skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I worked as a package handler for FedEx for a while and mentioned to one of the other handlers (who was ex-military) that monarchists actually existed in the US. He mentioned something to the effect that serving a King seemed like a compelling idea.

> Unless you conclude that the current situation is unfixable, and it should be torn down. It seems an extremely unwise gamble to make though.

Democratic-Republican (in the political sense, not the political party sense) institutions are strong enough in the US that I genuinely cannot see how Trump could fully tear them down, even for a temporary time during the course of his presidency. I still fear what he will do. For example, 16 of the last 21 Supreme Court justices - 76% - have been appointed by Republican presidents despite Republican presidents only serving for 58% of those years. It's necessary to go back to 1938 to balance appointed Supreme Court justices at 21 to 21 Republican to Democrat appointments, with Republicans having served only 44% of the time as president.
Sunbird / 'Nothing Chats' Is Not Secure
Tell me about it, my girlfriend's Spanish and lives in Lancashire.

I'm the foreigner when I go over there. (Don't worry I have my passport, and jabs are up to date).
It's remarkable how many problems seemingly come back to Land Value Taxation.
Hopefully no GPS jammers nearby.
In Canada, it's also gonna be a rust bucket before then.
Some designers are definitely terrible (e.g. whoever made the mind numbing decision to use hamburger menus in Gnome), but plenty are good at their jobs. Go and watch some Tantacruul videos on YouTube.
If it’s just that the parties don’t trust each other then the cost of HME has to be compared to the current “state of the art” which is contracts and enforcement thereof.

In practice, I don’t think those costs are that high because the rate of incident is low and the average damage is also low.

Yes there are outlier instances of large breaches but these seem like high profile aircraft crashes considering how many entities have sensitive data.
The question then becomes - when is the money created? Is it created when it is issued by a (central) bank or is created when an exchange (for value) takes place?

(the later has an interesting side effect as it would incentive to make transactions legal)
Races between goroutines can corrupt memory. E.g. manipulate a map from two goroutines and you can wreck its internal state.
Probably easy to remove these watermarks with some autoencoder approach similar to:

https://www.kaggle.com/code/therealcyberlord/watermark-remov...
I love love love how empty the new mobo is. So many parts simmered down & simmered away.

I have this long held imagery of computers as a chip, with almost everything on-board, just add power. Add some io. The progress here paints a radical portrait of how that is incrementally happening.
Very interesting thread, thank you!

I think I'm going to adopt the same strategy as you, since apparently nobody can actually show any meaningful proof of widespread hacks happening..

I must also say that if I feared being a specific hackers' target, I would probably make many different choices in how I use computers/the web, other than upgrading my phone :)
No the Mac version (that was PowerPC only) but the Windows version might work with Wine
On one hand I want SpaceX to succeed. But on the other hand, I can't stand Elon benefiting in any way. I won't commenr again about the rampant Elon supported racism at tesla or the him firing spacex employees begging him to stop letting his bullshit personal politics in the way of their mission. But he is literally supporting anti-semitism now in the open, to the point the anti-defamation league is pleading with companies to stop adverising on X. I don't want any human progress or achievement to come at such a high price. Not when the government is paying Elon for launches.

I wish spacex all the success, hope Elon divests it to make up for his loss on twitter. I hope Elon all the failure in the world, or better yet I hope he finds redemption and sees the error of his ways, that he stops promoting hatred and division and peacefully enjoys his enormous wealth. Being a horrible person, despite the myth, is not a pre-requisite to achieving great things nor is it excused by such achievements.
That comes across as pretty condescending. It's not like you have some sort of authoritative high ground about what does and doesn't constitute professionalism in the business world. It sounds to me that your version of professionalism is in line with what gets prescribed at your average mindless corporate human resources or public relations department. Which is fine, but there's zero proof that that is the correct way to do things, and it's actually naive on _your_ part to accept the status quo as is. And, as I said, incredibly condescending to assume it is somehow the "mature" point of view.
You don't call someone a liar because you have philosophical differences.
I mean I think it would be pretty hard to prove that you weren't at any time "less than candid" in reports to a board.
>Ilya, and the board, should have been well aware of what was being released on that day for months

Not necessarily, and that may speak to the part of the Board's announcement that Sam was not candid
> Insane that Go had decades of programming mistakes to learn from but it chose this path.

Yup, every time I write some Go I feel like it's been made in a vaccum, ignoring decades of programming language. null/nil is a solved problem by languages with sum types like haskell and rust, or with quasi-sums like zig. It always feels like a regression when switching from rust to go.

Kudos to Uber for the tool, it looks amazing!
I’d pay for jetbrains if it wasn’t paid by my employer. And thinking about moving to paid alternatives of gmail and dropbox.

That’s it.

I don’t understand why people pay for news media when you can find same news but even less biased for free everywhere.

And all “added value” of media is nothing but snake oil, that they spend millions trying to market and confuse your common sense.

Also I don’t understand why people pay for blogs or newsletters that were made with tge goal of making money of you.

Virtually all real niche experts I know either share knowledge for free or don’t share at all.

And most of the general wisdom and knowledge you can get is already there in public domain sources.
The Chinese room doesn't have a model; it has an infinite dictionary. A sufficiently large LLM isn't a dictionary, it has to contain a model of some sort.
Submarines were considered science fiction shortly prior to WWI, and then you got such crazy technological advancements, that battleships were obsolete by the time they were built. Well, submarines weren't science fiction anymore, and were used in unrestricted warfare.

Hope we don't do that with AI. Pretty sure our AGI is going to be similar to that seen in the Alien franchise of films-- it essentially emulates human higher order logic with key distinctions.
Indeed. What has caught researchers off guard is the way system 2 properties seem to appear as emergent phenomena in LLMs. This is also what has prompted people like Hinton and Sutskever to make this condensed point about statistical modelling and understanding (hypothetically) being simply matter of a spectrum.
Not without ketchup.
Normally I wouldn't do this, but since you were downvoted without explanation:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=be%20like
Parking without paying the meter is illegal, but not criminal.
Very interesting work.
I wonder what were the difficulties encountered.
Aliasing? Variable reassignment wrt short declaration shadowing?

Hopefully with time, when exploring union types and perhaps a limited form of generalized subtyping (currently it's only interface types) we'll be able to deal with nil for good.

Nil is useful, as long as correctly reined in.
I am very happy to support this incredible burden to our society to get these arts in a museum instead of stored in a freeport[0].

[0]: https://curiousaboutart.com/business-of-art/list-of-freeport...
Last sentence is a fine idea, it is also possible to move toward developing a society where “potential attackers” is a thought much more distant in people’s minds.
No technology can render humans useless, since technology is the “how” whereas humans are the “why”. Technology can be seen as good/bad/neutral to humans in some ways, but rationally speaking—religious views aside—humans cannot logically be qualified in those terms with respect to technology.

One could say some future technology might be so good that humans need to do almost nothing in order to survive. Perhaps that’d pose some challenges in terms of mental health, but that is a very different issue, assuming it would be a issue at all (and assuming such technology is even possible in theory).

One could say some advanced technology could go out of control, or magically acquire self-awareness and agency (same thing in a philosophically dubious wrapper), or (more prosaically) be (intentionally or not) misused by humans so that it harms humans, but that just puts it into the bad category.
> So when’s the return on the investment going to actually happen?

It already did many times over what it cost. And continues to deliver.
The two statements are compatible. It can be true that there is a core of really high quality research coming out of China, and also that there is a huge “long tail” of low-quality research that is probably motivated by badly-calibrated publication quantity metrics. The US seems to be slightly more limited in this because (possibly) we have a smaller population of researchers, but also because our government funding sources for research (places like the NSF) tend to have some peer review that cuts against this sort of metric.
Machine Learning for Game Devs: Part 2
And I'm sure the opposite will happen as well, people who want to pass human work as AI generated by adding watermarks.
If you pay the Non AFT Fee, yes.
I used to ask this same question in interviews: should C code always check for NULL? My favorite answer was that the code should have a notion of boundaries, runtime checks should happen at the boundaries, and debug-only assertions are nice but not required inside the boundaries.
And yet we make progress. It seems we've historically mostly been effective at hanging on to positive change, and discarding negative change
Sounds like you are, in "broad strokes", longing after 1870s or something. I think you forgot how crony (or crappy?) it was.

What I am saying, if you really want this "traditional capitalism", which never really existed, you need some mechanism of how to avoid rich getting richer and becoming cronies (as they always did). I don't think you have an idea what such a mechanism should be.
> The generally accepted definition is that it must be able to complete most cognitive tasks as well as an average human.

That is a definition. It is not a generally accepted definition.
Nobody panicked? I suspect that's beyond what your current evidence, plus general knowledge of market behavior, can justify.
But at least you can understand why watching skibidi toilet is inappropriate during family dinner. “Taking it away” can mean suggesting not watching youtube while at the dinner table.

I’m not saying that no one is just ripping the phone right out of the kids hands but my experience is that when the phone battery dies, the screen addicted kids begin to meltdown until you fix it.
"The money keeps moving, in a circle."

- Mac McDonald, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
I think it's the other way around. NASA flew the shuttle 135 times and lost two of them, but they kept going after the first failure. And both failures followed NASA being advised of the root cause before the orbiters' destruction, and NASA management ignored the advice. Meanwhile the safety track record for Falcon 9 exceeds that of the shuttle, and it exceeded it before humans were put on top of Falcon 9. The Apollo program did very few launches and yet they put humans on top of it. No, I think what you might say is that NASA in the 60s cared a lot less about safety than SpaceX do today, though perhaps NASA today cares a lot more about safety than NASA 20 years ago (and definitely than 60 years ago).
Say you want to build something new, something that is beyond the bounds of what anyone has ever built before. In this case, a rocket that has more thrust than any built before. The basic mechanics say that it is feasible, so you start to work the details. You find the limit of knowledge in all kinds of directions, and determine which limits you can definitely build the rocket within, and which ones you will need to exceed. As the world's most powerful rocket, perhaps it will exceed current bounds of knowledge about things like material performance and turbulence under extreme temperatures and pressures.

Anything built outside of currently-known parameters might fail, so you design as much of the rocket as possible to operate within the limits of current knowledge.

Some of those limits turn out to be feasible to push in a laboratory. So you build and conduct experiments on those parameters, record the results, and design your rocket accordingly.

But for some parameters, the lab experiments required to test them are incredibly costly. Especially for parameters that vary strongly with scale (like turbulence), a system with the size and energy of the world's largest rocket can only be predicted by an experiment with the size and energy of the world's largest rocket.

Say it costs a billion dollars to build and launch your new rocket, but it will operate with ten unknown parameters, each of which will cost 200 million dollars to individually test on the ground. You could spend two billion dollars on experiments, then one billion dollars on a rocket you're confident will work. This is more-or-less the model that NASA used for developing the Space Launch System: do as much science as necessary, ask Congress for as much extra time and money as the contractors say they need, so they can be extremely confident that their new biggest rocket will work perfectly the first time. NASA doesn't like launching rockets that they don't know will work, because Congress doesn't like when rockets they paid for blow up, and NASA depends on Congress for all of their funding.

However, for the same money, you could build your rocket best-guess within the known unknowns and fly it. It's likely to blow up, because you guessed on ten unknowns. However, if the results of the flight allows you determine some of the parameters with greater confidence than one billion dollars in ground experiments, then it was worth the while, and you re-design your rocket according to the newly-understood parameters. You can do this three times for the cost of building the experiments and flying once. That's a decent chance at learning the parameters, and as a bonus, you get to practice building and flying the rocket, productively employing all of your staff and facilities.

That's more-or-less the model that SpaceX is developing Starship on, and previously Falcon 9. Blowing up prototype rockets only costs SpaceX time and money, and as long as it costs less time and money than running ground experiments (and keeping their production and launch crews on retainer, and maintaining their facilities between rockets), they're saving money by launching rockets they expect to blow up.
He is an entertainer. Not the best one, not the worst
Yes but the reliability of modern car engines is a minor miracle, achieved through over a century of incredible engineering effort. Also remember that production lines always have yield, which means that not everything that rolls off it will actually work and the non-functional components are discarded. For example new chip production fabs very often have low yields, sometimes even the majority of chips don't work.
The important difference is the inflation rate could differ from its current value. Money 200 months left is unlikely to be worth exactly 10x as much as money with 20 months left. That difference may not be meaningful on its own but could have interesting knock on effects depending on how money enters the system.
How about this: understanding is the ability to generalize knowledge and apply it to novel scenarios.

This definition is something that humans, and animals for that matter, do every day - both in small and large ways. And this is something that current language models aren't very good at.
I can’t imagine an organization where this wouldn’t have come up on some roadmap or prioritization meeting, etc. How could leadership not know what the org is working on?! They’re not that big.
Quite reasonable incremental testing program.
Inflation, negative interest rates and the impending introduction of CBDCs (which will bring along more purpose limited and expiring vouchers too) all cause or will cause money to expire. In other words, these are tools to prod people to spend now or invest somewhere now to keep the consumption economy going.

Depending on the country and other events, entire fiat currencies or specific denominations of fiat currencies can expire and become color paper worth almost nothing. We’ve seen this many times over the last several decades that fiat currency (not backed by gold or other physical asset) has existed.

It’s all about trust from every angle and every motive.
It's the sass/saass quip: is this software as a service? Or service as a software substitute? Same thing, but the phrasing of SaaSS puts a little more point on it.
The pendulum swings back to server-side.
We can be sure when CBCDs come into existence they will feature demurrage of some form.
Dart made the same nullable mistake but actually managed to fix it, which is quite impressive.

Go is just obstinately living in the 90s. I guess that's not really a surprise. It's pretty much C but with great tooling.
If the immune system suppresses the parasite after infection, I wonder what mechanism--or by which byproducts of infection--causes or participates in persisting observed behaviors.
Do you think we know enough about what intelligence is to rule out whether LLM's might be a form of it?
Could be many things, like Sam not informing them of the GPTs store launch, or saying he won't launch and then launching.

It sucks for openAi, but there's too many hungry hungry competitors salivating at replacing OpenAI so I don't think this will have big king term consequences in the field.

I'm curious what sorts of oversight and recourse all the investors (or are they donors?) Have. I imagine there's a lot of people with a lot of money that are quite angry today.
And how much of adult life is the derivative logic of expirations.
> btw is it normal for families to call appraisers?

Well, sorry to say but no, it is not "normal" in the sense every family does this - something only seen for rich people or those who have problems dividing wealth
I'm a bit confused why so many models seem to focus on text-to-audio.. what use is an mp3 in a composition? I just need the notation. One could take an avant garde approach and find ways to make use of the audio outputs, but that doesn't necessarily serve "normal" music.
This is a variation of the Chinese room argument.

If you consider understanding an observable property, then the Chinese room in aggregate displays understanding of Chinese.

Would you say that humans understand nothing, because atoms don't understand anything, and we're made up of atoms?
AGI with agent architectures (ie giving the AI access to APIs) will be bonkers.

An AI without a body, but access to every API currently hosted on the internet, and the ability to reason about them and compose them… that is something that needs serious consideration.

It sounds like you’re dismissing it because it won’t fit the mold of sci-fi humanoid-like robots, and I think that’s a big miss.
This will, of course, also maintain a steady supply of fissile material for an independent Scandinavian nuclear weapons program if it is ever (re-)activated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_prog...
Your link shows that AU-SA only used 12% gas in october, and no coal at all.
- Pycharm

- iCloud stuff

- ChatGPT Plus

- Noteplan

- GitHub Copilot

- 1Password

- Netflix

- YouTube
This is a false dichotomy.

On one side we are talking about how the "space industry" is most moving slowly and how spacex is doing great things.

On the other side we are saying that this is good enough for nasa (who is the establishment when it comes to space) and yolo bro.

On one side we are defending nasa because priorities, but on the other side we're cheering on spacex who is ultimately sucking at the big fat government tit.

i'm not sure anyone is aiming at burning people alive and just because it happened does not make it a justification moving forward.
Huh, I've read Marx and I dont see the utopianism you're referencing.

What I do see is "classism is the biggest humanitarian crisis of our age," and "solving the class problem will improve people's lives," but no where do I see that non-class problem will cease to exist. People will still fight, get upset, struggle, just not on class terms.

Maybe you read a different set of Marx's writing. Share your reading list if possible.
> Roku uses a proprietary language and UI toolkit

I thought Roku was originally based on Silverlight, but I may be misremembering. I can't find any source to validate that.

But Roku still quietly has the biggest market share in this space.
It makes sense for the owners. It doesn’t make sense for the public that Jim Simon’s alone becomes a multi-billionaire off exploiting the financial mistakes of ordinary people.
Ok, the argument that giving employees more bargaining power vs their employers will somehow make the bargain they end up with poorer. This is not convincing, and nor is your unjustified patronising assumption about how much I have thought about this.