skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think it really matters what we call the phenomenon – whatever they're doing, they're not humans, so whatever human analogy we choose to call it is necessarily imprecise. What does matter is that everyone has a shared vocabulary for what to call hallucination or whatever.
The Wright Flyer massed 274 kg. Of course it could take off from an unprepared field-- with a modern engine, it could be doing nine foot takeoffs like in STOL competitions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMVjYT6laKo

The modern equivalent to a Wright plane would be something like a paramotor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvQ9DjJNal0
There’s no “entire process” you can target. You going to pass a law on how every company can raise prices? Impossible

No, the actual way is to go company by company and dismantle them. And by Starting with the biggest it sends a message to others that perhaps they should change before they too get broken up.

So by killing a few prominent hostages the system ends up changing “on its own.”
> The current research shows that these things are neither improved nor weakened by static typing

I think there's a difference between "current research hasn't been able to conclude anything" and "current research shows [thing]".

I believe static typing is better, but that there's no conclusive research because there are many confounding variables and the experiments are really hard to conduct in the real world.
I had this attitude too until I got sucked into a very large Python project. I now refuse to use Python for anything bigger than a few pages of code. It's so poorly suited to correctness that it takes an enormous amount of test coverage to gain any confidence. And don't get me started on refactoring. After this experience, I suddenly care a lot more what other people use, because it may impact me in the future. Please don't use such languages for big complex "must be correct" problems.
As a greybeard, I’m so glad to hear and see type safety becoming okay once again.

XP seemed to be the catalyst for the “code fast and bail” mentality that’s persisted for too long.

I feel somewhat validated as a long time advocate of type definitions.

It always irked me to hear someone say a language with types is too “verbose” and slows them down.

Yeah, please do slow down! It really is okay to take a little more time to write better code.
Northern Europe usually refers to Norway, Sweden, Finland, and sometimes Denmark. But they are further north than most of the other countries people think of as "eastern", that is true.
And requires a subscription to fully use the HW. What a shit product.
Currently looking for a job and they have become more difficult to come by and are paying less.
Ah, I meant the lecturer is a PhD, which was supposed to be juxtaposed with the 1xx level course to indicate that it's probably a waste of time on both sides. I'm sure there are huge lectures that aren't useful, but Geology 117 (which I really took) was obviously a waste of money when I spent a pittance per credit hour on it in the 90s; charging someone for it today just seems like highway robbery.
Pythagorean Theorem found on clay tablet 1k years older than Pythagoras (2009)
it's fine to have a heavy cost to private ownership because they have a decent public transport.
Looks like they're referring to:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36089104
https://youtu.be/4To-F6W1NT0?feature=shared
Once you install a launcher of your choice, there's not much left of the Samsung UI. Just the pulldown and the settings.
Yes, this is the problem. We have to be able to efficiently describe what LLMs do and how they do it, when what they do is superficially familiar, but how is fundamentally alien. We haven't yet developed the necessary language to discuss them on their own terms.

Anthropomorphism and resorting to metaphors like "hallucinate" and "confabulate" are inevitable if you don't want to have to preface every comment with a paragraph of technical discussion. They get the necessary point across which is that the "reality" LLMs construct is not necessarily tethered to actual reality. They're deceptively convincing but can't be trusted.
You can totally do this in Cassandra. See https://docs.datastax.com/en/astra-serverless/docs/vector-se...
Oh yeah, I specifically worked on HMX stuff and I don't even know. I stopped caring about keeping up with product names when we stopped using names from LOTR for our internal projects. I wish they would reveal _something_, because currently it's a bit of a black hole on my resume
I would love to see a deepfake video of Zuck saying the exact opposite of this. You know that would be the truth.
Isn’t that Fun Friends and Mutual Interest Friends?
> In general, dynamic languages are more agile and you can write more tests easier.

Where's the evidence of this? Be wary of speaking from "common sense", this kind of assertions are deceptive. Maybe statically typed languages are better prototyping languages? (E.g. there's evidence from an early experiment by Paul Hudak that Haskell is actually a good and fast language for prototyping, beating other languages in the experiment!).
Related: Franz Kafka's In the Penal Colony. Probably the ur-example of the plotter-error trope.
The building was up to code. That was not the problem.

The problem is that it was permitted as an ADU, and sons of the work was not permitted, because the owner landlord was too cheap to get the proper permitting. The cure was for him to get the proper permitting, which the article makes clear he had yet to do.
It’s funny how when it comes to housing, better way is always to do something that won’t have a meaningful impact on most people for many years or even decades.
That's true, however

1) There's plenty of reasons their planes could go bad without landing in fields. If they want to make sure this particular plane is fit to fly, they can.

2) Iran has been doing that for decades now.
>Humanity's evolution to coexist with its own pollution sure will be interesting, if global warming doesn't kill it first.

Naturally you would have to figure by definition that cave men lived in caves, but I would imagine with a population explosion there was an eventual housing shortage like we have never seen.

Plus with diasporatization lots of early humans would have ended up or even started out in places without any caves to begin with. Not all of them would be unhoused, and I think it was the ones with robust shelters like caves who were most likely to have "indoor" fires and breathe lots of smoke of various kinds for generations. And after thousands of years of natural selection I would think those possessing such stable (rent-controlled?) dwellings would be the ones most resistant to the damage caused by smoke inhalation, if not other pollutants.

It could happen.

And how do you think these people felt about global warming when their Ice Age started melting down?
Every major tech hub city has higher turn over than low cost cities, because they are expensive places to live. NYC is a perfect counter example, because it's THE example along with SF.
> I think most people don't realize how slow SD cards are compared to conventional flash, too. When you put apps on a SD card on Android, it's always been dog slow. And you're at the mercy of the manufacturer to put a reasonably high-speed interface on it.

It's been a long, long time since I couldn't fit all the apps I wanted on the phone storage. My SD card is mainly for multimedia files, and it's plenty fast for that purpose.

The only performance limit I've hit in recent times was because it was exFAT, not because it was an SD card.

> There are options; NVMe and CFExpress cards exist. But they're large

Ignoring SD Express as a failure to launch, UHS SD cards can be plenty fast if they're designed to be. A hundred megabytes per second is not a significant bottleneck if individual IO operations are fast and it can do many of them.

Also there was that XFMEXPRESS form factor if manufacturers wanted to put an SSD socket into a phone. "card size is 18x14x1.4mm, slightly larger and thicker than a microSD card. It mounts into a latching socket that increases the footprint up to 22.2x17.75x2.2mm."

> and I doubt that people are going to pay that kind of money even when they currently pay it for onboard storage.

That's the real killer incentive, that you can charge huge amounts per terabyte and also force people to buy higher-end phones just to get the ability to buy more storage.

As opposed to the user spending $40 for a 512GB sandisk extreme, and giving the phone maker no extra money.
That’s no longer true. Copilot uses the same ChatGPT-3.5 model as, well, ChatGPT. If it were trained on just GitHub projects, the chat features wouldn’t work at all.
The USA used to have a system like that, we have a long history of brewing, but then we had to go fight the Nazis, so everything was rationed and industrialized. That's why our most popular beers suck.
Because the App Store Review team doesn’t catch everything.
> "Tell me about a project you worked on." is not a specific question

Exactly. That's the point.

> "why did you choose to order the members of this struct in your C code the way you did" is one.

Neat!

I'll leave this chain now. This does not seem productive.
I guess I'd like to add to your first part that private companies that promote it can vary wildly between great, and just shameless promotion. I guess I'm paranoid because my last company just wanted to show that they were "inclusive"
Python 3.12.0 from a supply chain security perspective
I've flashed every phone I've ever owned with custom firmware but the gadgetbridge route confused the heck out of me for some reason. I ended up just using a previous version of the software for a while until I changed phones, and never bothered downgrading or flashing after that.
Coding as in "Look ma', my package.json has 8 different versions of leftpad" hopefully will die out in a year or two. It will clean up a few things. I expect that coding will stay here for a while where (technical and mathematical) creativity is required, especially in the field of low level coding.
Ha, lovely joke, but indeed friends with benefits are clearly in the "pleasure" file. Ancient Greeks seem to have been expert at friends with benefits.
Custom silicon has actual value for Apple and Google products. But Facebook? Add it to VR, Metaverse, Threads, etc. - what have they done lately that hasn’t been misguided?
I've gotten the 4a and 7 since owning my 3. They keep getting worse (bigger).
The main thing that led me to believe it's not trained directly on benchmarks is the fact that this model - a direct finetune of Mistral, improved on them.

Consider the following thought experiment. Let's say we train a glorified benchmark table. We train it extensively on benchmarks from a number of different providers. MMLU, Hellaswag, Winogrande, etc.

Such a model will do well on benchmarks, but its reasoning ability, obviously, will be severely below what we'd expect from those benchmarks.

What happens when we tune it on a dataset like Orca? Will we observe improvements on the benchmarks? Well no - if anything, we might even expect some regression as the model doesn't have sufficient reasoning ability to handle these directly, just the answers it was fed during pretraining.

The fact that we don't observe this with Mistral, and that finetunes that are designed to improve reasoning ability lead to an increase in the corresponding benchmarks as we'd expect, leads me to believe that Mistral's performance is legitimate.

Even apart from that - it's worth checking out StableLM's recent 3B release. While it didn't get as much attention due to literally releasing the day after Mistral and they didn't promote it until afterward, StableLM 3B boasts some significant gains in comparison to its predecessor as well due to training for significantly longer: https://stability.wandb.io/stability-llm/stable-lm/reports/S... and these gains are likely to be more substantial at larger parameter sizes.

There's still a lot to be gained from training models for longer, and I can fully believe that Mistral's level of performance is possible in a 7B model.
Not to mention Amazon's Graviton family.
They operate at an unbelievable scale. If they can tailor a part to their workload and save a fraction of a penny per request, it can absolutely pay off for them in a way it wouldn't for almost anyone else.
For me having the watch allows me to use my phone a lot less. I now often have to dig for my phone somewhere in my home since I haven’t used it in many hours. I get the important notifications I need and because the watch is limited I don’t feel the urge to open it every 2min to check what’s on social media.
In March 1999, a share of CSCO was worth about $26. At its peak a year later, March 2000, it was worth about $82 (3x increase.) [0]

I don't know about you, but that seems likely to be an excessively inflated figure to me (a la the dot-com bubble.)

Comparing any company's value to its valuation during the dot-com bubble seems silly to me.

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/CSCO
As another data point, I've a tendency to not store too many photos and messages for long term. I think thats the reason why my 7 plus is still running like new after all these years. The only reason I'll upgrade will be 5G.
I use PaperKarma and it cut down 80% of the junk mail I receive.
Bunnie is brilliant but he went over the top on this one.

I can only image with bypassnro the NRO stands for network requirement option.
I agree that it's simple, but that's exactly what makes it so powerful — it's easy to understand and yet you can do a ton with it. I've been working on a vector editor as well that's also built with just registers and maps. That one is a bit long for a blog post (although I might do a high level overview of some techniques like fractional indexing). But the point I'm trying to drive at here is that you can get really far just by combining simple CRDTs.
Mega reinvents the mobile browser experience
I also remember what it was like to not be able to reach loved ones in emergencies, to periodically find a pay phone to check a voicemail system while waiting for an important call, to have no idea that a tornado was coming.

I’m happier with the choice to monitor in real-time what’s happening in my life, or not monitor, vs what we used to have: no choice at all.
That runway has been carefully prepared to have high friction:

> The original construction of the runway was done over two years and accomplished using a laser cutter to level the blue ice near the station [...] Finally, two snow groomers with tillers grind a small layer of ice to create a top layer of crushed snow and ice that gives the runway the necessary friction for aircraft to operate.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/troll-research-station-ho...
This sounds literally identical to ChatGPT.

It keeps a journal. It responds to you with AI in the context of the journal entries. That's ChatGPT.

As described (without an MVP to demonstrate) it seems like I could get the same result by typing in "For the rest of this conversation, use mindfulness techniques A, B, and/or C to help me with my situation" into ChatGPT.
And yet, without any media support, civil rights leaders were able to effect change in the 60s.

Maybe people these days are just lazy?
Every company I’ve worked at in tech in the SF bay area has at a minimum been completely tolerant of LGBTQIAP+, to having dedicated employee resource groups, so these companies exist. My rec would be: not to bring it up in the interview, not because you are hiding it but because it is not relevant in that phase. Either pre or post interview you can check out the company to see if they fit.
My hope is that an AGI would be able to differentiate between “dumb things humans have said” and physics / real data.
Sweet so I can get $10 off via the website popup and then throw it away in 5 years when it no longer gets updates.
I'm not really sure this is proof of anything, other than interest rates moving the minimum bar for what is worth investing in.

Custom silicon takes tons of time and investment, and carries high risk. If they were previously projecting even a 1-2% ROI, it made sense to do. Now they need an 8-10% ROI to justify the same project. Just because they can't get 8-10% out of their investment doesn't meant it's non-zero, or that it wasn't justified when cost of capital was much lower.

[edit] people seem to think that just because they don't like Facebook it must be incompetent or ineffective. One glance at their financials should really dispel that notion.
> Obviously, LLMs aren't at the level of human cognition, but the impressive results they do produce, given their obvious simplicity, hints that intelligence may not be as hard to reproduce in silicon as we have previously assumed.

People said this about calculators as well, or initial chess AI as well. "If computers can do this, then the remaining parts of intelligence is probably not hard to reproduce!".

So we already know many humans massively underestimate the depth of human intelligence. It happened many times before and will continue to happen every time we make computers do anything new.
> The answer to "What are LLMs but humans with extreme amnesia and no central coherence?" is that they are not like humans at all, and only resemble them superficially.

Is there any chance at all that we humans are are also just predicting the next word in the sentence? That the "voice in your head" that so many people report having is itself some kind of LLM that is, to some extent, driving their reasoning?
Huh, I never knew that particular detail, and I’ve played with Windows quite a bit. But, with my modern OS developer hat on, I’d say it’s a bit lazy, not arbitrary.

> So if allocation granularity were finer than 64KB, a DLL that got relocated in memory would require two fixups per relocatable address: one to the upper 16 bits and one to the lower 16 bits.

…

> Forcing memory allocations at 64KB granularity solves all these problems.

It does, at the cost of silly limitations. A much nicer solution IMO would have been a way to ask for a 64kB aligned allocation for DLLs.
They're not adding value, they're capturing value that was left on the table. Most of your points in these comments are correct, but for that core thesis.

The scalpers aren't "solving a shortage", they're redistributing tickets. The same number of people get to go to the concert regardless of the existence of the scalper middleman. That's not adding value to the system -- it's not like rich people get any additional enjoyment from the concert than less-rich people get. There's no global increase in utility generated by the scalping.

Adding value in a situation like this would be if Nvidia had actually priced their MSRP of GPU's to what scalpers were charging, and then reinvested that money into additional production, to actually solve the shortage by increasing supply.
I wondered this too. 45 MB is a huge download for a poker game, even with nice graphics.
I agree it should have been called confabulation but it will be difficult to change. However, it might also not matter in the following sense. One thing that distinguishes humans is that we have a capacity to recognize whether the information comes from external world (is what we perceive as real world) or from our own thoughts (is what we call dreams). I don't think current crop of LLMs can actually have that distinction, architecturally. So whether the incogruencies with reality happen on the input (hallucination) or the output (confabulation) doesn't really matter, because, from the perspective of LLM, the internal model of the world and the reality of the world are the same thing.

I think that's also a reason why it cannot handle incongruencies in its own mental model; our mental capacity is not only to accept the reality as given (i.e. reality takes precedence over mental model, we recognize that something is just our imagination), but also to impose our model to reality (i.e. we determine that sensors are misleading us due to incongruency with our mental model, and override them as faulty data). But unlike LLMs, humans can internally detect when we do one or the other. Humans understand the distinction between pondering an action and making an action, LLMs don't. LLMs can detect something is amiss (and apologize) but they can't resolve it, because reality and model are the same for them.
Even worse for the workers, the billionaires can no longer afford the kind of things they were spending money on when their cost of borrowing was insignificant.
The challenge with new battery technology is that they have to compete with mature existing technologies and their optimized manufacturing pipelines.

This breakthrough though has no real competition so far. The alternatives are skin transplants, either from one's own body (good compatibility, but limited availability) or from tissue donors (the usual immune system compatibility issues). And TA indicates that the results of those are far from perfect.

The technology also builds on multiple technologies that have been developing for some decades now, for example 3D printing of cells. It also finds applications for other tissues and organs of simple enough structure. Skin is fairly complex, therefore this breakthrough is significant.

The only issue I see are the usual regulatory overhead before it can be rolled out.
I typically screen companies as it's somewhere in their core values. But, I've been burned in the past by this, and still landing the interviews as how I present myself now is a challenge in this market.
Had to think about "homozygosity" for a bit. The science jargon makes my brain turn off. I thought the original title was translating, not editorializing (maybe clickbaity to leave out the [small] effect size).
I read this:

> A critical element of puzzle languages is providing an escape, a way to admit that the pretty solution is elusive, and it's time to get working code regardless of aesthetics.

and my mind immediately went to Rust and the "unsafe" keyword.
I like this a lot.

I recall seeing a post on here that roughly just said, "stop saying hallucinate", which sure, is technically correct ("the best kind of correct"), but not super helpful. Contrast that with this post, which offers a constructive suggestion: replace it with "confabulate".

I agree that C is an improvement over H, for different reasons from the author. Here's why: From a public comms standpoint, the big problem with saying "hallucinate" is that it leads to misconceptions, because people think they know what "hallucinate" means, and may anthropomorphize their pop psych grasp of H onto the LLM.

Just like H, "C" seems to have a technical meaning in the psych literature, but it's far less in common parlance than "H", so lay readers have no fixed idea of what exactly "C" means. Nobody goes around experimenting with "confabulagens" to seek a spiritual high. Also, "confabulate" retains a non-clinical meaning that's similarly obscure, from long before the psychologists adopted it, and it's pretty evocative of what's really going on here (e.g. via related words like "fable" and "fib"). So "confabulate" seems ripe for adoption to describe this specific computational phenomenon, as we've done to so many other mundane words in the past (deprecate, and so forth).

If the psychiatric "C" phenomenon is also a better analogy for LLM behavior, as OP claims (and some posters dispute?), so much the better. But my main reason for liking C, is that it's less likely than H to make people unduly confident that they understand it.

(But even if the community came to a consensus at this late stage that "C" is a better term, the subsequent problem of updating every stale paper and post that uses the old term would run us up against another doozy: cache invalidation.)