skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Related submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38330040

The gist of Musk's complaint seems to be extreme cherrypicking by Media Matters. In his words:

"Of the 5.5 billion ad impressions on X that day, less than 50 total ad impressions were served against all of the organic content featured in the Media Matters article. For one brand showcased in the article, one of its ads ran adjacent to a post 2 times and that ad was seen in that setting by only two users, one of which was the author of the Media Matters article."
Nope, even has a campaign that can be played in coop (coop through Steam only) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfVdH02RUQ8&list=PLi9_tXwdXO...

Don't expect an extraordinary story though, it's much more focused on being a series of puzzles showcasing various game features.
This has a very strong Warzone 2100 vibe to it, I like it :)
Computed GOTO was tricky, but not as bad as a computed COMEFROM.
I like to think if you invest $10s of billions, you get to at least have an opportunity to discuss major items like this, even if you don’t have legal veto.
It's even all we need
hmm, interesting. I wonder if I can install a few extensions manually or something. ideally I would vet the code first...
I looked through Medicare stuff recently and I came to the conclusion that, given that Advantage plans almost look too good to be true, and that every insurance company in the country is super anxious to sell you one, the catches (probably mostly about out-of-network) are more than one may want to deal with. Which is pretty much what I've read in the New York Times and elsewhere. They probably can be a good deal but are also probably something of a gamble relative to doing Part A, B, and D plus (probably) Medigap.
MSFT down 1.67% and another 0.97% after hours is hardly considered tanking the stock. I’d call that a regular Friday…
There’re many targeted oncology panels on the market, whole exome sequencing is getting more widespread in developed counties. These inform clinical decisions today, not in the future.
> This is just coming up with excuses for the MTurk workers

No. The authors are not trying to study MTurk market dynamics. They are trying to compare humans and LLMs.

Both questions are interesting and useful. This study is only asking about the second question. That's okay. Isolating specific questions and studying them without a bunch of confounds is one of the basic principles of experiment design. The experiment isn't intended to answer every question all at once. It's intended to answer one very specific question accurately.

LLMs can both be worse at Mensa tasks and also better than humans at a variety of reasoning tasks that have economic value. Or, LLMs can be worse at those reasoning tasks but still reasonably good enough and therefore better on a cost-adjusted basis. There's no contradiction there, and I don't think the authors have this confusion.

> The comparison in the paper is not really fair

The study is not trying to fairly compare these two methods of getting work done in general. It's trying to study whether LLMs have "abstraction abilities at humanlike levels", using Mensa puzzles as a proxy.

You can take issues with the goal of the study (like I do). But given that goal, the authors' protocols are completely reasonable as a minimal quality control.

Or, to put this another way: why would NOT filtering out clickbots and humans speedrunning surveys for $0.25/piece result in a more insightful study given the author's stated research question?

> It turns out that GPT-4 does not have those problems.

I think the authors would agree but also point out that these problems aren't the ones they are studying in this particular paper. They would probably suggest that this is interesting future work for themselves, or for labor economists, and that their results in this paper could be incorporated into that larger study (which would hopefully generalize beyond MTurk in particular, since MTUrk inter alia are such uniquely chaotic subsets of the labor market).

For me, the problems with the study are:

1. The question isn't particularly interesting because no one cares about Mensa tests. These problem sets make an implicit assumption that psychometric tools which have some amount of predictive power for humans will have similar predictive power for LLMs. I think that's a naive assumption, and that even if correlations exist the underlying causes are so divergent that the results are difficult to operationalize. So I'm not really sure what to do with studies like this until I find an ethical business model that allows me to make money by automating Mensa style test-taking en masse. Which I kind of hope will ever exist, to be honest.

2. MTurk is a hit mess (typo, but sic). If you want to do this type of study just recruit human participants in the old fashioned ways.

But given the goal of the authors, I don't think applying MTurk filters is "unfair". In fact, if anything, they're probably not doing enough.
For London: A map of mosques that don't allow women is a good contra indicator.
There is no evidence that this is the reason though.

And so everything needs to be caveated with "this is an assumption".
I think they were really planning to do that. They wouldn't need $100B otherwise. Fabless chip company would cost 10-100x less, even if they order millions of chips right-away. You just wouldn't be able to spend THAT amount of money. Cutting-edge lithography on the other hand...
If you're interested in Deep Learning or any area of ML it's fairly safe to assume you have a background in linear algebra, probability, calculus and obviously some basic programming.

If you're not interested in learning these areas, it's also safe to say you aren't really interested in deep learning either. Which is not to say if you don't already know these areas you aren't interested in deep learning, but if you don't know them and are interested in deep learning you're likely already studying them.

I say this because deep learning and the vast majority of ML really just boil down to an application of these basic tools. Deep learning/ML without the linear algebra, probability theory, calculus and coding isn't really anything at all.
> “Exploitation” has (at least) two meanings: 1. treating someone unfairly for one’s own benefit 2. make use of & benefit from some resource

When you're referring to two people, then exploited always refers to definition 1.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I exploited my employee" in a context where they're referring to definition 2?

If you're talking about mineral deposits or something, then sure... you can apply definition 2. "The company exploited the ore's rich iron deposits".
Eep, I've had much better luck than you! My bigger concern for tugs would be whether the plug or the socket broke first, I think, though I don't know what fares better by that metric
>I think what they said is actually a lot more interesting <...>

Your rewriting of the comment says exactly the same thing it did before. My assessment of it remains the same.

I think an important part of maturing as a developer (and a human) is realizing that it's better to say nothing at all than to write "it works for me, use something else if you don't like it" in response to criticism of work that you:

1. Publish online for public use;

2. Describe as "the best font for programming";

3. Set up a Patreon page to collect money for.

Note that the criticism was not addressed to the designer in the first place. The designer went out of their way to find and dismiss criticism with a non-informative "I guess I just don't care".

The critic explained why they strongly feel that e.g. curisve italics aren't a good feature for a programming font (moreso described as "the best" one). The designer added no context or insight into why they think differently other than "I don't care", which is, frankly, offputing.

It is also disingenuous to sum up the criticism as "does not follow all guidelines for readability". The criticism wasn't about following guidelines; it was about the font being hard to read.

Imagine a teacher telling a student their handwriting isn't legible, and the student responding with "I guess I don't care, following all the guidelines wasn't the goal in producing this work, and I myself can read this perfectly fine". We are not that far from this scenario here.
> Of Perth’s 4.2 million daily car trips, 2.8 are for distances of less than 2 km.

Sometimes I get a bit more hopeful and then I read stuff like that... two fucking kilometers...

That explain why my city is in constant traffic jams, roads full of 2 tonnes cars displacing a single individual as far as the eye can see. Good thing they'll soon be electric cars, that surely will make it very sustainable and clean
The TSA Is Still Crazy After All These Years
Try to stay there for a month, in shady part of town! Current goverment is at least trying to police those places!
>The rawness of the deal only becomes apparent when we start to inspect why material conditions are such that this deal... is enticing to children.

Should these children be denied this deal because their "material conditions" aren't currently ideal? How long should they have to be denied opportunities for their material conditions to be improved? Why does your interest in their material condition outweigh their interest in having a good income right now?
I made a similar comment a few days ago which I’m expanding on here, but looking to be involved in the actual development of AIs is very risky. These are then organizations that will have incredible scrutiny from regulators and the public and grapple with the massive ethics issues of developing digital intelligences. They are the “face” companies.

But to own a piece of the “second companies” — the industries that will pop up from the disruption — that’s where the real money will be made. And it’s primarily because the optics of making trillions inside of an AI creating business is essentially untenable investor risk. It’s also just common sense to spread your risk as an investor.

In my mind OpenAI has always been the “profit limited” generator of the change. It’s the lamb not the wolf. Owning a stake in OpenAI itself isn’t important. Creating the change is.

Owning stakes in the companies that will ultimately capture and harvest the profits of the disruption caused by OpenAI is where profits are made. And it’s such a massive disruption you don’t even have to be that close to the source, though it helps.

OpenAI can’t become a profit center while it disrupts all intellectual work and digitizes humanities future: those optics are not something you want to be attached to. There is no flame retardant suite strong enough to survive politically or take profits ethically.

Now the real issue is whether you should be developing the technology with such incredible disruption and be able to position to take profits at all. But ethics are a side concern and the system we are in clearly isn’t prepared to grapple with the impact properly, other than to catalog people for minimum survival incomes. Even now while corporate profits are high, and the stock market is booming, most people on Earth are not sharing in the bounty. And personally, I don’t think we can rely on the architects of disruption to create a sustainable and ethical future that’s fair for everyone no matter how fair or ethical their declared intentions. Even if they are morally pristine they are mortal, and that kind of concentrated wealth and power is a recipe for incredible, unstoppable tyrants.
Making good movies is extremely hard. I remember James Cameron saying that, during the casting for Terminator 2, he had to come in on the weekend for the nth-time, just to see how sun will reflect off Robert Patrick's face (T-1000) during that particular day time. That's the level of focus required. Once you inject enough interfering factors, such as various ideologies, you will end up with inferior products Hollywood currently producing.
> a) that the board is aware

So, if a CEO was talking to investors about a new venture (or a set of new ventures) in a closely related field, perhaps even sharing some details about the existing company with those potential investors, would it be fair to say that said CEO was not being entirely candid with the board?

Those are some big "if" statements. I think we would have to see what information was disclosed by Altman to the board with respect to these discussions before making judgements. The precise details of such disclosures may be a matter of legal interpretation.

Or, more likely, all of this will get settled behind closed doors and we will never really know.
I am first and foremost an engineer (I’m also the CTO of a very small startup studio and, so, also do a lot of business-y things). I traditionally despise “we are all a big family” work culture. Nonetheless, I think it’s foolish to not understand the power of people with the right charisma and driving force.
The halo effect, the reality distortion field, whatever you wanna call it, is quite real. It makes people go above and beyond. Some people are just very good at this, it’s almost innate to them. I’m not saying we should glorify them or not hold them accountable, but to think that a business person leaving, as opposed to an engineer, is not grounds to “freak out” is, to me, a bit naive.
I have had the pleasure of working with business people just like that. Very little engineering background, but they were born leaders and motivators. Just like on a smaller scale you can get the same vibe from certain engineers. Those guys and gals that make you feel like you’ll pull through no matter what.
Seems to me like Sam Altman has that kind of vibe. For better or worse, he drives people!
We often forget that it is people that build software. Not algorithms or robots. And who moves the people to build that software and to never give up? Other people, leaders — engineers or not.
I used to work at a fortune 500, my commute (each way) was 45 minutes in the best of conditions. 100% of my job could have been done from any location.

Back-of-the-envelope calculation for how much time in a year was spent commuting (conservatively, and not factoring in public holidays and vacation days) would be 15 days/year commuting.

So as a proposal, give employees who can fulfil their duties from anywhere, the choice - Want to work from the office? Your commute time will be compensated in days off, or extra pay, or a mixture of both if you want.

I think that has a lot less stink to it than, for instance, Amazon's recent move to block promotions from WFH insisters.
Here is an argument in favor of WFH that I hardly ever see:

Growing up in a second rate city in a country with little tech scene, my and my colleague options to advance our career was to leave our city or our country behind. Having to choose between family/friends and career is a pretty tough choice to face. My sister in law moved to the capital for 2 years and had a distance relationship until she was able to transfer back to our city.

WFH makes this much less of an issue. Now someone can have a successful career more easily even if they live in a small town. Having more choice of career while not sacrificing friends and family is something I wish I had 15 years ago.

At the same time people starting their career tend to be the ones who benefit the most from an office setup, so there is probably still a tradeoff to make.
Their argument is that the left wing side are responsible, and are incorrectly blaming social factors other than the mass immigration of third world refugees who are now creating a gang ridden hellscape in parts of Sweden, emulating their original homelands. That is not begging the question.
> By calling into question their results

Did they? I took it more as a clarification of a point so people could more easily know what it meant, and wishing they did more so we could know more.

Their last sentence in fact notes that what the paper says is correct and they just which we could make a more nuanced statement if it was done with more specific constraints.
FTA: “This week Media Matters for America posted a story that completely misrepresented the real experience on X, in another attempt to undermine freedom of speech and mislead advertisers,” a statement posted by Musk said.

“Above everything, including profit, X works to protect the public’s right to free speech. But for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable,” he added.

So, because “for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable”, he wants the courts to state there are things Media Matters for America cannot say because he considers them objectionable?

If that’s not enough to end this in court, there’s the fact that he doesn’t even attempts to counter the claim that they made, that corporate advertisements by IBM, Apple, Oracle and Comcast’s Xfinity were being placed alongside antisemitic content.
Nope. There are various levels of AI that can serve as opponents, including an AI and game mode that sends waves after waves of enemies until you kill enough of its stuff that it sends the final boss you must defeat to win the game.

There's also a campaign that introduces units progressively. I'd recommend to start there.
I think topic here is more about personal preference than something like environmental concerns.
Point is that it's good at abstract reasoning that isn't spatially grounded like in that paper. So it's not really leaving any door open. It's not a cop out. That's just how it is.
I mean, why do we wear the clothes we do? Why not other clothes? Why do we choose the art we collect? Why do some people care about art, and some don't? Why do we follow the sports? Why do some people follow football while others care about cricket?

Different people care about different things. Why should we judge what people care about?
Employers are, indeed, making use of and benefiting from their employees. And vice versa. But so what? If they didn't benefit, they wouldn't bother.
Right it's more like "destinations interesting to tourists have tourist traps".

E.g. Inca on the map in the tweet is certainly a locals town but it's also hardly anything to see or do there.
Labor is a resource. That’s why the phrase “human resources” exists.

Your contention that “exploitation” can’t refer to labor is a political construction, not a rational one.
> Lambda functions within the Python comprehensions have limited power,

lambda functions in python have as much expressive power as any function.

>comprehensions things feel messy without the ability to pipe previous results to a next function

compose :: (a -> b) -> (b -> c) -> (a -> c)

is definable in python Along with type checking. This is basically your pipe operator. Python has very much the capability to come rather close, closer than javascript to the flavor of functional programming found in ML languages like haskell.

The benefit of using python is that you can cheat a lot too which is more challenging to do in language as strict as haskell.

Here:

from typing import Callable, TypeVar, List, Any
from numbers import Number

A = TypeVar("A")
B = TypeVar("C")
C = TypeVar("C")

def compose(f: Callable[[A], B], g: Callable[[B], C]) -> Callable[[A], C]:
return lambda x: g(f(x))

def curry(f: Callable[[Any, ...], Any], x: Any) -> Callable[[Any, ...], Any]:
return lambda *args: f(x, *args)

def compose_many(fs: tuple[Callable[[Any], Any], ...]) -> Callable[[Any], Any]:
return (lambda x: x) if len(fs) == 0 else fs[0] if len(fs) == 1 else compose(compose(fs[0], fs[1]), compose_many(*fs[2:]))

MultAllType = Callable[[List[Number], Number], List[Number]]
multAll: MultAllType = lambda x, y: [i * y for i in x]

SubTractAllType = Callable[[List[Number], Number], List[Number]]
subtractAll: SubTractAllType = lambda x, y: [i - y for i in x]

quadrupleAndSubtractTwoFromAll = compose_many(
curry(multAll, 2),
curry(multAll, 2),
curry(subtractAll, 2))

as literals:

quadrupleAndSubtractTwoFromAll = compose_many(
lambda x: [i * 2 for i in x],
lambda x: [i * 2 for i in x],
lambda x: [i - 2 for i in x])

Python gets a bad rep for being noob language but it's capable of functional programming with very very good type checking. You can cheat too and go no types like lisp as I've shown in the example above.

Overall I would say it's superior to typescript in terms of functional programming due to exhaustive pattern matching (which I did not demonstrate above.)

In terms of FP in python versus FP in lisp it's mostly just opinionated differences. Python and lisp sort of even out because python has optional type checking and lisp has macros. I would say though that python leans more towards the ML flavor of FP which makes it less comparable to lisp. Apples and Oranges.
It may be cultural, but in here offices are usually closed. It is kind of "weird" to see them with open doors.
I don't know how it works across the pond, but in Britain, some amount of volunteer activity is allowed whilst officially unemployed. This means that the country contributes National Insurance payments on your behalf so that you'll be able to receive treatment by the National Health Service and a state pension.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/volunteering-and-claiming-benefi...

https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-credits/eligibility
1. It should be the _US_ film industry.

2. The vast majority of films are not multi-hundred-million-USD behemoths. Let's remember that.
Angkor Wat isn't the only temple around Siem Reap, though. I agree that standing around with hundreds of people waiting for the sun to come up, then all crowding inside at the same time isn't the best experience. But on that same day, other temples in the area (Pre Rup, Neak Pean and Banteay Srei) had at most one other small group there. And really they're almost as impressive in their own ways - Neak Pean is small but has a beautiful reflecting pool surrounding the central structure.

Same thing in Egypt too. Great pyramids are extremely crowded and you're constantly getting hassled by people selling crap. But at the less famous Dahshur area, or the less accessible Philae/Abu Simbel temples, nobody else was there and we could appreciate them in peace. For that it helped to go in the summer (low) season too.
Wow, what a shame.
Expensive hotels, airport, American or pizza restaurants, guidebook with >3 editions, supermarkets instead of traditional markets, construction right up to the waterline, a 'bar street', a dense cluster of backpacker hostels, open drug dealing, monopoly lockdown on connecting transport (flight/bus/boat company), tourist behavior making international news, existence of mass-market souvenirs, a 'tourist police' department, dance clubs, high end ice cream chain stores.
It’s certainly polite to do so.
"Value-based pricing" is a code word for "reach into your customers' pockets and steal the spare change". It's the end game of monopolists, actual or wanna-be, and it's a good way to burn literally all of your goodwill as quickly as possible.
I inadvertently (from time to time) practice a different style more akin to high-altitude training. I'll try doing relatively challenging tasks on little sleep or otherwise non-optimal (e.g. had been drinking) conditions. Sometimes I'm surprised by how complex a task I can do and other times which I can't. Either way it's good to know your limits and push them sometimes, there may be a situation where being high-functioning can save you.
I did the same on a real contact form before to reduce spam... If the field got modified, I knew it was a bot... Worked pretty well
Ultimately its supply demand. Lots of people prefer to work from home, lots of employers prefer people in the office. It makes sense that eventually people in the office will get paid more than those at home.
> so what

Indeed, so what?
I don't know, maybe because it's their main partner that have given them billions of dollars and which is literally running their servers?