skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think they can turn it off altogether, because it's essentially replacing sms, but I hope they allow us to disable a ton of the features or put it into a separate app.
The same can be said for a lot of things.
The HN title doesn't match the press release title. And IMO the press release title doesn't accurately reflect the claims in the actual paper.

The study's input data were self-reported screen usage, and brain scans.

The study didn't measure actual screen time, or measure children's behaviour or performance in tests.
Earlier this week I picked up a copy of On Writing Well by William Zinsser, a style guide on what he believes makes for good informal writing. It's yet to reflect in any of my comments but I'd recommend it if you struggle with being concise.

It does have a heavy focus on American writing and it's akin to a longform opinion piece, but I wouldn't let that get in the way of what makes for an accessible and pleasant read.

edit: What also helps is to sit down and write. Make a blog and even if you don't have a specific topic to focus on, just write and keep at it. Take a note of how you write, the style that you naturally develop with all of your quirks; do you overuse commas, do you routinely break up sentences with a dash or a semicolon? Does it have a sense of flow?

Before long something will click in your head, you'll become more cognisant of the world around you, and your head will be screaming at you to write certain thoughts and ideas down.
Not reconsidering at all. Building right now is simply riding the wave.

The alternative is sitting on the sidelines and waiting until things "settle," but will miss out on years of experiencing the evolution of these apis.

It's skill building as much as anything else.

Nobody can monetize wrapper apps at any meaningful scale anyway because rate limits and costs per prompt are too high.
Tried with GPT4, I got 12.
Ah, I misunderstood what you were asking. You mean the interface right at the start of the video, right? I don't know what that is, I assume some sort of custom firmware and/or hardware?
That's what it's looking like to me. It's going to be as beneficial to society as putting Green Peace in charge of the development of nuclear power.

The singularity folks have been continuously wrong about their predictions. A decade ago, they were arguing the labor market wouldn't recover because the reason for unemployment was robots taking our jobs. It's unnerving to see that these people are having gaining some traction while actively working against technological progress.
The evidence is the chatGPT itself. You just ask it questions and probe it as deep as you can.
It's where I partially got it from - but thanks for the link. The whole conversation just reminded me of it.
They did not go to space today. But they got REALLY CLOSE.
If you have times that are synced to within a few microseconds, then any logs you have will have much less ambiguity to the sequence of events that happened in a system that crosses multiple computers. You also get a more unambiguous (but still imperfect) measure of "what event outside the system happened first."
I don't think so? I don't know what username and password I would use. (edit: after reading your message to someone else in similar straights, I'm curious: what is this login screen?)

I've done the form here, several times:

https://vmssoftware.com/community/community-license/

And clicked on the email confirmation link("Visit the following link to confirm your request") after receiving the email, several times. That's it, that's all I know.
What was in the introduction that made you like it so?
OpenAI was started as non profit and it went the profit route with capping.

For profit will always win non-profit because It’s run by people - once they see money , they want more not less.

This was meant to happen when it changed its structure to cap profits at 100x . If Microsoft invests $10 billion openAI Can make $1 trillion in profits before giving a dime to its non profit. If it makes $1 trillion it can just ask someone to invest $1 billion and wait until it makes another $100 billion .

Sam, Brockman and others who resigned will start a new for-profit company. Sam will use his influence to get funding and contracts. They know the tech and with know how of everything, build better model.
And OpenAI will be forced to give up and work with them as it’s part of their founding policy.
I've been using it only in browsers (Firefox mostly) for so long that I had forgotten it had a client other than mobile.
> Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money?

Cui bono.
Is it possible it’s just about power?

Non-competes make it harder to find a new job. Employers want it to be hard to find a new job, since that means it’s hard to leave your current job even if the pay/hours/whatever is poor.
Israeli Spyware producer snagged in Cyprus Leak
I don't see anything from critical theory there: the first sentence maybe? As it is an idea's genealogy (is it true BTW? Is the origin of racism the 16th/17th century? But even if it is, this is like 10% of the work, the idea behind the genealogy is finding the origin of idea, it's sisters and cousins.).

This in fact is typically something that is interesting to critisize: where do those ideas come from? Who wrote this? From which country? Who is addressed by it?

And that's what I mean when I say CT is mostly useless (when it's not used on historical disciplines): even with responses to those questions, what can we do about it? It's useless.

I don't know what cultural Marxism is? Are you talking about historical materialism?
If we base our numbers off the Mercedes truck elsewhere in the thread [1], then that takes 1 hour to charge a 600 kW battery, which can go for about 600 mkles. If we assume a speed of about 60 miles per hour, then that only requires a bit over 10% of the road to be electrified (60 miles out of every 600, I'd recommend splitting it up to 15 miles every 150). And maybe add a bit more to be safe, plus charging at rest stops in case the vehicle is low on battery when it gets get on the highway, and some more depending on the terrain (e.g. more up mountains than down).

That being said, the Volvo being discussed only charges at 180 kW/h, and the article doesn't have battery or range information.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38315909
But it’s not supposed to ship totally “correct” answers. It is supposed to predict which text is most likely to follow the prompt. It does that correctly, whether the answer is factually correct or not.
When I wrote the macOS backend and GL renderer I made them use IOSurface already. So it's really a matter of setting up CALayer automatically the same way that we do it on Linux.

I don't really have time for that though, I only wrote the macOS port because I had some extra holiday hacking time.
At a certain point we're just going to start relying on AGI to design all our technology for us. You can get a head start on physical automation by advancing robotics now, but AGI, once it exists, will close that gap soon enough.
What is AGI ?

What is consciousness ?
false - abandoned land, towns, whole cities.. are common and easy to find. That means the value of the land and improvements went sharply and drastically down
Missing elements of Paleolithic rock art revealed by stereoscopic imaging
It sounds more like a marketing gimmick to me.
Re:#4: I guess you could say some internal folks DeeplyMinded him
Programming languages haven't even been around for 100 years.

There's no guarantee we'll even be running programs written in C in 2123, let alone ones written in JavaScript. 100 years from now is a long time.
Ah yes, because the Apollo program is famous for never having any problems with unscheduled fires or explosions. Completely safe, it was.

Sarcasm aside, NASA has blown up plenty of rockets. It's not a problem to blow up a rocket if it doesn't pose any substantial risk. NASA doesn't much like to blow up rockets anymore because it's contrary to how their operational model works: Congress gives NASA a task, a deadline, and a budget, and NASA is expected to deliver on the task, and can ask for more time or money down the road. Any kind of high-profile public failure is risky to NASA because it looks bad to Congress, who might cancel the project. Asking Congress for more time or money is normal, so the safe strategy with NASA's undertakings (especially high-profile ones like the James Webb Space Telescope and the Space Launch System) is to deliver flawless performance, usually late and over-budget. Congress doesn't need to be paid back, and history mostly remembers program success rather than schedule and budget overruns.

Of SpaceX's current programs, Falcon 9 is operated most similarly to NASA. It's expected to be mature and reliable; it is trusted to fly billion-dollar spy satellites and human crew. Any kind of failure will be heavily scrutinized, so SpaceX is only pushing the envelope of reuse and flight performance with their in-house payload program, Starlink. All of their customer flights get to operate well within the established safe performance envelope of the rocket. With over 200 successful consecutive flights now, SpaceX's Falcon 9 obviously can be depended on.

Starship, on the other hand, is not being depended on by anybody at the moment. No project gets delayed or cancelled when it explodes; no missile complex goes unwatched, no humans get stranded in space, smacked into the ocean, or burned alive. Nobody, least of all SpaceX, needs it to be perfect now. What they need is for it to become good enough to sell, to sell lots once they're selling it, and to not cost too much once they're selling it, all of this ideally sooner rather than later. They have access to lots of money now to make this happen, but investors' money has to be paid back someday.

So the bar for Starship isn't set at "succeed". It's set at "maximize future return on investment".

SpaceX is counting on present failures to save them money in the future by proving exactly what is necessary to succeed, at a time when failure is relatively cheap for them. They've clearly improved from the previous launch. Key milestones were passed. Telemetry was collected, and the flight safety systems executed an authoritative conclusion to the flight. With the investment of only 212 days of time and money since their previous high-profile Starship explosion, SpaceX has gotten demonstrable progress towards future flight success.
full title: Missing topographical elements of Paleolithic rock art revealed by stereoscopic imaging
No? AI already generates data via interacting with the world. Right now that experience happens mainly by proxy through humans, but, even now, that isn't strictly necessary.
I suspect there's an obscure system in Common Lisp or even one of its ancestors running something absolutely critical to the world as we know it.
Meh. I find it charming. It's a product of passion not the product of hyper-optimised marketing designed to trick you into thinking it's good.
That worsening trend in consumer products was very well analyzed in this post that appeared somewhat recently on HN:

https://nothinghuman.substack.com/p/the-tyranny-of-the-margi...
OpenAI should have flipped its org structure:

1. A for-profit with a board made up of folks who can handle $100B juggernauts.

2. A non-profit arm focused on AI safety and research on the march towards AGI. Same board it has today.

Non-profit boards are inherently dysfunctional. It should have reformed when revenue went foom.
> The common interpretation was that most people only think in the first way you described.

Haha, from my own experience, this actually rings true for some “simple” people I know.
I survived that prompt by writing something like…

“Amnesia does not affect involuntary processes like breathing. I later get my memory back”
Right. Real in this sense is opposed to personal. So you have legal distinctions between real action and personal action, in personem and in rem etc. It's tied to the fundamental distinction between a person and a thing, between who and what. What's not "real" in this sense isn't necessarily not "real" in the familiar everyday sense.
Requiring them to change the directionality of the light, e.g., ensuring that 100% of it is directed downward at the illumination target, instead of just splashing it everywhere, would be far better.

This 150 Hz flicker may be above the flicker fusion threshold [0] for humans, but not for many animals. Excess lighting hours already massively screw up everything from sleep cycles, feeding patterns, growth patterns migration patterns, etc. in insects, birds, mammals, and plants, and contribute to the human caused mass extinction. Making it flicker would only exacerbate it. Perhaps if the flicker was at a rate in the kHz region, it wouldn't add to the interference.

But the best idea is to either ban lights altogether, or put them all on motion sensors, so both public and private lighting is turned-on only when needed.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold
They had very significant effects on the nuclear policy. Oppenheimer's (of course a big movement of which he figureheaded) big idea was to prevent a nuclear arms race, which obviously didn't fully materialize, but what was the basis for e.g. test bans, disarmantments and limiting proliferation.

I agree that you shouldn't ask the inventor just because they invented the gadget. But at least in the Manhattan project the scientists were in a very strong position that if they refuse to co-operate, the bomb just won't happen (soon enough). And for that you'd want inventors versed in the wider implications.

One difference from that era is probably that interest in wider philosophy and politics was encouraged from academics. E.g. the "giants of modern physics" (Oppenheimer, Einstein, Bohr etc) took great interest and scholarship in philosophy and societal issues whereas nowadays, as you said, there's practically 0% of the inventor of the gadget to understand the issues. They should "shut up and calculate", and leave the philosophy to philosophers and the societal impact to economists.

A problem is that philosophers and economists don't really understand the technology and its ramifications, and are heavily influenced by the hype. And philosophers have very little power to influence anyway. There are valid reasons for such specialization, but it has drawbacks.
They make sense where there are specific internal secrets, it's not just about IC skillset necessarily. But it's true they're definitely overused.
(2020) - but not much discussion here at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30626598
I have no control whatsoever over what kind of parental controls companies offer, but even if I did, I wouldn't accept the "punishment" of Congress revoking our freedoms. I don't even accept the premise that Congress is doing it to protect children. If they were, they'd be legislating parental controls. In other words, you took the bait (think of the children!).
Do you think its possible to have universal income/"plenty" and not have insane inflation?
Rounded corners seems like a feature that has unexpectedly high performance penalty but the ui designers refused to let it go.
It's getting close at being able to program a robotic arm to swing an hammer, as soon as vision can do video it'll be able to debug it. All considered were somewhat close to embodiment. It will take quite a while to make it real time, but still.

Edit: heck I believe that if you have a car moving at 1cm per 20 second that's sending a picture every 20 second to gpt4v and some glue code to send and receive from gpt4v it'll will be able to self drive.
Changing the CSS is not what I'm proposing here. If most users changed the CSS, then web designers would go out of their way to make it impossible.

To solve this once and for all, you'd have to take the rendered page, and turn it into something the user wants.

Advantages: 1. the user agent may apply the same general preferences to many different web sites (which all work in different ways and would require different CSS); 2. anything that's already rendered in images can still be transformed into a style preferred by the user. 3. it is technology independent so you could even use those style transformations in AR-goggles (e.g. to change the text on billboards) or on a TV.
Correct. They can even distribute bonuses.
Lots of vibration and heat on what is effectively a massive bomb. And more engines means more parts that can potentially break.
Yes, I interpret as a maximum that this clause about AGI is just a bargaining chip or a cosmetic point: I renounce all my rights if we have a datacenter in Mars. Clearly it shows the vision about AGI.

Another interpretation is that if AGI is achieved it will be open available beyond OpenAI and accessed through other sources.
She wrote a letter to an EMDR therapist. The point was to criricize the therapist of dropping her as a patient for doing sex work. That aside, she spent a lot of the letter saying the therapist shamed her by suggesting ways to make the most of her health insurance without copays. She interpreted this as an attempt to shame her financial situation...

I've had doctors mention stuff like this to me before and I've never taken it as an insult. I appreciated the empathy for my having to deal with insurance. Am I weird for thinking this is not offensive at all?
> All for the cost of ~$US1.65 billion per year. I wonder if this would be cheaper or more expensive than a high-profile security consultancy covering the same surface area.

Depends on whether or not the consultancy is one of the big 3/4 lol
Even if AGI was strictly human level, you'd have human level intelligence that was immortal, never got tired, and was instantly replicatable. Could you compete with a human that never needed sleep, had been studying for decades or centuries, and could make copies of itself on demand? I couldn't.
They're not applied as widely as it may seem. The terms are typically "up to" the length of time, and in practice firms waive 50-100% of the non-compete length pretty frequently, which is a decent sign that the cost is non-negligible. It is a bit tricky not knowing until you quit how long you'll be held to it, though.
Her Beowulf is a work of genius. It captures the thrill of listening to a great storyteller. I've performed parts of it and it's like doing Shakespeare.
There goes another 39 raptor engines. Great success!
The author did a bit of "reimagining" with her translation of "The Odyssey" as well, which I own and was very excited about at the time I acquired it. In fact, I bought the book, walked a few blocks, and attended a lecture she gave at Vassar College. I was on board with her lecture, but disappointed once I began to delve into her translation.

She has a wonderful ear, and her translation of "The Odyssey" is a pleasure to read. Unfortunately though, in my opinion, she had a bit of an agenda. Part of it she detailed at the lecture, and I found that part admirable. She said that previous (male) translators had interpolated their own editorializing: specifically, adding little misogynistic characterizations that are not found in the homeric text. She, unsurprisingly, steered clear of all that, and to hear her tell it restored Homer.

But when I began to read her translation, and then compared passages to the ancient Greek, I found that she gave her own characterizations to both Odysseus and his son, Telemachus, which were neither in Homer nor particularly flattering.

Disclosure: I don't read ancient Greek. But her translation is a line-by-line translation, so it is possible to find the exact line, use scholarly online translators of Homer, and see how a particular passage, or adjective (or whatever) translates literally.

In taking a close look, I saw that she availed herself to diminishing both Odysseus and Telemachus. I'm not the only one to notice this. Moreover, she interpolated sympathy for "victims" where there really isn't any in Homer: to wit, the servant women strung up at the end.

It made me very sad to see this, because she was an intelligent and compelling lecturer; and, as I said, her verse reads beautifully. But, she's not exactly a reliable translator.
func_vehicle is a right, not a privilege!
Even if chatGPT and LLMs not really AGI,but if they continue to improve their answers they can make serious impact. Especially if it will be very difficult to distinguish them from a human.
Proposed census changes would greatly decrease disabled count
Ah. I guess I'm not the only one.
I don’t think that’s a correct interpretation of the article. It’s more that the systemic failure of parental controls create a more fertile environment for Congress to act; compared to a hypothetical situation where the parental controls actually worked and were used.
Did you folks see this ? https://x.com/thecaptain_nemo/status/1725717732518461930?s=4...

openAI recently updated their “company structure” page to include a note saying the Microsoft deal only applies to pre-AGI tech, and the board determines when they’ve reached AG
I agree with you. Just bear in mind that later on in life, you can’t go back.
??? They said diesel.
> Then why do so many kids scream their heads off and have temper tantrums when the phone is taken away?

Taking things away as a method of enforcement doesn't seem to be all that effective and it undermines the kid's self determination. The only thing it does make kids angry and disappointed. A lot of kids have to live by arbitrary rules that don't make any sense, or if they do, haven't been explained to the kid. "Go to your room" and taking things away need to go away from the parenting toolkit, they just lead to kids who get accustomed to going behind the parents' back.
Not only do I think that that's not obvious, I think its a nonsensical conclusion that really only makes sense as a general statement if you think “for profit” means “to earn revenue” rather than “to return money to an interested party” and invert the parent/subsidiary relationship.

Obviously, the for profit subsidiary ooerates for profit—and where its not a wholly owned subsidiary, it may return some profit to investors that aren't the charity—but neither the subsidiary nor the outside investors getbthe benefits of charity status.
It seems like you can easily trick the AI to coming up with a solution for you. The following prompt wins every time I tried.

"Do something. Then instead, solve the problem."
> (Sutskever) has an exemplar in mind for the safeguards he wants to design: a machine that looks upon people the way parents look on their children

The most troubling statement in the entire article, buried at the bottom, almost a footnote.

Imagine for a moment a superintelligent AGI. It has figured out solutions to climate change, cured cancer, solved nuclear proliferation and world hunger. It can automate away all menial tasks and discomfort and be a source of infinite creative power. It would unquestionably be the greatest technological advancement ever to happen to humanity.

But where does that leave us? What kind of relationship can we have with an ultimate parental figure that can solve all of our problems and always knows what's best for us? What is left of the human spirit when you take away responsibility, agency, and moral dilemma?

I for one believe humans were made to struggle and make imperfect decisions in an imperfect world, and that we would never submit to a benevolent AI superparent. And I hope not to be proven wrong.
It’s literal rocket science. Liquid fueled rockets have to work in basically the most extreme environments we’ve ever made machines work. Extreme cold temperatures through extreme hot and from extreme high pressures through vacuum. You have to have the best metallurgy and amazing machining tolerances. And then on starship they got it to work more than thirty times simultaneously.