skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
https://contextflow.com | Remote, Europe (or Hybrid Vienna if preferred)

contextflow ADVANCE Chest CT provides radiologists comprehensive computer-aided detection support for suspected lung cancer, ILD and COPD cases. Its main features are designed to help save time and improve reporting quality: nodule detection and quantification, nodule tracking over time, quantitative lung tissue analysis for key image findings, and qualitative analysis of 19 image patterns plus reference cases and differential diagnosis information.

We are a small Product Department with developers, R&D and DevOps folks creating a real product that is running in many hospitals creating real impact.

Two open positions:

* Senior Machine Learning Developer (Full-time, Pytorch, MLOps, "deep learning" on DICOM Images) https://contextflow.com/jobs/senior-machine-learning-develop...

* Software Developer (Backend, part-time) Golang microservice architecture with PostgreSQL https://contextflow.com/jobs/software-developer-backend/

Perk if you are eager to work in an environment that isn't scared to utilize more sophisticated tools such as Elm, NixOS, Clojure.

I personally joined in January as a DevOps Engineer. I really enjoy what we are creating and I am excited to be in a relatively young company to grow with something that is meaningful to me.
I'm quite surprised how we still don't have fixed quality data formats that anyone can easily transform into every possible thing. Accountants should be analyzing records not maintaining them?
If you’re smart enough to pay the tax on your RSUs and hold them for a decade then yeah it’s a pretty straight shot to a few mil. Even Amazon with its notoriously back loaded grants minted a ton of level 5 multimillionaires.
Location: Panama
Remote: Preferred
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: Blockchain (Solidity, CosmosSDK, IPFS, Swarm), NodeJS, Typescript, Go, GraphQL, SQL, Agile/Scrum/Team Mgmt, Angular, React, Vue.
Resume: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rogelio-morrell-575aa51/
Email: molekilla@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Rogelio Morrell, I have been working Frontend / NodeJS last 10 years, in blockchain last 5 years in many diverse roles and projects. I'm currently looking for any gig or job in Americas or Europe timezones and I am available immediately to work on your project.
That may well be the case, but it's still worth thinking about longer-term risks. If it takes, say, forty years to get to AGI, then it's still pretty sobering to consider a serious threat of extinction, just forty years away.

Most of the arguments over what's worth worrying about are people talking past each other, because one side worries about short-term risks and the other side is more focused on the long term.

Another conflict may be between people making linear projections, and those making exponential ones. Whether full self-driving happens next year or in 2050, it will probably still look pretty far away, when it's really just a year or two from exceeding human capabilities. When it's also hard to know exactly how difficult the problem is, there's a good chance that these great leaps will take us by surprise.
Skimmed article mostly.

Could things be better? Sure. But saying we're "wasting" all this time seems a little disingenuous. How much time do people spend maintaining tractor equipment to grow crops? Or really any tools of any trade?

The equipment and tools we use let us be more productive overall with certain tradeoffs.
Spoiler alert: Viewing source of the photos told exactly where the image was from. (all West Virginia). So I got 35 miles, then 0 miles.
Ask HN: Does Anyone Use AWS Spot Instances? What For?
You're going to measure every point like this? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrzej-Baier/publicati...

Likewise, you can crash a car in a lab and do a simulation of one. Both tell you "fascinating" things and are still done by engineers.
I have done some tech hobbies but they failed because most tech hobbies are more challenging than work. My work (data engineering) does not lead to any hobby so that's a dead end too.

I'm also thinking about trying out some outdoor hobbies such as kayak and camping. But with a family and RTO there is little time left.

Anyway I think the above are all execuses. The fault is on me not able to geit through the initial barrier (be it lack of time or patience) and reach the stage of free flow.
Materials chemistry sounds more like the second Industrial Revolution (post 1870) than the first.
Full disclosure, I'm an author who has self published a few things on Amazon and setup author stuff on amazon and goodreads.

>as demonstrated by the fact that it hasn't done anything.

There are links between the two. You can buy my books on amazon (the dropdown supports other vendors) from their Goodreads pages.

But to your point about anticompetitive, I completely agree.

Why are corporations even allowed to just buy other corporations, at all?

A shitty bank bought my bank and promptly made everything about it shittier. Why is this even allowed at all? Companies buying other companies is about the most fundamentally anti-competitive thing there is.
> 10 firms means everyone is losing money and unable to make new investments, while 8 firms means that there's a healthy amount of profit that can sustain R&D and growth.

don't confuse economic profit with accounting profit: the promise/goal/benefit of competitive markets is that economic profit goes to zero. (quickest way to describe the difference is, there are dry cleaners dotting the landscape in competition with each other, they make income which pays the owner's living including saving for retirement, kids college fund, etc. That's accounting profit. That's not economic profit, which is why you don't see VCs and investment banks investing in dry cleaning startups.)

Another important aspect of competitive markets is that weak companies die, and new companies enter, what Schumpeter called creative destruction. The 10 firms "losing money" is 10 firms competing, some of whom will fail. The 8 firms making healthy profits with fat (and lazy) R&D departments is attractive for disruption.
Just being a part of any auto-regressive system does not contradict his statement.

Go look at the GPT training code, here is the exact line: https://github.com/karpathy/nanoGPT/blob/master/train.py#L12...

The model is only trained to predict the next token. The training regime is purely next-token prediction. There is no loopiness whatsoever here, strange or ordinary.

Just because you take that feedforward neural network and wrap it in a loop to feed it its own output does not change the architecture of the neural net itself. The neural network was trained in one direction and runs in one direction. Hofstadter is surprised that such an architecture yields something that looks like intelligence.

He specifically used the correct term "feedforward" to constrast with recurrent neural networks, which GPT is not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedforward_neural_network
I got one of them within 34 miles. Not my fault Appalachia has a look to it

Edit: wait, they're all the same place? I was confused on that point. I thought each was a different state.
I got 63 miles on my first guess
If I provide two model sticks to a physics simulation, it can work out how to put them back together with no more effort than it took to model the break?

Like I can model shooting a cannon ball out of a cannon and it will tell me where it lands. Or I can model a cannon ball sitting on the ground and it will tell me where the cannon was?
Just waiting for Tesla to offer an API of near real time street view data. They could likely already do it.
Visible in the unofficial documentation for AMX instructions too - M2 only bf16 functionality - https://github.com/corsix/amx/blob/main/matfp.md

This matfp instruction computes an outer product and is a kernel for matrix multiplication.
That is basically the middle of nowhere in the United states.
I wouldn't hold out too much hope. The most egregious propaganda has long since shifted to non-clearweb channels like Telegram and Whatsapp groups.
From what I remember: it does not. It's about building a practical computer.
I love using the GnuCash program. It took a while to figure out at first, but we've got over 12 years of personal transactions in GC now. Just the action of manually entering transactions helps us be more aware of spending. I've even used it for small time consulting and investment portfolio management, so it's a really great all-around tool. Last but not least, I appreciate that it's continued to work perfectly all these years without unnecessary UI changes.
Ah, Thanks! Didn't consider/know that
It’s short for Web Template Framework.
Right. I'm not at all sure what the siblings are talking about. I suspect at least one is confusing linear with feed-forward?

But I'm also surprised that Hofstadter keys in on this so heavily. The fact that he wrote an entire pop-sci book on recursion would, in my mind, make him (1) less surprised that AR and R aren't so dissimilar and (2) more sensitive to the sorts of issues that make R more difficult to get working in practice.

(In my mind, differentiating between auto-regressive and recursive in this case is kind of the same as differentiating between imperative loops and recursion -- there are extremely important differences in practice but being surprised that a program was written using while loops where you imagined left-folds would be absolutely required seems a bit... odd.)
You really just answered this yourself:

> Assume a computer would need several minutes to simulate everything that would've happened in the stick. I clearly got the output faster than a computer (and with more precision), so does this imply I'm doing anything particularly fascinating?

You assert that you have output faster than a computer with more precision. However, you do not have any empirical data, just observable data; as stated by zdragnar:

> The difference between you breaking a stick and the computer modeling it is that you've measured nothing. You don't know, with any precision, the amount of force you used, the rate the stick broke at, how much mass remains in the two pieces and how much was lost to splintering, etc.

Then you further state that you can measure those with a ruler and a scale; however, this inherently takes time with significant uncertainty in your measurements and calculations. Whereas a computer will provide all of those numbers.

The other thing to consider is the method of simulation such as finite-element analysis (FEA) and the resolution you need. You can get segmented data all the way to down a specific volume of that stick, good luck with the hand calculations on that.
Does it work for Lyft / Uber?
It will be interesting to see. People are already involved in business-critical processes, and they have a far-from-100% success rate. You can see this with self-driving cars; 0.00001% of the time, they decide to swerve into oncoming traffic for no reason. But they can't get drunk! So whether or not that's a win is something that only time can tell. (People will be outraged, because no person would ever do what the AI did, but what matters are the numbers in aggregate. One could also argue; why should I have to put up with this when I never drink and drive? It's a good point and involves philosophical discussions about free will and all that.)

I guarantee people will be mad when an AI chatbot denies their insurance or customer service claim. But I have a friend who works in customer service and it feels like half her job is correcting the mistakes other customer service agents made. If the first line support was AI, would it change much, other than not paying people to make a bunch of mistakes?

Again, it's going to be painful while we try it out and get the data. It feels like it's going to be worse, and individual anecdotes will make each fuckup seem even worse than it is. But it seems inevitable that we're going to get the data. The only way to get VC writing software right now seems to be by tying your company to AI. That means a lot of experiments are about to leak out into the world. We'll learn a lot.
TBH, I'm not sure CORBA is as bad as its reputation tells. It's a hard problem space overall, and seems nowadays we're reinventing (parts of) CORBA with things like gRPC etc.
You are correct. I miss quoted. Thanks!
I guess 'clean energy' tastes different to the phone or something.

{ sarcasm }

This idea of different types of energy on the consumer end is pretty baseless. It's a complex energy-space and unless you have your own hydro power or such, maybe claims like this are theatre.
That's mainly the result of optimizer passes, C itself doesn't have much to do with it.

Assembly languages actually haven't changed all that much since the 70's, but compilers have improved a lot. The output of early C compilers did indeed match the source code quite closely (and not just on the PDP-11), but even today that's true if you disable optimizations (and even with optimizations is usually pretty straightforward to map the C source to the assembly listing - if you're somewhat aware what optimizer passes in modern compilers are doing).

Of course CPU ISAs are already human-friendly abstractions over what's actually happening down in the hardware.
TiDB uses TiKV as an equivalent to foundationDB. It supports online migrations and pushing down read queries to the kv later. It also defaults to optimistic locking, but supports pessimistic. It also doesn’t have a five second rate transaction limit. a SQL layer on top of foundation DB could probably solve all these problems and it wouldn’t be novel.
Would an artificial intelligence “grow old”?
I'll trade you my Tower Records gift certificate for it.
You literally have addressed nothing in the comments/articles you criticized, and are simply dismissing a combined 2,340 words across two articles as "ad hominem". Just admit that you aren't interested in debating any of the points raised, and are simply offended by the aggressive language. That's fine, but you're not refuting anything or engaging in any form of debate.

> you can in theory still present a strong argument in addition to insulting the other side

There is clearly an argument here in addition to the use of the word "idiots". 2,340 words of ad hominem would be pretty boring and meaningless.

> You could improve the argument, for example, by offering sources/statistics, having a clear argument structure, or making a sincere attempt to engage with material on the other side (plenty of accessible feminist literature exists).

I'm not asking for generic feedback on writing a research paper here. You posted a screenshot of some comments/articles claiming they were low quality, and have failed to demonstrate how any of the points made in the articles were incorrect.

In any case I appreciate the feedback. It doesn't surprise me that aggressive language is polarizing and turns some people off. I personally don't have a problem with that though so long as one also presents an argument. I personally think intensity can actually be a positive because it's more entertaining. For example had the comments/articles instead been written in a more dry and neutral tone, I highly doubt you would've bothered to comment at all.
The interesting thing though is that attention effectively allows a model to meta-learn based on the current context, so in many ways, it may be thought of as analogous to a brain without long term memory.
Does your wife, and do your friends and family all use Delta Chat to chat with you or their own mail clients?
Great it is finally available for Windows
Ask HN: Please stop sharing paywalled links or alike?
I cannot view tweets anymore, nor can I read articles that force me to buy subscription and so forth.

Can HN please add a tag that say "paywalled" or something like that to warn me so I can simply avoid wasting a click?

I literally cannot do anything about it, until someone shares either an archived version of it or an alternative page that bypasses the paywall.

Cheers.
This is a pointless stunt. A refrigerator will use 10 to 20 times the electricity of phone that is going at 100% 24 hours a day. The impact of this is ultimately nothing.
I thought "Kentucky" and was 200 away on first guess.
NLP folks are so slow to implement EVERYTHING

Where the hell are negative prompts? Where are word weights? Where is ANYTHING that I can do in Automatic1111?

There are no technical reasons why they can't be implemented.
The philosophical question is whether "social pressure" and "reward function" are the same thing.
What do you mean? Attention is just matrix multiplication and softmax, it's all feed forward.
FTC, if they weren't captured.
Yes, absolutely. Company B would have to compromise the service and change the rules.

Company B can instead spin up its own business and ask Company A to advertise for them, but anything else is just selling out users.
I don't think you're talking about the same thing as the parent comment.
Confirmed Apple M1 lacks bfloat16 support completely -
M1:
hw.optional.arm.FEAT_BF16: 0
vs
M2:
hw.optional.arm.FEAT_BF16: 1
Hmmm...no mention of business domain language. The main reason I want to leave the industry.
Don't forget the Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. If they didn't give Amazon's side unquestioned, someone would be in trouble.
I think you've shared this on the wrong thread. There's a separate post every month for people looking for new roles. This month's post is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36573869
Just like a tick rate in a game
I don't like computer science jokes. Not one bit.
It’s interesting how confidently and obtusely people will proclaim categorical knowledge of the future.

It is a little disconcerting that there is a fight between two somewhat cultish sects when it comes to language models. Both sides call them “artificial intelligence”, one side says they’ll save the world, the other side says they’ll end it.

There is very little room to even question “Is this actually AI that we’re looking at?” when loudest voices on the subject are VC tech bros and a Harry Potter fan fiction author that’s convinced people that he is prescient.
The time at which my colleagues found easy ways to lose data was well after Apple had claimed to use it in iCloud at scale. So, I don't think deployment at scale is a proof of correctness. The thing that needs doing is regularly looking in the database for things that should be there.
Yeah, completely missed the instructions as well. There's plenty of room on the page, they should at least show by default on the first visit.
Do you have some specific reasons why we shouldn't be worried? It's not about about what GPT-4 can do now.
While this might be somewhat applicable for Hofstadter or Tegmark, I think it doesn't applies quite the same way to Hinton. Remember, until this Spring, he's been at Google Brain and has been supervising grad students until recently (famously including Ilya Sutskever (2012)), and has invested in Cohere and other AI startups. I also has a suspicion Hinton might also have a "solid theoretical understanding" of these systems, and don't think he's being misled at all.

Also, I don't think that any of these people think that GPT-4 is itself an existential threat, but rather are worried about the exponential curve of development (I listened to Tegmark's Lex Podcast interview and that seemed to be his main concern). I think it's prudent to be worrying now, especially when capabilities growth is far outstripping safety. This is a huge concern to society whether you are considering, alignment, control, or even bad actor prevention/societal upheaval.

I've also been spending most of my waking hours these past months poking at LLM models and code, and trying to keep up on the latest ML research (it's own full time job), and while I do think there's a pretty good chances AI kills us all, I think it's much more likely it's because we make some incredibly capable AIs and people will tell them to do so, rather than it being contingent on an independent super-intelligence arising and deciding to on its own (although I do think that's a non-zero risk).

As you say, I guess we'll just have to see where we top out on this particular sigmoid, but I'm all for more people thinking through the implications, because I think so far I don't think we (as a society) have thought this through very well yet and all the money and momentum is going to keep pushing along that path.
Note: that there is good physical reasons why the cost of QC may grow exponentially with qbits. Refrigeration is exponentially inefficient as T=>0 and the gap of a quantum system which sets the temperature you must cool to shrinks as you couple new degrees of freedom. This dynamic has been the basic reason for the sub exponential progress in the area (despite exponential expenditure)
As someone who spent some time on IRC as a teen surrounded by people in their 20s and 30s. It actually is.
Knowing where to stack things is something humans are capable of rapidly learning. It’s not a big part of the workload of stacking shelves. The actual physical effort dominates the work.
I’m guessing he’s referring to the Roger Penrose stuff — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind , etc.
Oddly enough, I think this can be answered by headlines alone. Imagine you could do anything remotely interesting with a relative speedup of 47 years to 'instant', where we can say an instant is 1 millisecond. That'd mean in one day of calculation, you could do things that'd take a current era supercomputer more than 4 billion years to achieve. And so on upward from there. Yet we're focusing on this odd and relatively boring metric of 47 years?

That suggests that the implications intentionally provoked by the phrasing "Google’s quantum computer instantly makes calculations that take rivals 47 years" are obviously false, even if the statement itself is true in some extremely specific context. So in other words, when genuine quantum progress has been achieved - I don't think we'll need to debate it, as the results would speak for themselves.
Agreed! I flag tweets, but that's probably inappropriate.
x86 has remainder: IDIV calculates both the quotient and the remainder at the same time and places them in different registers just like many other ISAs before it did. In fact, DIV instruction of PDP-11 worked that way too:

Description: The 32-bit two's complement integer in R and Rv1 is divided
by the source operand. The quotient is left in R; the remain-
der in Rv1. Division will be performed so that the remainder
is of the same sign as the dividend. R must be even.

Example: CLR RO
MOV #20001,R1
DIV #2, RO

Before After
(RO) = 000000 (RO) = 010000 Quotient
(R1) = 020001 (R1) = 000001 Remainder

PDP-11 also had ADC and SBC (add/subtract with carry) instructions which weren't (and still aren't) exposed in C either.
I doubt this is how it works, but you could do a k-anonymity thing and search for a location by submitting the first few characters of the hash of the location, and getting back a response with the data for all locations with a hash that starts with those characters. Client picks out the correct location from the response, and the server is never aware of which one the client wanted.

Same as searching for passwords by partial hash with the pwned passwords api.
I'm not advocating for banning M&As, but I think that could be addressed by only allowing acquisitions under specific bankruptcy conditions.

Again, though, I'm not advocating for that position. I'd hate to spend part of my life building a business and not be able to cash out when the time comes for me to retire.