skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm 53. Morse and teletype were both well before my time - I did not have to engage with either directly. I recall that a "wire" was sent in all uppercase, with STOP for full stop/period.

My mother used a manual typewriter and then later golf ball etc. I did too. She and I were virtually incapable of not using shift. Smacking physical keys is rather satisfying and you tend to pause first before hitting them. Its a very different discipline to modern word processing. Worrying about case will come very low down the pecking order compared to speling (lol).
Oh ok. That makes sense. That's because if someone has an idea that causes a lot of immediate harm then the idea is wrong, but if there is a gap then it is not?
Trash Cans Make Techy Comeback in Japan as Tourists Flood Cities
One of the best things in bazel is that it's very straightforward when comes to tests - https://bazel.build/reference/test-encyclopedia#role-test-ru... - you need to classify your test as short, moderate, long, etc., but also how much memory it takes. In addition if you tests requires isolation, put it too.

So potentionally one can combine multiple independent code bases, that share the same testing framework (say gtest), into single executable, and distributevly execute them using sharding on multiple machines (e.g. depending on what changes were detected in the presbumit/preflight/whatever you call phase).

And because the tests were marked as such and such, it'll use that knowledge to group them better, and if they no longer qualify, an error would be printed out, and how to fix this (if it's worth fixing).
Arm ~~will release~~ is releasing the floodgates of non-x86 alternatives. (Non-Intel, non-AMD) I see the future being owned by the non-proprietary* RISC-V or a successor.

* 'Non-proprietary', so not ARM, either. Though ARM will show the world that there are alternatives to Intel and AMD
I don't expect Netflix to make shows forever, especially ones that don't gain an audience, but if I can't at least be 50/50 I'll get a satisfying ending then I'm simply not going to watch.

This attitude makes it harder for Netflix to make shows that do gain an audience, and it only gets worse every time they betray their viewers' trust.
undid all the contractually obligated safeguards on content filter, labeling etc because yolo?
> Almost all countries in the world have states or an analogy to states.

Only 27 countries in the world are federal states, which is a very far cry from "almost all countries." The entire notion of a federal state is that both the federal government and the state government have independent loci of powers, and there are times when the state governments can tell the federal government to fuck off if the federal government wants it to do something. The exact degree to which this is possible varies from country to country.

For example, you seem to be comparing the US to the UK. But Scotland is not like a US state--it has far fewer powers than a US state, and what powers it does have is entirely dependent on what the UK parliament is willing to grant it. So trying to draw an analogue between a US state and a partially-devolved country within the UK is itself a mistake.
At this point I refuse to start any Netflix show that is not already finished. I understand that Netflix is a highly data driven org but this reliance on metric driven cancellation -- regardless of where the show is at narratively -- is part of what is alienating their userbase. That doesn't show in the data until it's too late and the trust is gone.
> It’s dangerous to build relationships with people who are about to leave.

Why? I get the argument about not getting too close with coworkers (although I've never encountered those problems with mins, and I've made good friends everywhere I've worked), but why are people who are about to leave worse?
There are ~3 million US airline passengers per day. This does not seem like it refutes the point that these are low odds.

I can also probably find some news reports of cannibals nabbing people at the grocery store. Does not mean I am going to avoid shopping.
Weird article: if the point of EA-the-philosophy is to diligently measure and pursue utility-maximizing donations, then none of the "social" stuff should matter to its adherents. They can call themselves whatever they'd like, and nobody would find that basic premise particularly objectionable.

In other words, this doesn't really seem to be about EA. It's about who owns the EA "brand," a thought that's incoherent with the putative mission of EA.
I mean, if you're branding people as "incompatible" based purely on their heritage or religion, then you know ... that's not great.

I don't know about San Francisco, but across Europe there's a fairly wide recognition that acceptance of liberal values is and should be an "entrance requirement" for migrants. This includes people on the left. There this myth of "people on the left refuse to acknowledge this", but broadly speaking that's just not the case, and hasn't been since at least the 90s.

There's all sorts of points of disagreements about immigration, but this really isn't one of them.
I really hope Altman doesn't return to his role. It is nice to see some people showing some spine and standing up to business interestes. "Open"AI is and was a lie for the longest time.
They are really not. The growth of financialization coincides with economic stagnation in U.S. If anything, the data shows the opposite. Finance sector is more or less a parasite on the productive economy.
Yes that's the main problem with all of these concepts like internal family systems, loops, memory - that as long as the models remain static it's not like a brain that's constantly in an isomorphic metamorphosis with reality.

There's really no true boundaries or edges to the biological systems, instead constant interfacing through a myriad of senses and processes, decay, chaos, emergence especially social in nature.

And while these newer symphonic models are closer to group dynamics, my intuition tells me you need more of a universe around "it" to have actual consciousness.

That would be a wild realisation. Do you need to render the entire universe to get one consciousness, or at least some part of it because of weird fields, emergence, and the fact that human taxonomies are actually frighteningly arbitrary?

Ie. to have consciousness with qualia you actually need 47 glorp fields, 1000 other consciousnesses and radiation in this specific frequency.
I've been using Termux to run personal finance app as a python web service for 3 years. It's so much easier to develop comparing with native options.

Or how about getting access to all SMSs via CLI from a bank to create a nice CVS export with all spending transactions.
About ADL? Certainly! I have no strong feelings for them. About Elon, unlikely unless perhaps you claim he is just childish and joking or something.
What is with the misinformation.

The original Verge article says (with no given sources):
> missing a key 5PM PT deadline by which many OpenAI staffers were set to resign.

The tweet removes the qualifier:
> The staff at OpenAI set a 5PM deadline for the entire board to resign, or else they quit and join Sam in his new company.

And you seem to parrot that point even though it is well past that deadline and no news of mass resignations
What’s the counterpoint you’re actually trying to make?
Check out work by Stanislas Dehaene (Consciousness and the Brain, chapters 4 and 5). And Ernst Pöppel’s Mindworks—Time and Conscious Experience.

One odd feature of all work in neuroscience is the unwarranted assumption that the brain has a timebase in the same way that a digital computer has an oscillator clock. That is obviously not true. The hundreds/thosands of brain subsystems have to learn and make their own quirky/noisy timebases and they have to mesh functionally to each other snd to world time via adaptive well-timed behavior. Arguable job number one if consciousness is creating an internal representation of nowness.
Even trickier than managing distributed computing across a continent of infrastructure and latencies.
> Every time we make advances in AI, what we discover is that humans have less intelligence than we ascribe rather than machines have more.

I don't think your cynicism is supportable as stated. Humans are as intelligent as they are, and LLM's are not bullshit. They are doing more and more flexible and useful things that were not automatable before, or even predicted to be automated any time soon.

However, I do agree that human thinking is progressively being demonstrated to be amenable to relatively simple algorithms applied to lots of data and parameters.

That was the only likely way things were going to play out. Sooner or later the slow process of demystification started by human's first attempts at introspection was going to give way to something as automated ... as our own neural processes.
I've worked for for-profit businesses. I've seen Sociopaths climb the ladder faster than anyone else. It's not for-profit or nonprofit that attracts Sociopaths, it's the search for power and the advantage that you can climb faster if you don't care who you hurt. Sociopathy is a superpower in business.
According Wikipedia (1), Lou Ottens, the inventor of the compact cassette also formed a team to develop the compact disc.

(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Ottens
No, I am. I work with them, and I've been one (am one, rarely).

I listed just one possible use, but I also see voice cloning and advanced TTS expanding access for evocative instruction, as an aid to study style and expand range.

Don't be afraid on their behalf. The dooming you're talking about applied to every one of the technological changes I already listed, and we employ more performers and artists today than ever in history.

When animation went digital, we graduated more storyboard artists and digital animators. When music notation software and sampling could replace musicians and orchestras, we graduated more musicians and composers trained on those tools. Now it's the performing arts, and no one in industry is going to shrink their pool of available talent (or risk ire) by daring conflate authenticity and performance with virtual impersonation. Performance capture and vfx also didn't kill or consolidate the movie industry - it allowed it to expand.

Art evolves, and so does its business. People who love art want to see people who do art succeed. I'm optimistic.
> I dunno man, not sure why you're so cynical.

I've seen the "We are motivated by higher goals, trust us" plot play out one too many times, just with different actors. At some point I stopped assuming the best and instead opted for "assume the worst, maybe get pleasantly surprised once in a while". So far, I've been proven correct more often than not - as sad as that is.

> There actually are people out there who are motivated by higher ideals than their own self-interest.

Oh, sure there are. Just many more who aren't. And it's really hard to tell them apart, especially if both say the same things. But we live in a society which rewards the latter, so the safe option (the irony isn't lost on me) is to assume people aren't.

> I don't know if Ilya and the OpenAI board are in that category

That's kind of the problem, isn't it? If they aren't then OpenAI isn't governed by the principles in its charter in either case. And in that case: What is better, an OpenAI which is scrutinized at every step, because no one trusts Microsoft or an OpenAI which can do whatever it wants, cause "safe AI is our goal, trust us" and then wake up one day and find out they too betrayed our trust?
I categorically reject the claim that 'most non-EA people believe that the 'best way to help people' is donating based on feelings'.

I follow it up with a corollary that if EA is so utterly deluded about 'the pillar upon which it was founded', I have strong doubts that its disciples are particularly good at 'qualitatively' measuring impact.
Why do you think labor participation is down?
Yeah I really wish we would just stop changing all this crap in the first place and revert to permanent standard time.
Decentralized communication protocol Matrix shifts to less-permissive AGPL
Putting a range map that covers from southern USA to north of the Arctic circle in Mercator projection is just negligent. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/data-visualisation-...
Competence is generally about effectiveness of execution, and less about intent. This was a foreseeable hot mess executed with staggering naïveté.
The Google of tv shows
All movements that want to preserve their identity need a (at least benevolent) dictator and the ability to self-police. EA had neither. Therefore, it inevitably morphed into a movement that none of the original supporters could recognize.

It is not the first to give into such naivete and it won't be the last.
EA as a concept is great. The old saying "if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you feed him for life."

The EA movement itself over-complicates and distorts it. I recall reading about how someone from EA mocked a social worker and claimed she was selfish for not going into business and making millions, because she could help more people donating the millions than she could doing social work. This was before FTX collapsed.
You at least gotta admire the candidness to say the quiet part out loud.

What I think is really funny about this take is it's the ultra rich CEO's that are taking their bikes to work. The hallmark of being actually rich is not having to worry about appearances any more. As far as social signaling goes cars occupy a space where you have more money than a college kid but not actually wealthy.
It's fine to break them down on the invoice if they prefer/must. But the listed price should still be the final price inclusive of all mandatory fees.

When I buy something here in Europe it will say €2 on the sticker, and then my receipt will say that the price was €1.66 with a VAT of €0.34 for a total of €2.
If this article represents the quality of thinking behind EA, then it’s no wonder it fell apart. “safetyism, a malicious pathology“, “Irrational feminized college students”??
"this business model is cheap", then?
The goal is that 12:00 is pretty close to noon, which is reasonably possible.

(And even though lining up a time with morning would be significantly more annoying and need to exclude the polar circles, I still wouldn't call it "impossible".)
If it is up to single person whether company is worth investment,

Regardless of who they fired, if the board is known to make arbitrary and capricious decisions about top executives without so much as a heads up to large investors, it's not clear that any investor will see them as being worth investment.
Right, a junk fee in this case would be something more like "dishes/utensils cleaning fee" or something else inherent to the business that is for some reason not included in the price presented to the customer.
Given that most NGO ad campaigns that I've seen looking for people to donate were emotionally manipulative nonsense, I disagree.
> So there can't be any learning, by definition.

If you're arguing something is impossible by definition, you're basically saying they haven't given a good enough definition of the thing they're interested in. You're not proving the thing they're interested in is impossible.

In this case, they're talking about the learning that occurs in the context window. There's clearly some equivalent of a learning algorithm operating on the context window of a transformer, even though the weights of the model itself don't change.

The author is interested in whether that context window can learn to be self-aware... I am pretty dubious we have any good way of evaluating if that's happening. But it isn't false by definition
> It went from wanting to repeal the FDA to wanting to make a new one for AI.

They wanted to repeal the FDA?
use whisper-distil, it's like 5-8x faster
Understood, but I was replying to a comment that made it sound like there was some external factor determining a deadline for v1.
Just to add another AuthZ approach to your great comment:

ReBAC for Fine Grained Authorization (FGA) is also something that's becoming more common at the moment. Google released their Zanzibar whitepaper explaining how they implement FGA for things like YouTube and Drive and it's lead to a lot of new tooling based upon it.

I'm working on a project at the moment with quite complex document management with various levels of access. Auth0 open sourced their FGA implementation recently as OpenFGA which looks ideal for our use case. As it's all fairly new there isn't much info out there about different ways of implementing it so we're kind of figuring it out as we go.
Ever since the author paywalled some of his useful posts, I stopped following him. I have read his ML book and I know he used to be a professor and is now working in the industry, and he’s quite famous in the field. That’s why I don’t understand why such a figure would even need the extra income generated by Substack’s paywall.
I don’t even …
All advertising is emotionally manipulative, but just because I bought something that was advertised to me doesn't mean that I consider it 'the best possible purchase'.

It could have been the purchase of least resistance. It could have been the best at maximizing some particular utility. It could have been a purchase of the most recent thing that was on my mind. My decisions, unlike that of these theoretical EAs don't solely consist of maximizing some global 'goodness' utility function.

When I gave $500 to the town's theatre this year, it wasn't because 'I was trying to maximize the best way to help people, and I erroneously made a sub-optimal choice, because I based it on feelings'.

Paperclip-maximization was the furthest thing from my mind at the time. Anyone looking at my decision, and concluding based on it that I was buying into some Big Lie is completely nuts.
For Python that is properly source controlled, audited and understood I do agree it isn't that hard to port. However unlike many more compiled languages there's probably a LOT of python code out there that isn't which makes changes to Python and its APIs more risky. Don't get me wrong - this is one of the reasons why the language is popular - it is seen as "easy and approachable"; you just write a script and it works for the most part. It also was often the only language built into many distro's other than bash making it ultra convenient.

Which means a lot of it written isn't catalogued, in source control, whatever but still doing stuff people need and often forgotten about. This makes changes of Python IMO more risky. I've seen Python scripts on old Linux images lurking in the wild working for even decades without people realizing they are there set up by non-dev's people back in the day. Another example would be some financial analyst coding a script to produce reports that are used to make decisions and need same behavior each time - one day the date time function maybe in this article will just stop working often with the original person who wrote it just to get stuff done quick long gone.

IMO migration from 2 to 3 was particularly painful for Python because of the way it/was is used, historically who the main users of it, its popularity (wide blast radius) and how it is often Python is updated by blanket system upgrades given it is standard on many machines. Being aware of what needs to be upgraded for a given large scale environment is most of the work.
You’re spot-on with RCS. Apple can point to it and say “we support open standards including everything Android supports.”
This sounds great. How many people have you tried it with?
I'm a beginner at distributed systems but I am curious many solutions seem in common with multithreaded systems: "sharding" which is to avoid coordination allows embarrassingly parallel scaling.

Time is the thing that we don't have enough of at request time because a round trip takes years in computer time. (See "latency numbers every programmer should know")

It seems contention is the critical factor: if I have a database key and I want to scale concurrent access to it, we are contended on that key to see if other users are writing conflicting changes to the same key, such as MVCC.

Optimistic - assume no contention (and handle it when it happens)

Pessimistic - assume lots of contention (prepare to handle it before it happens)
The problem, though, is without the huge commercial and societal success of ChatGPT, the AI Safety camp had no real leverage over the direction of AI advancement worldwide.

I mean, there are tons of think tanks, advocacy organizations, etc. that write lots of AI safety papers that nobody reads. I'm kind of piqued at the OpenAI board not because I think they had the wrong intentions, but because they failed to see that the "perfect is the enemy of the good."

That is, the board should have realistically known that there will be a huge arms race for AI dominance. Some would say that's capitalism - I say that's just human nature. So the board of OpenAI was in a unique position to help guide AI advancement in as safe a manner as possible because they had the most advanced AI system. They may have thought Altman was pushing too hard on the commercial side, but there are a million better ways they could have fought for AI safety without causing the ruckus they did. Now I fear that the "pure AI researchers" on the side of AI Safety within OpenAI (as that is what was being widely reported) will be even more diminished/sidelined. It really feels like this was a colossally sad own goal.
These proposals don't say you can't charge fees.

They say that the actual total price has to be displayed from the beginning.

If Ticketmaster wants to break down a $250 concert ticket as $180 for the ticket and $70 for an issuing fee, that's fine. But since the fee is mandatory, they have to advertise it as $250, not $180.

They still get the same amount of money but people aren't being lied to, and are better able to make smart decisions about what to buy without having to wade through a morass of fine print.
Yeah, I guess you're right. This is a thread about SpaceX, and I'm just hijacking it for my selfish reasons.

SpaceX is cool, I really hope they get to the Moon one day.
I think by "something is wrong" you mean that data has changed and if data hasn't changed then the coordinating method of a distributed system isn't very relevant
Big investors like Microsoft won't want a board that is utterly subservient to the CEO.
There are some trains that can go off-grid for small sections on batter power.
> With his firing from OpenAI, Altman quickly got the upper hand in terms of public messaging. The board didn’t use a communications or law firm in its dealings, people familiar with the board said, expecting that the OpenAI team would help them. But Altman had loyalty from investors and employees.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-leadership-hangs-in-balan...
Can you take off weeks of work and keep your job? Can you lose your job and afford to feed your kids?

For many people the answer to both is no.
bold to base his defense in the quality of the rest of his ad traffic. his only chance is the judge is his fan and just take his word for it
That also sounds like a plant from Altman's side.

This is the most important quote: "We can say definitively that the board’s decision was not made in response to malfeasance or anything related to our financial, business, safety, or security/privacy practices. This was a breakdown in communication between Sam and the board."

If it were a plant by the other camp how would this make it there? Also the whole article sounds like "You don't want him as a CEO? He is going to get sooo much money, and going to out compete you sooo hard. He is already in talks for his new venture." Which is obviously what Sam's side would like to project.