average of all of the code that wasn't so horrible that people stopped what they were doing to fix it. Which is to say, half of the code is barely tolerable.
This is probably going to change when AMD switches from AGESA openSIL, fully open firmware.
Just as I do not need a relationship with a grocery clerk or used car dealer, I do not need a relationship with any salesperson. Interaction is formal and transactional.
That is absolutely how it works here.
Things really picked up for China with Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s. When people say America can't do X like China can, they don't mean it will take a lot of time, they just mean that we don't have the will to do it. And given the huge environmental costs China incurred in its rapid development, they might be right.
If they can't control a substantial portion of the downside risk, they shouldn't be allowed to take credit for the full upside, either.

The problem with the executive compensation ratchet of the past few decades is that it is completely divorced from any actual measure of C-level impact. If things go bad, not their fault - if things go well, it couldn't possibly have happened without these strong leaders at the helm.
First, let's have more follow-ups like these that name the actual company, please (even though there's no abuse or massive incompetence alleged in this particular case). The more genuine transparency we have about these companies, the better.

As to your concern - well it seems to be not that they did anything horribly misleading or abusive to you - but simply that they passed on you, right?

The thing is ... at the end of the day, companies pass on qualified or nearly qualified candidates all the time -- sometimes for perfectly good reasons, sometimes for perfectly bad reasons. And a lot of times because they just don't know.

A lot times also they'll just (perhaps narcissistically) pass, and pass and pass on what may have been perfectly decent candidates ... until one day they go, "Oh shit, this starting to drag on, we need to fill this role" and then they just take the 4th or 5th person who comes along and seems to vaguely meet the bar. Or whom one of the panel just has a certain hunch about (or a lack of negative hunches).

And then of course promptly forget about the whole time-wasting experience for all involved, and repeat it again in the next hiring cycle. All the while complaining about how difficult it is to hire.

That's just what these companies do, and there's not a lot anyone can do about it. Especially not the candidates, who at best can just take their lumps, and factor this all into the cost of job switching.

In this case you can again be thankful that nothing really abusive seems to happened, other than ... companies doing what they're gonna do

Which I grant can be quite frustrating to all concerned, especially the way it keeps happening ... at scale, again and again.
This has nothing to do with hindsight.

We've known for decades that hand sanitizer (and antibiotic soap) kills off the beneficial bacteria on your hands, and also dries out skin, increasing the percentage of pathogens that survive contact with skin, and also increasing the percentage that manage to get past skins' protective barriers.

We also knew that coronavirus was airborne well before 2019.

The medical and microbiology/virology communities provided advice that was the exact opposite of what the epidemiologists suggested, and were ignored.

Epidemiologies are closer to being historians or sociologists than doctors, so letting them run the show made no sense, and, in hindsight, what was obvious at the time turned out to be correct. The lockdowns were absurdly expensive, created massive secondary public health problems, and didn't save as many people as the approach dictated by conventional wisdom would have.

Conventional wisdom said we should figure out which people were most vulnerable (the elderly, obese and people with chronic medical conditions), and aggressively quarantine just them. That would allow covid to spread through the rest of the population in a month or two, and wouldn't require the entire economy to shut down. Instead, something like 5% of the workforce would call in sick for a month or two.

At this point, the excess mortality from the pandemic is above the expected mortality rate for low risk groups, so, in hindsight, we now know for sure that we should have listened to the medical community, and the findings of the (now retired) epidemiologists that studied the last pandemic.

Having more supporting evidence now doesn't change the fact that all of this was obvious at the beginning of the pandemic, but that it was ignored / actively censored by our leaders.

Anyway, at the end of the day, covid is a strain of the common cold, not some crazy alien pathogen that we have zero experience with. Also, humans have dealt with dozens of pandemics during recorded history. The whole "this was a brand new thing we had no experience with" argument just doesn't hold water.
Ask HN: Is there an easy way to use the March 14th model ChatGPT-4 model?
Like many people, I strongly suspected that OpenAI lobotomized the May 24th GPT-4 model (perhaps to speed up response times or save on computing resources). Recently, I've confirmed this by testing a few prompts against the original "gpt-4-0314" (March 14th) model in the OpenAI playground where it still responds beautifully.

My question is: Do any of the myriad of bring-your-own-API-key alternative ChatGPT frontends allow the user to select the "gpt-4-0314" model?

I've already tried a couple (ChatBotUI & TypingMind), but neither seem to offer this feature.
Quality masks require actual capital investments, so longer term commitments. Toxic hand sanitizer can turn a profit with practically zero capital investment. This is precisely how capitalism works. Socialism or barbarism.
That would require for you to be a well-rounded person that hasn’t optimized for only one facet of the job (e.g. money, technical skill, etc.) — at that point might as well be an entrepreneur.

It would also require that your interviewees are not comprised of psychos willing to take whatever measure necessary to get what they want (i.e. play the game/talk the talk) — which usually does not happen when a lot of money or power is being offered.
Temporarily, maybe, until misguided decision makers realize they could not feasibly replace people with a half-baked ‘AI’. And I do think we (the community lurking on HN) are living in a huge bubble - there’re so many more jobs out there that we have not even a slightest idea how to replace.

On top of that, the biggest unaddressed problem that everyone seems to pounce over is tacit knowledge - it cannot simply be transferred even between humans, using words, gestures or any other media. It can only be gained through the human experience, by doing stuff. It’s the same old problem from the expert systems days. So we cannot hope to replace them with AI, at least not until AI somehow becomes self-aware and gains all of the non-surface depths of the human mind, and lives through the same experience.
I pointed out a dupe, which is an ordinary, everyday thing done on HN. Nothing unusual there.

For some strange reason, interestica (and now you) chose to argue with me about it, futilely, as it turns out. I wasn't the one dying on a hill.

My understanding is that the moderators often see comments pointing out a dupe, or pointing out that an article title is missing a (YEAR), and such comments are helpful. Indeed, I've seen them thank some such comments. Moreover, it's also a signal to other readers of the submission.
Wouldn't insurance companies have an incentive to overestimate risk though? Not saying you should ignore the danger... just, not sure the two assessments should be expected to line up.
> Migrations first, not schema first.
> Migrations are specified in a declarative format, not in SQL.

Strongly disagree about this. Consider how Terraform works. You declare what the end state should look like and it decides what the "migrations" should be to get you there (the plan). With a relational DB, we would declare the end-state DDL and execute a "plan" that will derive the migration for you and, preferably, derive corresponding types in whatever language you are using.
Really doesn't surprise me that much. Llama.cpp seems like an OK first passs but I assume there is loads of time left on the table in terms of graph optimizations optimizing for the memory hierarchy properly.
No, the primary use is in dusty industrial environments where regular fans get clogged up.

Noise currently is worse than regular fans because it's higher pitched.
His FIREWORKS (1947) is a foundational queer cinematic work at less than 15 minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLDQ59wbQuY
If you actually want to replace Reddit, I suppose. But this, too, is a matter of preference. Growing the userbase as quickly as possible is a business concern, and isn't necessarily better for the community itself.

Yes, I actually want to replace Reddit. I want to have communities where people are into hobbies OTHER THAN computing.

I think you are overestimating how sophisticated these systems are and underestimating what users are capable of. Plenty of people who were not hard-core tech-savvy IT experts participated in Usenet. There were many, many non-technical newsgroups, and they were quite popular.

They had no other choice back then. I don't think you'll ever see the success of something as sophisticated as Usenet be duplicated, ever again. Non-technical users will just move to Facebook or Instagram or Discord.
"AI" is a moving target. As soon as techniques under the banner of "AI" start being used, they get a specific name and people start saying "that's not AI". For now, LLMs "are AI", just like current text-to-image models (Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, etc). There's no winning a terminology war single-handed.
The purpose of Intel ME is to give foreign intelligence agencies wireless access to America's senators, executive teams, and critical infrastructure.

Occasionally the open source security industry uncovers yet another 0day in the endless stream of zero days then Intel and all the OEMs release a patch to fix the bug and add three more 0days to Intel ME.

Very very few IT teams want AMT. It is a total scam. If we had a functioning government, Intel ME in its current from would never be allowed to be sold in USA.
Yes, I do know. I talk to my peers. Why would any salesperson think they are more trusted than a peer?
SiFive Gives Its WorldGuard Security Model to the RISC-V Community
It seems like wealthy nations often leave resources in the ground until they really need them.

Mining, refining, logging, chemical processing...these are dirty businesses. Why muddy up your local communities and reduce your future reserves, if one of your trading partners is willing to do it on their turf?

It does mean short-term pain if capacity and expertise need to be built out quickly, but that's the price of admission.
Regarding "SQL is not typed": as a matter of fact you can always type-check your queries against a transaction. If it fails, there's your syntax and type error right there. If it doesn't fail, then it either reads, or also modifies the database. But when you are in a transaction, you can simply not commit the transaction. You're always isolated. You can always check your SQL, safely.

BTW the author doesn't know what the word "liability" means.

As for Post-ORM, like ORM it treats the DB as a hidden implementation detail, which means no free interaction with existing DBs and uneasy solutions when something isn't in your abstraction, but it's trivial in the database itself. This approach has its place, but it doesn't seem like Post-ORM as much as a continuation of what ORM did in the first place, including many of the problems following.
calloc has its own set of gotchas, though. For instance, it may allocate a different amount of memory than you requested, and it comes with the overhead of zeroing out the allocated memory.

Neither of these may matter to you, but when they do, they really matter. So you still have to be thoughtful about using it. Not so different from how you have to be thoughtful about using malloc.
Sure but under the guise of "long-term profits" you can justify almost anything.

For example, you could say "we need to beat climate change, otherwise there won't be any profits on a dead earth".
People hate Bill Gates and I was never able to find out why. I doubt he votes Republican.
I do it with heightmaps. It can generate human faces, rocks, planets, terrains, all at high detail. There is no need for attempting to generate 3d models for everything, when you can create “blueprints”.
Whatever happened to the many hundreds of millions French billionaires said they would donate for it? I know a couple have coughed up, and most of the companies who said they would have but I don't all who promised to do so have.
These are fantastic, thank you for sharing!
I think I still don't understand. Can you explain why it is not a hypothetical problem on a deterministic virtual machine?
Google is part of the Khronos group. They were well positioned to steer the standard towards one that doesn't suck. Or they could have championed a different standard. Google has the scale that only Google is to blame that they are still heavily dependent on a closed standard.

Open Standards almost always beat closed ones. IMO AMD was right to bet on open standards. They lost the bet but I think it was the right bet.
> The idea of a full copy of Minix with TCPIP running on my machine is scary.

Well...

- I don't think the ME knows how to talk to non Intel NICs (install a Realtek or Broadcom based NIC).

Some searching I just did regarding "AMT" (remote management feature that uses the ME) says it needs an Intel NIC.

And, some searching I just did regarding vPro (not 100% sure what this is exactly) says vPro uses the onboard network adapter.

- So I don't think the ME will look for a NIC on the PCIe bus at all, but not 100% sure.

- I'm fairly sure AMT/vPro/the ME doesn't know how to talk to anything other than stuff on the PCIe bus (use a USB NIC)

- The NIC the ME would use has a MAC like any other NIC. Should be information available from the firmware. Just block it at the router.
Did you try TensorRT?
Someone said similar elsewhere, but the problem is the "meta code" that does the comparison needs to be hardened as well.
you guys were downvoting me but that's exactly what it was

"Colonel retracted his comments and clarified that the ‘rogue AI drone simulation’ was a hypothetical ‘thought experiment’"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/02/us-air-force...
There’s only so much information content that exists on the Internet. There’s a limit to it, and one cannot simply produce more info once that limit is reached, it goes against the entropy so to speak. And then, “garbage in - garbage out”.

In addition, I think we’re living in a huge bubble and are sort of entitled enough to think that Internet = human knowledge. So many jobs and skills are simply not transferable even using human language (and even if they hire an army if “trainers”). This is one of the core problems with the current incarnation of “AI” - tacit knowledge has always been the stumbling block, even back in the expert systems days when everyone was thinking what we’re thinking will happen today.

So until the machines can somehow gain consciousness, autonomous and nimble movement, the will to live and all of the deep levels of the human mind that are outside language, I think we’ll be pretty safe :-) And for now, on all of these parameters they aren’t even close to a cat.
All content on Stack Overflow is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-SA. So, in theory, the community could create a new Q&A website and import all the questions and answers from Stack Overflow. But that doesn't overcome the network effect, I admit.
20% more performance for 20% higher prices... whoopty doo.
Gates is spearheading the cure of diseases all over the world - there are few better ways to purchase goodwill or a good reputation. That is: his area of work has helped (or at least not hindered) his PR team in keeping up a good reputation.

Sadly we cannot trust all billionaires to be 'enlightened despots', but at least in this case I say we lucked out - there's plenty stupid or harmful things he could've done

Like, for example, purchase Twitter and grind it into garbage. I'm joking, of course, but goes to show why Musk is considered an imbecile _despite_ having money and Gates is considered intelligent because he made money (and spends it well).
The expansion of the AT macro seems a bit bloated:

#define AT(NAME, IDX) \
((typeof(&(*NAME)[0])) \
((ASSERT(((size_t)IDX) * sizeof(*NAME)[0] < sizeof *NAME, \
"Buffer Overflow. Index [%lu] is out of range [0-%lu]", \
((size_t)IDX), ((sizeof *NAME / sizeof(*NAME)[0]) - 1))), \
((uchar *)*NAME) + ((size_t)IDX) * sizeof(*NAME)[0]))

Some of this might be pushed into non-inlined run-time
support function. That could be static and defined in the
header, to keep it header-only, but ideally there would be a .c
file so it's defined only once.

When you factor in the definition of ASSERT, and the ERRLOG macro that is using, it's a lot of cruft for just one array access.

Some compile-time options (via preprocessor macros) to control the bloat would be useful; e.g. a way of compiling it so that AT will just predictably crash, without a detailed error message with __FILE__ and __LINE__ and all. Basically just the check, with a branch to some code that calls abort() if it's out of bounds.
So much negativity on this thread. I think it's at least worth mentioning that the paper does present many genuinely interesting ideas; for instance:

1. The change history of a repository contains more information than just the final state of the code. The change log constitutes useful training data which can allow a model to learn things it might not get from just being trained on completed code.

2. Software engineering consists of a lot more than just writing code. They've been able to train a model to do other tasks, such as reviewing code and responding to review comments.

3. Operations such as renaming a variable can be modeled as a single high-level action, rather than as a set of raw code edits. A model trained to generate such higher-level actions can potentially achieve better results. "For example, a rename might touch a file in dozens of places, but a model can predict a single rename action."

4. A developer's recent activity can be used to help predict next steps. They give the example that if you add a parameter to a function and then move the cursor into the function documentation, the model can predict that your next step is to document the new parameter. "Without history, the model wouldn’t know whether the missing function parameter is intentional (because the developer is in the process of a longer edit to remove it) or accidental (in which case the model should re-add it to fix the problem)."

A longer example:

> ...we started with a blank file and asked the model to successively predict what edits would come next until it had written a full code file. The astonishing part is that the model developed code in a step-by-step way that would seem natural to a developer: It started by first creating a fully working skeleton with imports, flags, and a basic main function. It then incrementally added new functionality, like reading from a file and writing results, and added functionality to filter out some lines based on a user-provided regular expression, which required changes across the file, like adding new flags.

This ability to emulate a natural sequence of authorship steps to create a new code file seems similar to "reason step by step", but specialized for coding.
I saw this video[1] of them at CES and was wondering when people would actually be able to get their hands on one. Cool to see they'll actually be in a product soon.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGxTnGEAx3E
The Overton Window continues to shift. Now it's totally fine on YouTube to espouse conspiracy theories, obvious lies and political folkloric beliefs as "facts." With all this technology, the power of human stupidity reigns supreme.
> Shatters Apple's argument that all of these hurdles are better for security.

Sorry I don't buy that this "shatters" anything besides peoples misguided assumptions that anything can be perfectly secure without being fully disconnected.

Apple's iOS 16 supports iphone 8 which was released in 2017, 5 years ago.
Apple's iOs 15 supported iphone 6 which was released in 2015, 7 years ago.

> Samsung’s previous promise to provide three years of upgrades and ensures millions of Galaxy users have access to the latest features for security, productivity, visual experience and more, for as long as they own their device.

https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-galaxy-os-upgrade-one-ui...

They only _just_ changed to 4 years, last year.

> Samsung will now provide up to five years of security updates to help protect select Galaxy devices

They do mention 5 years of updates but only for _select_ galaxy devices (presumably the top of the line).

---

I am assuming anyone rooting/flashing is taking way more risks and security concerns into their own hands. But in length of support/security updates alone apple is winning.

I also wonder how long it actually takes a vulnerability patch (let's say for a zero day) to get out on android and then through OEM security updates. (I haven't been android in too long to know this.) Apple actually just released a way for them to do this and have already used it once, they call it "Rapid Security Responses" (which you can switch off although idk why you would).

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204204
Can I also get 20% larger size? And maybe 20% less VRAM.
I hadn't had a flu for probably 3 years before covid, so masking might have worked retroactively.
I agree. The stack of closing parens and closing braces in Java looks like a warning sign.

But I also find Richard's Haskell code remarkably clear. It solves the puzzle elegantly.
This gets into the particulars of how moderation on SO usually works. Posts are only deleted for low quality when they are really terrible. Most bad posts are handled by downvoting by the community, no mods involved. Deciding which posts are bad very often requires domain knowledge, which the mods can't have for every possible topic on SO.

SE dropped this new policy on monday, a holiday and it went into effect immediately. They never even mentioned before that they were concerned about false positives here. They could have just asked the mods, explained the concerns and asked them to be more careful. That never happened.

The new policy isn't just erring towards avoiding false positives, it is far more extreme than that and prevents almost all cases of AI-generated content from being moderated.

There are other concerns like e.g. especially academic sites are strict about considering the use of AI-generated content without declaring it to be plagiarism. Acting on that is now impossible.