skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Depends how you define quality. This paper reflects my own experience

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08377

and shows how LLM technology has a lot more to offer than "ChatGPT". The real takeaway is that by training LLMs with real training data (even with a "less powerful" model) you can get an error rate more than 10x less than you get with the "zero shot" model of asking ChatGPT to answer a question for you the same way that Mickey Mouse asked the broom to clean up for him in Fantasia. The "few-shot" approach of supplying a few examples in the attention window was a little better but not much.

The problem isn't something that will go away with a more powerful model because the problem has a lot to do with the intrinsic fuzziness of language.

People who are waiting for an exponentially more expensive ChatGPT-5 to save them will be pushing a bubble around under a rug endlessly while the grinds who formulate well-defined problems and make training sets will actually cross the finish line.

Remember that Moore's Law is over in the sense that transistors are not getting cheaper generation after generation, that is why the NVIDIA 40xx series is such a disappointment to most people. LLMs have some possibility of getting cheaper from a software perspective as we understand how they work and hardware can be better optimized to make the most of those transistors, but the driving force of the semiconductor revolution is spent unless people find some entirely different way to build chips.

But... people really want to be like Mickey in Fantasia and hope the grinds are going to make magic for them.
I think you've misunderstood the law you've quoted. It's not about "crossing without checking", it's about the pedestrian "yield[ing] the right of way to all vehicles". It's hard to imagine from a modern perspective, but until laws like this were passed roads were not, as today, universally perceived as places for cars to drive.

In cities in much of the developing world the pre-jaywalking regime remains: road users with cars, carts, bikes, trucks, or on foot instead are in a delicate and complex (and often dangerous) dance of theory-of-mind and courtesy (or a game of chicken, depending).

The "right-of-way" dominated way of thinking about roads is hard to argue with when you look at most roadways in the developed world (cars zooming around on multiple lanes with few pedestrians in sight). But the idea that every pedestrian must yield right of way to every car is much more questionable in dense cities like NYC, on small, residential streets, where one car trying to go from point A to point C is effectively given total preference over all the people trying to live their lives (and cross the street) in B.
The quote is in the Preface, which is outside of the book itself. The same paragraph acknowledges that "packages can be very confusing for Lispers who have not learned about them in an organized way" and that the author has "seen experienced, Ph.D.-level Lispers hack away, adding qualifications to symbol names in their code, with no understanding of the organized structure of the package system." Furthermore, he adds that "[t]he reasons that packages are even more confusing in Lisp than in other, compiler-oriented languages, such
as Ada, is that in Lisp one may introduce symbols on-line, and one typically stays in one Lisp environment for hours, losing track of what symbols have been introduced. A symbol naming conflict may be introduced in the course of debugging that will not occur when the fully developed files are loaded into a fresh environment in the proper order."

After that, nobody in their right mind should be hanging on to any preconceived notion that they might have spun out of the earlier phrase "multiple name spaces of symbols", and should be reading the actual book.
Yeah I kinda wonder why people even use them anymore. I've long gone back to real taxis because their cheaper and I don't have to book them, I can just grab one on the street. Much more efficient than waiting for slowly watching my driver edge his way to me from 3 kilometers away.
> do you see any glimmer of hope?

Oh, of course. Most academics don't do it for the money. It's not like they're paid much. Though that can incentivize cheating in another way because they want money. But there will always be people that don't give a fuck and just want to do good research regardless of the metrics being used. I am insistent that to be a good scientist you must be somewhere on the side of "anti-authority." Because your job relies on challenging concepts, and especially well known and widely agreed upon concepts. Generally look for people who are passionate, will rant, but importantly rant with nuance. Those are the people passionate about their research and not the metrics.

The problem is we're just throwing a lot of money down the drain, wasting a lot of time, and generating distrust of the system. Any "crash and burn" is never going to lead to an extinction in any sense. It's just about general society level if we want to do good science or just do noisy science (all science is noisy). But you can never do good science if you remove nuance. This is why I hate that ML (and CS in general) uses conference systems as the main platform for publishing. It is ridiculous to think you can have a good system when it is highly competitive, zero sum, highly time consuming, there's no discussion between authors and reviewers (you may get a one page rebuttal, but your reviewers comments are often disjoint and vague), and you're being judged by those you're competing with. It's just a silly notion to believe this is useful.

The solution is actually not hard. I refer to the larger phenomena as Goodhart's Hell. The solution is to stop using metrics as targets. Metrics are guides. If you don't have a deep understanding of what your metric actually measures, how well your metric aligns to the thing you're intending to measure (never 100%), and if you don't understand the biases to your data, you're fucking doomed to this bureaucratic hell. Noise is inherent to complex systems and aggregation is the bane of evaluation of complex feature spaces. Just remember that its models all the way down and that all models are wrong (despite some models being better than others).
Not from the us but I would not expect a car to have priority at a right turn.
I learned recently that road wear varies as the 4th power of vehicle weight. This means that every 20% increase in weight doubles the amount of damage that vehicle does to the road/street. This means the absolute vast majority of road wear is caused by the largest vehicles -- tractor-trailers, large box trucks, etc. Yes, personal electric vehicles weigh a lot more than their ICE equivalents, but they're still only going to cause a small fraction of the road damage.

What we'll need to worry about and plan for are these electric semis that are rolling out. They will almost certainly cause noticeably more road damage than their ICE peers.
I haven't played with the self-hosted LLMs at all yet, but back when Stable Diffusion was brand new I had a ton of fun creating images that lawyers wouldn't want you to create. ("Abraham Lincoln and Donald Trump riding a battle elephant."
It's just so much funnier with living people!) I imagine that Llama-2 and friends offer a similar experience.
I don’t see how you can pass off Windows as being a good software experience. The default experience is stuffed full of ads, and it’s only getting worse.

HW+SW integration is Apple’s whole schtick. I can just put an iPad next to my Macbook and it turns into a secondary display.
> tons of "Expert networks" companies where they tap key personnel for market info

What are confidential, ongoing tax cases at the IRS is not something expert networks provide.
Whew, nothing about the Connect[1] plans!

[1]: https://prepaid.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans/connect
Ad hominem. He's making a simple claim about the world that is easily verifiable. This site has information about the testing requirements and current cutoff. [1]

1: https://www.sbe.wa.gov/our-work/graduation-pathway-options/a...
"We experiment on poor people so that rich people can get medicine."
There is a converter from Roll20 to FoundryVTT. I've used it with great success:

https://github.com/kakaroto/R20Converter
I thought the DEKA arm was shipping, but apparently https://www.unionleader.com/news/scitech/dean-kamens-new-luk... it's finally coming to market this quarter - "testing by nearly 100 amputees for more than 10,000 hours of use" now that it actually has FDA approval; earliest demo that turns up in a quick search was 2007 ... so it's the kind of success that makes your point :}
In non-english countries? All of them? Source? I, as a person from one of said non-english countries, disagree.
Trusting something as important as my phone number to an organization as fickle as Google seems insane.
Looks fine to me. I think the unsafe thing is speed. Top speed of a cable car is 9.5mph. No vehicle appears to be going over 15mph. There's a cyclist pretty casually keeping pace with the cars. https://youtu.be/uINgSqEU26A?t=153

From https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-seve...

"Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph."

Slower speeds mean a collision is less likely to occur. We're pretty good at moving in crowded conditions without frequent collisions at low speeds. See also NYC sidewalks.

Also, it appears the video is slowed down. I played at 1.5 speed to make my estimates
MS Paint Cocreator, a new AI-powered experience powered by DALL-E
This is how you get tech debt worded as users stories that don't make any sense, with confused PMs that don't know how to prioritize it vs features because the affect on the product is not clear.
Would be awesome for folks with irreparable damage or diseases like scoliosis if it could “just” be replaced though.
> requiring more effort from the people consuming the content

This hasn't been my experience; if anything, quite the opposite, in that it's enabled my team to contribute much more actively to design. The effort of providing actionable feedback is admittedly slightly higher, but that's not a bad thing; needing to (and having time to!) write up feedback seems to yield more actionable results than doing it verbally in the moment, and for things that do really need talking through we have several sync touchpoints during the week with our embedded designer.

Of course, in contexts where no such touchpoints exist or where design and eng generally don't have a close relationship, I could see Loom being difficult - but I'm not sure I'd blame that first on the tool; if Design and Eng communicate only by throwing things over a transom at one another, I think the tool much more likely exposes problems you already had and didn't know about.
One thing that I've gotten better at, but still find hard, is tolerating CBF in others, when doing code reviews. I'll still call out that something would probably be a good idea (e.g. adding another unit test), but I'll coat that in layers of "but I also understand if that's too much of a hassle".

Half the time folks will still make (something close to) the requested change. The other half they indeed CBF and just merge it as-is. In those latter cases, I'll be slightly disappointed, but I'm also consciously telling myself that honestly, it's often a fine reason, and if it's really important, I can still consider doing the work myself.
Once you host your videos with Loom and link them everywhere, the moat ain’t that small anymore. Also, their AI features are excellent.

But certainly agree that more competition entered the space in the last couple of years.
> the USPTO's idiosyncratic usage of non-obviousness doesn't really match my intuition

Remember that USPTO gets paid for each patent application, and not penalised when it's later falsified.
"He found a few dozen ink strokes - and some complete letters - that could be labeled and used as training data.

Before long, the model was unveiling traces of crackle invisible to his own eye. Soon, these traces began to form letters and hints of actual words."

This does not sound like a "Large Language Model (LLM)" or other large set of training data, like the sort hyped by so-called "tech" companies; this sounds relatively small. What am I missing. (Besides brain cells.)
> you can't easily have CI/CD (I still don't know how you get the code of a lambda from and to git ?!?!),

I had to go through a couple of attempts at it before settling on building and pushing Docker images via GitHub Actions. Now deployment is a breeze.

However, I don't know if it's optimum to use Docker images in terms of performance.
I immediately thought I’m happy not having to operate anything with nginx in front of it.
I would be very surprised to see anyone try to put a Loom in place of a PRD or RFC!
That's a nice story but at my company management actively discourage all forms of code hygiene. The only thing they care about is code shipped. It comes down to a perverse set of incentives from the csuite but it 100% has zero to do with developer articulation.

Nobody gets in shit for telling their developers to code faster.

Lots of risk telling them to fix the underlying issues so they can ship faster in the future.
I'm not sure if training on a vast amount of content is really necessary in the sense that linguistic competence and knowledge can probably be separated to some extent. That is, the "ChatGPT" paradigm leads to systems that just confabulate and "makes shit up" and making something radically more accurate means going to something retrieval-based or knowledge graph-based.

In that case you might be able to get linguistic competence with a much smaller model that you end up training with a smaller, cleaner, and probably partially synthetic data set.
YoutubeTV experience is WAY better.
The manufacturer needs to have a higher level of responsibility for proper disposal. I can imagine a world where computer vision scans trash and charges manufacturers a cost for proper disposal. End users could get rewarded with coupons or rebates if they prove proper disposal. Perhaps the same scanning technology can check the trash at time of pickup and offer discounts to customers that properly sort their recycling.
> It's absolutely worth the money when you look at the whole picture.

That highly depends on many things. If you run a business with a relatively steady load that doesn't need to scale quickly multiple times per day, AWS is definitely not for you. Take Let's Encrypt[1] as an example. Just because cloud is the hype doesn't mean it's always worth it.

Edit: Or a personal experience: I had a customer that insisted on building their website on AWS. They weren't expecting high traffic loads and didn't need high availability, so I suggested to just use a VPS for $50 a month. They wanted to go the AWS route. Now their website is super scalable with all the cool buzzwords and it costs them $400 a month to run. Great! And in addition, the whole setup is way more complex to maintain since it's built on AWS instead of just a simple website with a database and some cache.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37536103
It doesn’t prevent you from remembering.

> The right to be forgotten leads to allowing individuals to have information, videos, or photographs about themselves deleted from certain Internet records so that they cannot be found by search engines.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten
A lot of what you said is wrong...

Material does not mean "would move the market." It means there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important" in making an investment decision". https://www.sec.gov/rules/2000/08/selective-disclosure-and-i...

You can visit their offices and talk to the employees.

If an employee tells you something that is nonpublic information, and you act on it, that would likely be considering insider trading by the SEC. There is a fair amount of case law supporting this point. Indeed, the fact that you acted on the employee's information is generally sufficient proof that the information was material; and this is in fact the most common insider trading scenario.

You can also derive material information for instance through freedom of information requests. Is a business being investigated by the SEC?

If the target of the SEC is not aware of the investigation, the SEC will not disclose that information in response to a FOIA request. On the flipside, if a company is being investigated by the SEC, and knows it, that is material information that must be disclosed to the market.

If you watch the company parking lot and notice that the finance department and CFO stay at work until 11pm in the week leading up to their earnings report you are free to short the stock based on this info.

Such behavior would provide no useful information about the state of a company's financials. In the week leading up to earnings reports, the CFO and finance departments generally stay late making sure the financials are in proper shape, whether or not those financials are good or bad. This is standard practice at all publicly traded companies with proper controls, because there is a very short window of time between the end of the financial period and the time it must be reported for regulatory purposes.
> that's not because wall street is especially virtuous

It's because insider trading is a generally stupid crime. If you're on Wall Street, there are better ways to make money. The people who insider trade are largely those who think Wall Street is constantly doing it--it's an old joke in finance.
Shame is not a viable mechanism at scale (particularly across cultures). Particularly with the rise of extreme partisanship, shame lobbed at one group will be turned into an identity and used provactively (see e.g. "rolling coal").
> - Logs as a stream: yep, just write your logs to STDOUT instead of a file. Let the orchestrator deal with reading and storing it.

This is one that always feels odd to me: what happened to rsyslogd?
Agreed. Ten bucks says they'll sell off Fi within the next 10 years. See Google Domains sell off to Squarespace as a recent example.
I had the privilege of reporting a few bugs in HAProxy in the last few months. Willy's a real treasure; he's friendly and knowledgeable, and he clearly cares a ton about HAProxy even after 22 years of development.
Depends on when the 409a was performed and when the exercise happened. When the startup I work at got our Series A, a new 409a was done and increased the share price by roughly the same multiple of the new valuation, and now I have a wide spread for AMT should I exercise my options because of the new 409a.

So it's possible for employees to have joined after the new 409a when it was valued at 1.5bln and early exercised against that value.
I forgot my keyboard can be backlit, I've turned it on for the first time just now.
Given the history of data breaches, my first thought is that this could have been a scam. For anyone else in this position (esp. if you’re fairly certain it’s not a scam), here is some info on what you can do: https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/fake-abusive-debt-collecto...

Edit: namely, this part:

> your debt collection rights, including your right to get information about the original creditor if you ask for it within 30 days of getting validation information from the collector
Caltech ends high-stakes US patent fight with Apple and Broadcom
So, like a centralized git server ?
More about the extension: https://tochunka.com/smart-tabs/.

If you wanna try it.

Chrome Web Store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tochunka-smart-tab....

Addons Mozilla: https://addons.mozilla.org/uk/firefox/addon/tochunka-smart-t....

Not for Safari as it does not support tabs.move(...) and bookmarks.move(...) API.
Not really:

>Youssef used a model from the Kaggle competition and was inspired by Luke’s results to look in the same area.
Google has a flywheel where its dominant position in search results in more users, whose data refines the search algorithm over time. The question is whether OpenAI has a similar thing going, or whether they just have done the best job of training a model against a static dataset so far. If they're able to incorporate customer usage to improve their models, that's a moat against competitors. If not, it's just a battle between groups of researchers and server farms to see who is best this week or next.
> A leading academic at the University of Cambridge told the i news site in March that the technology could, in an extreme case, “mistake a bird as an incoming threat and trigger a nuclear launch if no human override is in place to assess alerts from an AI-assisted early-warning system”.

With all due respect to the "leading academic", this is one of the most stupid things I read this year. But then I read this:

> Although no state is openly attempting to automate its nuclear weapons systems, “integrating AI with command systems seems promising and even unavoidable”, said Peter Rautenbach from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
This is very cool. I'm involved with an open source project that's similar to this, called 3Demos: https://3demos.ctl.columbia.edu/

On github at https://github.com/ccnmtl/3demos
Aah the feeling of masd closing a HUGE list of tickets as ABANDONED in the jira board of a 6 year old startup.

Most likely 70% of th e ticket owners don't even work here anymore
They basically are MS by now. Everyone at Microsoft I work with literally calls it an 'aquisition'. Even though they only own a share. It's pretty clear what their plans are.
Firefox and Fastly take another step toward a privacy upgrade for the internet
I don’t think you can effectively regulate any of these things without changing the way society operates. Our economy, the whole world, is currently based on growth. We need to switch our society to one that isn’t based on constant growth. Then, there will be things we can do like regulate disposable things so that only very important disposable items are allowed, like medical supplies that need to be perfectly clean or whatever. Until we’re all on the same page of not wasting resources in the altar of growth, not much can be done to effectively fix this problem. Tech solutions like fancy recycling are like that Simpsons episode where they have a problem with some invasive animal, so they release an increasingly complex chain of invasive animals to kill the previous invasive animal, leading to releasing gorillas to eat snakes who will then die in the winter. You are just pushing the real problem down the road.
I think it's shitty and has no excuse, but the parent is right. Apple has no incentive to respond to their users since all roads lead to first-party Rome. It's why stuff like the Digital Market Act is more needed than some people claim.

You know what would get Apple to fix this? Forced competition. You know what Apple spends their trillions preventing?
Why did you choose to make Kali a "she"?
The most important mid-wit home automation tool is the programmable thermostat, which curiously isn't mentioned. That will have more impact on energy use and quality of life than anything else. No remote control, no wifi needed. Just turns heat on in the morning and turns it off when things warm up, and turns the temperature setpoints lower overnight. In comparison with heat, LED light automation doesn't matter so much. For example, this one:

https://www.honeywellhome.com/us/en/products/air/thermostats...