skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Hard disagree. That's a utilitarian mindset.

You misunderstood. I'm just saying that you cannot make good conclusions from bad assumptions. That's not a utilitarian mindset, that's just basic logic.

> Morals is relevant regardless of whether the assumptions are faulty.

That makes no sense. If your underlying beliefs are wrong you will commit atrocities. If you truly believe that a baby that grows up to be a Christian (or whatever) will be tortured in hell for all eternity, then it is an infinite good to kill that baby before that happens. This is what happens with bad assumptions. This isn't a hypothetical example btw, this is what real people believe TODAY.

> Inasmuch as we are humans and there's no such thing as objective fact,

Well that's just false.

> you're saying is trivially true but also too abstract.

Too abstract... for what?

> Don't sci-fi me, don't insult my intelligence.

That makes no sense. You are now using hysterical and emotional language because you are failing to be convincing with logic. That's not me insulting your intelligence, that's YOU insulting your own intelligence.

> I've little patience for moral relativism as an argument for this kind of debates.

There we agree 100%. I'm not arguing moral relativism at all. In fact quite the opposite. YOU argued moral relativism above with "no such thing as objective fact".

> if we reach such a dead-end where the only possible "solution" is genocide. It's ok to say "we cannot solve this problem, we cannot follow this abhorrent path".

That makes no logical sense. "Let all humans die, because we cannot follow this abhorrent path" is to trade genocide for extinction. Which is the same as trading 1 genocide against ALL genocides at the same time.

This is the point of thought experiments: to really test your logic to the extreme and see if it still makes sense. Your axiomatic approach does not survive this test, as you clearly demonstrate.
Yeah, which is stupid

Museums could have a booth that takes cash/card and prints the tkts instead of a random/poorly maintained website that'll do who knows what to you CC number (which probably costs more than having the person selling tkts)
Ideogram, a new image generator that can spell
It certainly looks a lot safer than the ones that hang your child outside the car.
One of the team members formally worked on Imagen at Google. Lot of big names.

https://ideograms.ai/launch

I am not affiliated in any way. Anyone know if they have a Discord or an API?
Why use a programming language at all? Why not write everything in machine code for that matter?

The point is that Haskell's position on the abstraction spectrum is no less arbitrary than that of Go or C++. You cannot divorce the relative advantages and disadvantages of various levels of abstraction from the realities of maintenance, development time, readability, complexity, and yes, the fact that not everyone is as big brained as you, because by not writing machine code, you have already acknowledged that these realities matter.

I can just as easily come up with my own programming 'language' where there's a 1-to-1 mapping between a countably infinite set of characters and every unique Turing machine. Want to write a program? Find the right character. This is the most terse, most elegant programming language ever, but clearly helps no-one.

The best abstraction is the one that is the most universally understood.
This has not been my experience. Paying for admission to museums/sporting events I apple pay from safari on my phone then am presented with a QR or a pass to add to my apple wallet. It's really nice and I much prefer it to standing in line.
I concur. Native methods have hardcoded implementations, wired up here, and there is nothing for java.lang.Thread:

https://github.com/platypusguy/jacobin/blob/18c541820cb73bda...

I couldn't figure out what happens if you invoke a native method that has not been set up like this.
If there's a concern about grubby contamination, that bridge was burned when the diner decided to go out to a restaurant.
> waste on customer service

I hate to say it but there needs to be some regulation about customer service, ie not allowing companies to not provide it by pawning people off on digital solutions. So many businesses are only viable because they don't provide customer support, and I don't think that's un society's interest.
This is whataboutism for ADAS.

People and ADAS have their own, different, and critical weaknesses. Neither is a panacea. (Which is why mass transit investment should be prioritized over scifi fantasy ADAS.)
You can always get a cell phone and not enable cellular and download anything you need before you leave home. I travel a lot and I do that so I'n not dependent on flaky wi-fi and poor reception in airports and other venues.
I don't see it adopting it myself, because that would also means pronouncing it differently.
Anyway, good luck with qwerty keyboard. I'm using azerty, so it is not so painful.
A stupidly overpriced SDK didn't help much either.
Bypassing Bitlocker using a cheap logic analyzer on a Lenovo laptop
I think what I like most about esperanto is the counting system.

1 - unu

2 - du

3 - tri

10 - dek

11 - dek unu

12 - dek du

13 - dek tri

Etc...
This isn’t a zero-sum game. I would like such people to live comfortably, and I can’t help but wonder where your animosity towards them is coming from. It feels very juvenile.
I think it depends on what niche you're in. I'm in the storage business and while not everyone, but quite a few of the people in my group would not be afraid of running a disaseembler, or talk about branch prediction, or unaligned integer access. `likely` and `unlikely` are very common in the code, and so on. AFAIK linux kernel people are very similar, and I assume a few other niches of system programming as well.
What on earth is this?
Not sure about what using Privacy changes here, but why not just do a Chargeback?
How much does it cost to pay a human driver for 10 years?
Make those who want it pay for it then, like with Ryanair.
Now I can, using YOUR logic, just claim that you don't actually believe anything you wrote, you are just pandering to the current zeitgeist of postmodern nonsense :P

See how annoying that is?
That makes much more sense and wasn't really obvious from the announcement, thanks!
I agree. Scala is actually usable for real-world use cases on a much broader scale, simply by virtue of being on the JVM. I wrapped some of the (unergonimic-because-code-gen'd) AWS libraries in cats-effect just the other day, matter of fact. Some of the native libraries do suffer from this "stylistic neophilia" too, imo, but maybe not to the same degree as Haskell.

Also, Scala 3 made a lot of great improvements, although the tooling and library support arguably regressed w/ IntelliJ (I assume that's temporary) and some of the (on paper) positive changes - especially the whole type class derivation topic - make older articles and books _very_ confusing for people just getting into the language. I'd say making that migration happen in larger code bases and companies will continue to be a real-world challenge, but hopefully in the shape of a one-time effort, rather than constant changes.

Also, based on the username, I assume that the parent comment is by Li Haoyi. Funny how small the scala world is - I tend to see the same names (you, Alvin Alexander, Gabriel Volpe, John A De Goes) over and over. :)
That doesn't work if you like coding and want to be productive, not mediocre.
Earning the privilege to work on unoriginal problems
Part of the problem is that Android itself is an untrusted app.

The other part of the problem is that SafetyNet means a lot of apps won't work if your system is too weird.

It's not as easy as you make it sound.
Please observe that in my post I only recommend reflection, and describe how their communication sounds like to me. Seems like I'm not the only one. I am specifically trying to avoid the overtly adversarial language of telling someone off, or telling them what to think or do, so please don't ascribe that unnecessarily.
>That 'balance' is not for everyone - but crucially it is what some people want

I've never seen anyone that could sustain an 80+ hour per week grind and make it out without severe personal issues (whether they are willing to acknowledge it or not). I've seen many, many incredibly talented people burn out and suffer permanent health or career damage to hit their short-term goals. I personally know an otherwise healthy 30 year old swe who had a stress related heart attack. It may be what some people want but you can't grind your way out of being a human.
This would be a more interesting statistic with the full stockpile amount. Now it seems misleading, as if the US and Russia don’t have vastly more nukes than the others.
They are choosing not to take advantage of something that could make their life comfortable.
> Microsoft

But they're a partner in Llama too. Why is Microsoft in this space too, how do they benefit?
Your kid is way too advanced! I am sticking with Code.org
I think it's because everything you eat has sugar in it. Everything is so sweet
Your analogies are invalid. Those are actions which were enabled by new technologies and could not be performed before such technologies existed. This article, however, is talking about actions which have not been made possible by new technology. Rather, they are actions that were possible before such technology existed but are being made arbitrarily harder or even impossible to perform without some very specific consumer products.

This is not technology enabling new features — it is technology being used to excuse a regression of features.
Today's kids don't understand biasing the base current, it's all "CMOS-this" and "fan-out" that. Grumble grumble grumble.
They lost most of their talent in the early/mid 2010s but you're right to an extent for non-software. For software they're not a terrible place to accumulate domain specific knowledge but don't really retain people long enough or promote quick enough to make a difference.
"You see, Vergon 6 was once filled with a super-dense substance known as dark matter, each pound of which weighs over ten thousand pounds."
It requires changing the places where you instantiate your monad transformer stack, which you should have very few of.
So long as they are getting my tax money, as much as I want.
GPT-4 vs. AlphaCode
The problem with that is that the generated child porn would presumably derive from training data containing real children and child bodies, so it's not completely "not real".

This isn't the same thing as a drawing or 3D model made by a human.

Or maybe it is, what if a pedophile looked at some clothed children, drew very realistic pictures of them naked, then used them as child porn?

I think a lot of people would have a problem with that too.
>Does the LLM know that there was a bug in June that changed the data?

No. Does "the SQL"? Also no.

That requirement falls on the person using the tool, doesn't it?
Yeah.

The answer to OP's question is yes. Its already happening, on a large scale.
I seem to have very little on my mind, probably why I struggle to maintain journalling.
Many of these reasons are why I moved to F# and haven't looked back (much). I sometimes miss Higher Kinded Types, but F# still has generics and if I'm being honest it forces me to write even simpler code then I would have in Haskell. I generally prefer this outcome.

However F# never feels "leet" like Haskell does. It's like Haskell, but all business. I get a lot done in F# and really enjoy it, but I'll catch myself looking back wistfully, like Haskell why couldn't we make it work. Sigh, the one that got away I guess.
Upon further reflection the idea of inanimate objects "wanting things" is what I find most creepy. It's enough to make a person consider monadism seriously. The notion of inanimate objects modifying spacetime just by existing is secondarily creepy - it's destructive to the notion of "introduce a coordinate system" because now the phenomena you're describing messes with the coordinate system you picked to describe it! And yes renaming things does help. I don't like thunderstorms, I find them legitimately scary, and understanding their physics didn't help but calling them "unicorn farts" did.
I wonder whether org-ai-mode could easily support this.
Yeah, right. Since if there is snowfall we get out of the car and shoo the flakes away. Or scream at the sun to stop blinding us.

Humans have something called perception and cognition, we can make sense of things we don't see.

AFAIK we don't have cameras yet that can do that. We need better sensors.
How are people using these local code models? I would much prefer using these in-context in an editor, but most of them seem to be deployed just in an instruction context. There's a lot of value to not having to context switch, or have a conversation.

I see the GitHub copilot extensions gets a new release one every few days, so is it just that the way they're integrated is more complicated so not worth the effort?
> Imagine getting on a high horse about exactly how people keep a bunch of non-native bugs. That's what this is a thread about!

We're all invasive. And we've brought a ton of non-native species to all parts of the world over the millennia we've been doing this. I'm not sure what you propose we do now about that. You can't unbreak that egg. I could stop beekeeping, and it wouldn't make a difference. We could stop all commercial beekeeping and that would likely be an agricultural disaster for many crops.

Given all of that, why should one not look into how best to "keep a bunch of non-native bugs"?
Yep - here is the site: https://www.metaconnect.com/en/home
It seems to me that the stewards and maintainers of the language actually _intend_ for Haskell to be friendly to research, experimentation and academic pursuit. That is fine, as far as it goes, but obviously this will, at some point, be at odds with the interests of programmers looking to use Haskell as a practical, stable tool. It sounds to me like what is needed is the ability to mark all the experimental, envelope-pushing bleeding edge stuff to a different track (whether through pragmas or even a package level declaration) so that programmers know just by looking at the package whether it's something they want to pull in. This would allow practically-minded developers to adopt a policy along the lines of "we only use Haskell stable" or whatever it'd be called. The dynamic I'm describing is the "Avoid success at all costs" phrase, right? The idea being that if Haskell adoption gets "too high" then the language will become inertial and be unable to continue pushing bleeding edge concepts. What I'm proposing is a way to allow that to happen but also maintain a separate track at the level of the language stewardship that formally acknowledges and recognizes that day-to-day programmers need some way to opt out of some of the edgier stuff and to stay within a more limited subset of stable Haskell.
It's strange that under any article like this, there's always commentary along the lines of "Hmm, yes, indeed $LANG is bad. What shall we all migrate to instead?"

Reminder that this post represents one person's opinion.

Haskell is still just fine as a programming language for getting actual work done.
Obviously a political stunt...

Personally more worried about the non-radioactive substances from "the cleanup" for example, the insane amount of microplastics from all the bags used to store the displaced topsoil just dissolving in the sun.
Paradise on Thirteenth Street
every bike is a target lmao
I usually hate the cliche "vote with your wallet" solution, but in this case, it's the right way. Now is the time, while this garbage is still trying to get a foothold and there are still many alternatives that do not treat their customers like shit. Loudly refuse to do business with those companies that require unnecessary technology, and complain to the right people. Not the faces behind the counter making minimum wage.

I don't want to victim blame, but the elderly couple in the article should know better. Isn't Ryanair notorious for their shittiness to customers? We should stop dealing with shitty companies just to save $10.
Not sure about that one: I studied this speech in high school as an example of effective rhetoric.
Cheapest being humans.
I agree with some of that criticism (although I haven't had issues with having to manually delete files - if you do, I suspect it's a project that hasn't been set up with a proper maven/gradle setup but where all the build info is in some IDE config. that's an antipattern at this point but used to be very common).

But I don't think it's necessarily about the tooling.

And yes, Hibernate is just horrible.
Subway sandwich chain sells itself to private equity firm Roark Capital
The article is using present tense: "as is common with all more primitive peoples" rather then past tense "as used to be common tens of thousands of years ago". The patent is from 1965, primitive was not reserved for thousands years ago back then afaik.

> If you take that reading of the word, I think it's fair to say that the 90th percentile in fitness modern human aged 20-40 is less physically fit than the median human aged 20-40 of 10K to 100K years ago likely was.

I do not think so. I would be pretty sure that 90th percentile in fitness modern human will be much better fit then median human aged 20-40. We have better food which does a lot. We have better healthcare. The more fit people exercise a lot and focus on raising their fitness specifically.

It is pretty sure that top 10% men can lift more heavier weights (have better raw strength) then median back then. Median men back then might have better endurance when it comes to long walks.
The startup cost is dominated by class loading, which Jacobin will have to do more or less the same as OpenJDK [*]. GraalVM of course profits from AOT compilation.

[*] until the latter will implement condensers: https://openjdk.org/projects/leyden/notes/03-toward-condense...
Oh. When I last read about it I thought it was meant to be sustainable.

I hope the founders take their share home and have fun burning the rest. At least hopefully some open software/AI models will have come out of it when the company collapses under its own weight.
[dupe]

This is what we have to look forward to with 404media posts? Repeated threads over and over?

More discussion over here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37237810
So now we need an llmpack like we did webpack? Could it be smart enough to truncate comments, white space, etc?
Open source is nice. I actually find these types of tools useful in testing where you don’t have time to do a full automated suite but you need to compare data between systems
I have collection of old magazines and just looking at pages of possibly even compressed code makes me somewhat miffed... They even added check sums on rows later to make it simpler process.
Whole thing was going to die with home computers, programs just grew too much for it to actually work.
The point of static sites is to avoid the need for any rendering/compute server-side, which this accomplishes!

E.g. you could use this in your GitHub Pages site, which is just served from a CDN without any real backend.
Person you're replying to is talking about time budget offered by your computer, not monetary budget. Regardless everything is about optimization - the "best" option will almost always be so costly that no consumer will be able to afford it.
More discussion over here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37237810
If you want to find the developer who will drop your table by accident, ask your devs to raise their hands if they ever dropped a table by accident. Those that don’t raise their hand are the ones you watch carefully.
A lot of top ML/AI talent has already bailed too, so some of it is probably them trying to keep open research closer to SOTA.
I find menus on phones harder to read. And it just feels annoying to have everyone’s face in their phones at a meal.

I have no issue with it being default, but since covid ended, the places that still use qr menus seem not to have paper menus on hand.

It’s not the end of the world but it makes your restaurant feel cheap.

Still 100 times better than places that make you order on your phone.
How well does OpenAI support different languages?
My understanding was that the name would be pronounced the same way, but as a native English speaker I don't even know what the umlaut does to the sound of the u. So I'm not even sure how the pronunciation would actually change.

In any event, if the Turkish government wants me to stop using "Turkey" I'm more than happy to call it Anatolia instead.
Not necessarily.
Maybe currently, but perhaps not in the future.
Has it ever occurred to you that their reasons may be sound?

The anxiety and distraction produced by smart phones is well-documented, as is the invasion of privacy and manipulation.

What makes you so sure you’ve got it right? Why not allow people who choose not to have phones to pay in cash? Why do you feel their lives should be difficult?

Why do you want to punish them?
A major con for me is that I don’t want to get my phone out. If I use my phone to read the menu I’m also seeing notifications, they may distract me even if only by making me think about them. I’d rather just not check my phone for the duration of the meal.

Also I have friends and relatives who have never owned a smartphone, some who would be essentially unable to do so.

That said, another benefit is more scope for accessibility. I would bet that most restaurant sites are terrible for accessibility, but implementing screen reader or large font support would apply everywhere, whereas I’d also bet that most restaurant never have braille or large print menus.
That seems daft.

You can, I suppose, contract your code so that it’s context free and uses less tokens, but that makes it more confusing for humans and language models.

Taken to the extreme, you can see obviously with one letter functions and variables like i, j, k the model will be able to infer literally nothing and, thus, produce arbitrary nonsense.

Clearly the solution is to do what we already do to manage complexity which is to decompose large tasks into smaller black box modules with an api where the (large number of tokens) implementation is hidden and not known or relevant to using it.

If you give an LLM a function signature and good description, maybe some usage examples, it doesn’t need the implementation to use it.

Terseness decreases the ability of LLMs to process code; it doesn’t solve context length, and even at best it doesn’t scale.

100k tokens is plenty.

You don’t need to do anything like that.