skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It’s not that interesting. He argued against the nonexistent straw man that no system that can predict the next word could be doing reasoning, which is self-evidently false, as you are perfectly able to predict words yourself.

The actual question is whether focusing on improving word prediction is the way to achieve reasoning.

If a system could reliably predict the last word of a detective novel, it would arguably be doing reasoning, sure. If it could reliably predict the last word of “the simple one word solution to global warming is”, it would be really amazing. That isn’t an argument that such a system can exist or that you know how to get there.
https://archive.ph/8RLsB
This reads like an unhealthy addiction bordering on mental illness. Your livelihood is not at risk. Seeing an ad is not violence.
Right. The problem is not super-intelligent autonomous agents. The problem is not-quite-smart-enough autonomous agents acting on foolish instructions.
His title: CEO
I did answer your question indirectly. By the reasoning in your argument, you yourself also don't know true or false. Your argument is logically flawed.

Do LLMs know true or false? It depends on how you define "know". By some definitions, they "know true or false" better than humans, as they can explain the concept and solve logic problems better than most humans can. However, by any definition that requires consciousness, they do not know because they are not conscious.

The average person spends a lot of time completely immersed in "false" entertainment. Actors are all liars, pretending to be someone they are not, doing things that didn't really happen, and yet many people are convinced it is all "true" for at least a few minutes.

People also believe crazy things like Flat Earth theory or that the Apollo moon landings were faked.

So LLMs have a conceptual understanding of true/false, strong logical problem solving to evaluate truth or falsity of logical statements, and factual understanding of what is true and false, better than many humans do. But they are not conscious therefore they are not conscious of what is true or false.
Alfred-40B-1023
Do you not see the massive contradiction in your view that "we should build a world where secrecy doesn't matter" and "we need to make sure that LLMs keep secrets?"
> We aren’t accepting new volunteers for this program at the moment. Please check back in early October for further updates.
The Rockies, yes, but also the Selkirks, Purcells, heck, the entire Pacific Coast Range. Seriously, there is little comparison in the topographies. The amount of B.C. land suited to urban populations is miniscule compared to the over all size of the land mass. The climate is almost diametrically different between Texas and B.C., so there's that too. Entire mountain passes are blocked by snow on a regular basis in winter and require enormous effort to clear. Look for the TV show about the B.C. highway towing truckers and you'll get a feel for what is faced. Building urban centres in such places is impossible. Therefore, your point was, to use your own term, ''surreal'', so my opinion is that for obvious geographical reasons it does not stand.
Even in that blog post, where you get so close, you do this-

> We want to be able to continue to develop Sentry and Codecov as single source Open Source projects

You're stilling calling it "Open Source", but are calling it "Single Source Open Source" as if that's some distinguisher. You're even lower casing the "single source" part to try to emphasis the Open Source part of it.

Your team spends paragraphs admitting it's not open source, all to just continue using open source to describe your projects. It does so in "official comms". You guys should just come up with a better name for this already and stop trying to claim software that isn't open source is open source.
Wages are incentive to work, profits are cream taken by the rich, no?
Offices today are merely a justification for managers (the useless kind, which is about 90% of them) to not become redundant, and for the C-suite to keep getting those sweet sweet tax breaks.

Which answers the question by itself.

"Should we be loyal to companies...?"

No
I believe Vimeo does the latter if you want. Guess how many people use that...
All extra fees contribute to GDP growth. Just like cleaning up pollution after spewing it everywhere, selling bombs and rebuilding things they destroy. Its called American genius.
> MIT license

> Before using these models, you agree to [...]

No, this is not MIT. If you don't like MIT license then feel free to use something else, but you can't pretend this is open source and then attempt to slap on additional restrictions on how the code can be used.
Screen time can impact behavior and psychological well-being differently compared to most other sedentary activities. While both can affect physical health, excessive screen time specifically affects psychological well-being along with its impact on the body.

E.g.:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36924568/
Yes, there is no question about that the uBlock Origin works regardless of your YouTube session status. The question is whether YouTube's countermeasures kick in or not: nagging you to turn it off, or stop playback.
"Wasn't that related to nuclear weapons production? It's plutonium, not uranium"

One of the contentions of the movie is that nuclear weapons and nuclear energy production are inextricably linked in the US. I felt it made a decent argument that "there is no clean coal" but for nuclear energy as well, because of this historical link.
To claim that the FSL and Sentry is completely disconnected from FOSS and something different entirely that should never under any shape be associated with it is, quite frankly, just weird. It's "almost FOSS" and they're quite upfront about that, more so than they really need to be. You can decide if you care about that or not, but it's just not misleading under any sort of reasonable definition. This is a profoundly silly and frankly toxic hill to die on.
Can we talk about the intelligence community now? On my papers it says they should be ready to pull the plug on Azure if GPT goes off script, but are they even aware that they are expected to act?
> Those 4 little retaining lugs are fixed into the board only by solder,

You're saying this as though there's a single design of USB-C cable to board connector. There are, in fact, many different designs, including many with "lugs" which go through the board, as well as mid-mount connectors which use the material of the PCB as structural support.
The rationale does apply to everyone: "if you're a big enough content hoster that we've heard of you before, we'll reach out to you rather than blocking your domain immediately". Google doesn't just make an exception for themselves, it also makes an exception for Microsoft, Dropbox, Box, Facebook, and probably hundreds of others that are too small for me to know about.

We can argue about whether this is fair to small players, but it's hardly self-dealing for Google to include themselves in their list of high-profile content hosters, and there are very rational reasons for maintaining such a list.
You can filter the opportunities to only show "Event" types (as opposed to "Position" types) which are things like one-off volunteer events like this one: https://www.volunteer.gov/s/volunteer-opportunity/a093d00000...

But in general, I agree with you. From what I can tell, even though this is just broadly called "volunteer.gov", it really seems like it's specific to the Bureau of Land Management/National Park Service, and is missing a large amount of types of positions that I think most people would expect when they think "go volunteer".
The issue isn't whether you see ads or not, but whether YouTube is nagging you to turn off your ad blocking on threat of video playback being suspended after a few videos.
It definitely will break financial firms. I just did a code search in our repos for utcnow and other relevant functions, and the indexer was definitely wheezing pulling in the hits.
Agree - though from a personal perspective the first ~7 years of my work life was sitting on a trading floor layout, and then I got an office and hated it, still don’t love it. I think the personal office thing is partly personality/experience, partly job function, and partly convenient excuse.
Maybe they work for Ticketmaster or another fee-heavy industry?
IMVHO, GANs are entirely optional.

For others, https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/ will take you a decent way to understanding transformer architecture.
> In EU I may get like extra 3 euro council tax for staying at hotel.

I do hate those taxes not being included in the price, and I complain every time :)
Then they can charge.
I'm sorry, but the US tipping culture as a whole is nuts.

(I'm Russian who lurks in the English-speaking segment of the internet way too much)
I said your own words, not "as defined by" others.

I've yet to meet anyone who throws around "communism" like that who uses it as anything but a vacuous memetic catchphrase, detached from any real understanding.
Wow my first thought was:
„Why do they have an .int address and not .com or .org, that looks fishy“

Now I know that .int has the strictest possible application requirements!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.int
And magnesium + boron. I know several multiple sclerosis patients that deliberately overdose vitamin D under medical supervision.

Despite relatively high doses (~2.5e4 IU / day) they do not suffer from hypercalcemia. Of course, they avoid dairy and get DEXA scans every few months to make sure that things are OK.
Just seems like false advertising to me
There is some crazy stuff in these volunteer positions: https://www.volunteer.gov/s/volunteer-opportunity/a093d00000...

Volunteers are expected to contribute a minimum of three 8-hour shifts per week (8:45AM-5:15PM) with a half hour lunch for a period of three to four months.

Weekend availability is required.

Consecutive days off are offered, except in unusual circumstances.

Days off are offered? lol
You had no point. Obviously the reason anyone applies a double standard is to advantage themselves. Congratulations on that insight. Can you next explain why anyone would steal?
> What's more, the missing ingredient in any of these AGI extinction scenarios is desire

Wasn't that point already refuted by the paperclip maximizer thought experiment long before LLMs became a thing?

I mean, we kind of already see the effects of autonomous agents on the world in the form of companies maxizing resource extraction for profit. I don't feel this is going to end well, either (tangent, I also don't feel that life constantly getting better because of technology either).

The missing ingredient for benevolent autonomous agents is a purpose, e.g. the well-being of humans.
The LHC achieves a hard vacuum over 27 km, and also features superconductors along its length, so clearly that combo is doable over an extended length. I'm not trying to trivialize the engineering challenges here, but I've seen that people have tendency to immediately jump from "it's hard" to "it's impossible or infeasible", even though no one's even made an attempt. Some clever engineering could await discovery that makes it all simpler.

Sometimes this sort of skepticism is warranted because our understanding is sufficient (like our understanding of material science needed for a space elevator), but sometimes this is less clear, and I think hyperloop concepts fall into the latter category.
A flip side, AI development fragmentation will mean many more techniques are tried and know how diffuses into a much broader market. This has the likelihood of greatly accelerating everything. Further, by lopping off the top of OpenAI you create space for new people to grow and learn and lead.

In the very short term it’s disruptive. In the medium and long term it’s probably a wonderful thing to soften the ground a bit and let competition take hold.
You're right, passively spoon feeding endless low brow entertainment into a barely matured mind while ruining their attention processing as well as their eyesight is totally being unfairly singled out.
The answer is to have your cake and eat it, with Early Access.

You get a stream of cash whenever you launch an even somewhat finished game. You get a mountain of early feedback and real world testing, without the negative PR. And then, when the game is ready, you do the full launch + marketing with (from what I can tell) basically no PR/hype penalty from being in early access, as its a new game as far as the storefronts are concerned.

Maybe I am missing a big drawback, but it seems like such a no brainer. And it clearly works at any scale, see Rimworld (lone dev) and Baldurs Gate 3 (mega dev team), which coincidentally are among the most critically acclaimed games ever.
That will get them around the tariffs. I'm more curious how they'll pass the NHTSA & IIHS crash testing.

There's definitely a market for super-cheap cars - Malcolm Bricklin knew this when he arranged to import the Yugo GV[0] (peak sales was 48,000). But BYD has much deeper pockets that Malcolm had, so they may be able to invest in safety, a dealer network, and the market research to produce an EV that Americans will buy.

The pace of new model introductions from BYD may actually work against them - the cars may be regarded as disposable, with environmental concerns over recycling the plastics and batteries. If the Han[1] is only on sale for a few years, to be replaced with an entirely different model, that also creates a brand identity problem. Compare that with Honda who has been selling the Accord since the late 1970's.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugo#In_the_United_States_and_...

[1a] https://www.byd.com/us/car/han-ev

[1b] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNwaeUI4IRw
I think in many cases, companies want to keep it because it makes comparison-shopping by price more difficult. There may also be some psychological trickery wherein customers are more likely to accept a higher price after they've started the purchase process.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTKMiZHVd_2KJtIXOW0zFhFfB... another entirely approachable course (if you know some Python or similar language), by Sebastian Raschka.
"Can't interview for a whole year" is the exception - six months is more common.

Unless you're a specialist in a narrow technical area, there's an essentially infinite number of potential employers. Not applying often enough is a more common mistake than "applying too often / applying too early."

"Market forces" and "below the standards" are not independent. Market forces influence supply, and demand (the interview standard) has to respond.

By far the best way to get a job at any company is by having a recommendation from someone who works there. (Specifically, this trumps meeting the written job requirements.) I'm not saying it's easy, but ... use your network.
CEOs and Investors are realising that the interest of AI safety teams mostly aren’t aligned with corporate goals. They were good for press as long as AGI was a distant dream but now as the AI wars start over the big tech companies, there is no need for self-sabotage. The drama at openai was likely the death sentence for serious backing of those teams.
Yup, there has to be something beyond work and parenting (if not, they’ll probably both suffer in the long term).
People take your comment as as joke but you are 100% correct. This is pure unfiltered hypocrisy on Google's behalf.
Right there with you. A very influential crackpot who's read a bit too much sci-fi.
it seems to be a well-written article

It's LLM-assisted/bloated fluff which it pretty much admits (with some more LLM-y fluff) right at the start

https://shavingtheyak.com/2023/10/29/seo-generative-ai-and-t...
As much as I like the advent of things like square and toast to provide convenient checkout, they've added a lot of tipping in places where it wasn't as common. There are all sorts of things I buy now where I get that little electronic checkout screen and options for 18/20/22/25% tipping. When before there *may* have been a tip jar. If that.
They have no way to test that model though.

> The main constraint is competency.

Oh right, anyone can be a chemist, it requires no skill, that why labs aren't a core part of the course work.

Ai researchers are really good at telling other fields their work, that they have no experience in, is easy.
A couple heavy industries (e.g. literally two paper plants) coupled with a largely unpopulated country (one major city and a handful few towns) makes the "per Capita" metric high.

Not bashing them tough. They're wonderful people and I love going on vacation there, but saying that very heavy industry reliant countries e.g. Germany can just imitate the model is misleading
Mine too. It’s a hot competitive field to have the best solvers with the best gui.
It's not that he did it per se, but that it-the public and private story- may have lead to situations with him not being sufficiently candid with the board, for whatever reason.

I'm just saying, not even one comment about it as a possibility among the hundreds I read was kind of weird.
I would say so, although you're encouraged to use a lot of async libs which can be a pain in the ass to debug. Flasks ecosystem seemed filled with half-abandoned libraries last time I checked (2021).
Oh yes, there are, anyone who says there are not is fooling others, or assuming you're a CS grad.
No. They can act on safety concerns AND retain their market edge. I am just saying that firing Sam, sacrificing their edge with the resulting fallout, is not a good way of acting on safety concerns.
Wrong, cryptography is used to conceal the communications of people building nuclear weapons. It still should not be regulated.
> I suspect a lot of financial data code is going to break.

Reminds me of when Numpy removed a lot of types like np.bool a few releases ago, because they were aliases of the standard library types.

Which broke a ton of libraries having Numpy versions pinned to ">=1.0" or even worse, "~=1.0" expecting them to follow the standard practice of incrementing the major version when they break compatibility. It's not terrible because you just pin your project to 1.23 or whatever, but it was very annoying when everything I was using just started breaking.

I wonder if Python plans to do the same with this - the 2 to 3 transition was painful and dragged on for a decade, nobody wants to do that again for 3 to 4. When they remove this function and break back compatibility with old code, is that going to happen in a future 3.x release?
It's similar to this already. But this isn't flexible enough to implement methods etc which abop expands towards. My goal was to do almost everything all other browser based lsystems are doing while keeping it fast which most tools are not.
Hi, yes, you're right, most of the info out there is for researchers and academics. It's not a template that fits well for makers and engineers in private industry, who actually build real things and sell them.

There's an EB-1A template that works much better for proving extraordinary ability for industry accomplishments. It's just not well-known or publicized.

If you have open-source commits and users for your products, then you're well on your way to a successful EB-1A portfolio.

The "academic EB-1A" template is such a universal pain point for tech founders and engineers, that I just launched an online course (my first! yay) on this topic. It explains how to structure O-1s and EB-1As for industry tech and engineering specialties, not academia.
https://pro.visabuilder.com/tech-toolbox-product-page
not sure, I tried this in Python 3.11.6 and `datetime.UTC` works whereas `datetime.timezone.utc` doesn't exist

in any case, just compare

datetime.datetime.utcnow()

and

datetime.datetime.now(datetime.UTC).replace(tzinfo=None)

verbosity is not a virtue in this case
Not sure. The only inference demos are colab notebooks. The models are approx 700mb each so I imagine it will run on modest gpu
Hotel taxes in many cities has become insane. The hidden fees aren’t just coming from the businesses themselves.
> I also wasn't aware that "unit" referred to an isolated test, not to the SUT.

I'm with you. That claim is unsubstantiated. It seems to trace to the belief that the first unit tests were XUnit family, thus were SUnit for Scheme. But Kent Beck made it pretty clear that SUnit "units" were classes.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150315073817/http://www.xprogr...

There were unit tests before that. SUnit took its name from common parlance, not vice versa. It was a strange naming convention, given that the unit testing framework could be used to test anything and not just units. Much like the slightly older Test Anything Protocol (TAP) could.

> [on unit tests] This does lead to a lot of work maintaining them whenever the implementation changes, but this is a necessary chore because of the value they provide.

I disagree. Unit tests can still be behavioral. Then they change whenever the behavior changes. They should still work with a mere implementation change.

> This is why I still think that the traditional test pyramid is the best model to follow.

I'll disagree a little with that, too. I think a newer test pyramid that uses contract testing to verify integrations is better. The notion of contract tests is much newer than the pyramids and, properly applied, can speed up feedback by orders of magnitude while also cutting debugging time and maintenance by orders of magnitude.

On that front, I love what Pact is doing and would like to see more competition in the area. Hottest thing in testing since Cypress/Playwright . . .

https://pact.io
I always made sure to take B12 when using nitrous
Yeah it’s crazy how much the tech community is defending this random CEO, considering the relatively unsympathetic response to the tech layoffs over the last year.
Speaking personally, I felt way too shut-in during my fully remote pandemic time. But I’m also quite glad that the work-week has relaxed such that I can work from home when I want to. Just a couple of thoughts on this part:

> being a ‘tech person’ who needs to focus on things in a deep way, and having to share some open plan office space with a hundred other people every day… The two things just don’t mix well.

I’ve totally argued this myself in the past. Long before the pandemic I even tried having office hours, and hanging ‘don’t talk to me right now’ signs on my char (with limited success at best). But for most software engineering I now disagree with the ‘I need deep focus’ arguments. I have watched way too many people go off and write the wrong software when left to their own devices, me included, claiming they needed space for deep thinking. Over-engineering is a widespread problem and a massive waste of time and energy, and a lot of people are better off with frequent check-ins and budgets on their alone time. Everyone hates having budgets and micromanagement too, of course, and it’s possible and common to go overboard on that in the wrong direction. It just needs to be balanced, but on the whole this is one of the reasons that being in the office sometimes is useful.

Another good reason is that co-workers need help, information needs to flow, and allowing knowledgeable people to avoid all interruptions is bad for the productivity of team. I have also seen many of the best engineers write large systems and get them deployed widely, with not enough documentation, and then make themselves unavailable and act like questions are too burdensome on their time, saying they require deep-focus time for whatever they’re working on.
Sam Altman AI company
> Consecutive days off

"Consecutive days off" is much different than "days off"
Yes, I noticed that. Doesn't seem right does it