skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As part of the plea agreement, CZ would be able to keep his majority share in Binance.
The WSJ reports that CZ plans to enter guilty pleas on many offenses brought by the DOJ.
According to a WSJ article, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) has decided to resign ahead of the DOJ’s announcement that it had settled with the cryptocurrency exchange for $4.3 billion.

The WSJ reports that CZ plans to enter guilty pleas on many offenses brought by the Department of Justice. The publication said that on November 21, he would be present in a Seattle federal court to make a plea. Also, he is expected to enter a guilty plea on “a criminal charge” pertaining to the violation of Anti-Money Laundering regulations as per WSJ.
that's true, the only price point an android will be more resource efficient / performant is around 200$ mark, but only since there is no iPhone at that price point. I think it's unfortunate and partly or entirely due to the fact Android is built upon Java instead of native code.
Fluent Search is honestly great. I don't actually use the core search functionality (never found a need for it), but the Vim/keyboardless mode is convenient and something I miss moving away from Windows.

Basically, that mode lets you press Ctrl-M (if my memory is right) and it will label clickable targets on the screen with two-letter codes (or more or less depending on how many clickable targets there are).

Then typing those two letters will simulate a mouse click at the target, which is convenient if you like going mouseless as Vim encourages. (It is also possible to simulate double-click and right-click although I didn't use those much.)

Underrated software and probably the thing I miss most about moving away from Windows.
Unethical and successful are not mutually exclusive. Nor is fascism and success.
You’re going to have to show me where I said that champ
>A board member criticizing a non-profit doesn't have the same direct connection to a result opposite of the goals of the company.

Even in a nonprofit, the board has an obligation to maintain a good working relationship with their organization. It's very rare for a board member to publicly criticized for their own organization.

Also, this argument goes out the window because OpenAI is not just a nonprofit. When they started their for-profit subsidiary in 2019, they accepted a fiduciary duty to their investors.
the steelman is that once you have AGI, we don’t know what happens next.

With other technology, you typically get some breathing room before problems arise - with AGI, pretty much everyone seems to agree step two once you have it is going to end up being

> someone spins up as many copies as is feasible and has them work on their smarter successor, then have those successors spin up as many copies as possible building better successors.

We’ve only ever seen human speed progress, subject to human speed limitations and human constraints. It’s possible that after a few successors the machines are much, much smarter than us, such that scary tasks we’d find challenging and technical (creating cripplingly damaging computer viruses, sabotaging infrastructure, creating life-like or real-time simulated digital communications of people you care about) could be trivial.

We don’t know how fast we go from “it’s equally smart as us” To “humans are no longer able to intellectually compete at most, if any, domains.”

Is that a problem? Maybe! Digital entities significantly smarter than humans could mean a true end to scarcity, a solution to basically any solvable technical problem we can enumerate, and a new glorious age for mankind. It could also be absolute destruction at the hands of an adversary that essentially is immortal, unkillable, of perfect memory, and who has access to the capability to gain control over essentially everything connected to a digital network, which rounds up to “everything”.

The problem seems to be

> it depends on what you’ve designed such an entity to do or what such an entity would WANT to do

And that’s scary because we don’t have any precedents for what happens when humans are confronted by significantly intellectually more powerful entities than our selves - besides how we treat animals, plants, insects and other life we see as intellectually inferior.

Judged by our past track record, assuming machines can establish their own actions with intention in basically the same way humans do, the interaction isn’t likely to be amenable to human thriving rather than machine thriving, and that means life looking more likely like “you’re the machine’s factory-farmed chicken, or if you’re lucky, its pet” rather than “the machine dotes on you and brings you into a new gilded age of plenty.”
So explain yourself in that case, if it should be so obvious, it shouldn't take long.
What do you mean? The soviets never considered a nuclear first strike? They hadn't even fully deployed the ballistic missiles. It was the Joint Chiefs of Staff which recommended a first strike (although not nuclear), which fortunately Kennedy overruled.
Are you familiar with https://5kids1condo.com/?

I'm also from abroad and live in metro Vancouver, also have kids. Are you in Vancouver proper or the burbs? I'm pretty frustrated with walkability here, but Vancouver proper is just too expensive.
It's not because OpenAI wants to force people to enable history. It's just a technical limitation in the way it currently works.
Having the bomb first has infinite ROI.
This is a really good point that isn't raised nearly enough.
a) gpt-3.5-turbo has a completion endpoint version as of June: `gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct`

b) Even the chat tuned version does completions, if you go via Azure and use ChatML you can confirm it for yourself. They trained the later checkpoints to do a better job at restarting from scratch if the output doesn't match it's typical output format to avoid red teaming techniques.

What you keep going on about is the 
 token... which is functionally identical to the `Human:` message for Anthropic.
then the argument that altman would be able to easily stuff the board doesnt hold -- he didnt even have majority.

either you claim
(1) that there was a risk of altman having majority and stuffing the board and hence concede that majority allows stuffing the board, in which case you concede the actual majority which was anti-altman could have done that

or (2) you concede that having majority is not enough to stuff the board, in which case we were far from any risk of altman doing so, given that he did not even have a majority of the board

---

edit because i cant seem to reply further down thread: i read the article. my point is precisely that the board had majority. that is how they got to fire altman in the first place. given they had majority they had the chance to stuff the board in their own favor, as per the argument above.
I like this idea of advancing beyond line-based diffs into something more meaningful. If someone renames a variable/type/module/whatever which changes X lines of code across Y files, I really don't care to see all of that, for what I'm concerned with that's a single diff.

(Assuming the code is in a language with a good type system and without reflection, I'm confident in automatic refactors and don't need to spend time on them in code review)
Crypto bros harp on about that they don't need the legacy financial system or it needs to be decentralised away from the big banks and duopolies.

It turns out that these entities are only getting into crypto for hiking up fees and centralisation, defeating the point of crypto in the first place.

Projects such as UPI in India doesn't use Visa or Mastercard and is rolling out worldwide, the exact solution crypto was supposed to solve, yet 15 years later no progress whatsoever has been made on the crypto front.

So crypto proponents have just been screeching for nothing but price speculation which isn't a use case at all.
Every so often I read a HN comment that is salient and useful. It changes how I think about an argument and I occasionally use the HN comment as a basis for an argument in real life.

This HN comment is one such comment.
Actually ... since the trial ended, FTT went from ~$1.2 to ~$3.5 and has stayed up. I have no idea how these people expect it to pay out. Even if FTX restarts, they will almost certainly cast off such liabilities with the approval of the bankruptcy court.
I don't but articles about this topic are posted on HN sometimes
> We're better at it

Huge numbers of people are absolutely terrible at it and routinely get rinsed out like rags.
> engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders.

Does the primary responsibility for that really fall on engineers in the first place?

It just feels a little victim blame-y to me. Shouldn't most of the culpability fall on those stakeholders who don't want to be convinced because it means lower feature-velocity or less investor-profit?
I don't get why in the midst of llm craze, Amazon is ditching devs from Alexa. It seems like abandoning a product for which the right technology just got invented
Which is also within the realms of house MD vs doctor, potentially even more so.

LLMs are trained on realms of text, good performance here is not unexpected.

To put it another way - Would you hire chat GPT?

For work, you need to have more than text skills.
I think when the law needs interpretation and is not clearly understood by the majority of unwashed peasants it should not exist.
Computers/Software also are nowhere near self-sufficient and need an incredible amount of supporting infrastructure for manufacturing, maintenance, and electricity. The minimum infrastructure to manufacture computers and keep some software running (mining, intermediate products, lithography, electricity, etc.) probably can't be further compressed than the size of a large city, which doesn't just need to make computers, it also needs to maintain everything that makes computers. The supply chains are incredibly complicated and require a huge amount of diverse resources that need be sourced and refined. Calling this "fragile" would be the understatement of the century.

On the other hand two humans in the middle of nowhere can keep the species going indefinitely.

Software running on a piece of plastic and silicon is not going to win a war against humanity anytime soon.
Microsoft preparing to print the money used to pay OpenAI employees!

Is this even journalism?
Damn, Hetzner load balancer out of the box makes this interesting
So she saw WordNet, then had the obvious thought that everyone had, what if this but images, and then she "invented" ImageNet
Not only simpler lifeforms. Cases with humans that may indicate a memory transfer after organ transplants are also documented:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31739081/

> The acquisition of donor personality characteristics by recipients following heart transplantation is hypothesized to occur via the transfer of cellular memory

http://www.namahjournal.com/doc/Actual/Memory-transference-i...

> There have been perplexing reports of organ transplant receivers claiming that they seem to have inherited the memory, experiences and emotions of their deceased donors, and which are causing quirky changes in their personality.
The sample video with a lovely story for children looks good. This has the potential to bring down costs in content production
Literally 1 would do :)
It's hard to know if it's the gluten restriction that's improving quality of life. Processed foods are often glutenous in addition to being over-sterilized, seed oil laden cattle feed. If you're cutting out gluten, you're mostly forced to cut out "food" from our wonderful conglomerates.
Alexa is a great example of a business building a market leading product that a lot of people love and then just completely failing to do anything with it.
This is an argument that can be (and is) used to justify anything.
Well U-238 half life is 4E9 years so there might be some remnant ill feelings for a while.
How far should she go to fulfill her interpretation of that duty? Should she even commit crimes in order to keep the non-profit mission? There's 700+ employees that disagree with her interpretation of the company's mission, and yet she stubbornly maintains that hers is correct and that it's her duty to destroy the company (or even sell it to Anthropic) to fulfill her duty.

This is delusion, and she thinks she's some hero that's saving the world by keeping it a non-profit when in reality it's just creating needless chaos and even impacting innocent people's livelihoods.
> I have used Bitcoin to donate money to organizations the state would prefer me not to, such as Ukrainian defense, or Wikileaks (famously blockaded by banks without/before criminal charges).

So?

You can do all of this without crypto, there is nothing new or novel that crypto has done here.

> There are lots of truly amazing cross-border use cases; permissionless internet money has huge utility.

Same again, and in fact we have PayPal, Xoom, Wise, etc.,

Instead, you are asking normal people to rely on crypto exchanges to convert their crypto into fiat (with extra costly fees) through a complicated process in order to receive money.

This is neither innovative or novel, it just adds more needless complexity and is a regression from what already exists in the current financial system.

> NFTs allow fans to financially support visual artists via collectibles (potentially with resale value) in exchange for donations. (I say donations because buying an NFT does not purchase the art the NFT represents.)

This highly wash traded 'market' is down big, so by using NFTs you're not really supporting artists at all, you are driving down the 'value' of the collectible down to 0.

> Usually when I offer these use cases, people move the goalposts, saying how these things are somehow already possible (they aren’t, at least in the same way, or same speed, or same cost, or same level of privacy-preservation).

The reason why we have the current system is to reduce the amount of bad actors trying to defraud people, crypto just blows this right open to create a wild west of fraud.

How would the privacy preservation work with businesses, It wouldn't as no business would want to touch crypto and it is not worth the accounting hell for them.

> It’s nice to be able to transact without identity attached to every transaction.

This is called cash.
It's unlikely that model weights are even copyrightable in the first place, at least based on what the US Copyright Office has said in the past. In fact, it seems that even the outputs of such models are excluded from copyright protection, regardless of the skill involved in their production[1]. IANAL, but it's likely that the license documents attached to these large language models amount to little more than somewhat weak ToS agreements, allowing the distributor a bit more leeway in managing their legal/commercial relationship with users of said models.

At the end of the day, though, this is all mere speculation. We won't know the truth until someone decides to burn the cash necessary to test it in court.

[1] https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/klpygnkyrpg/...
You got to spend money to make money. Larry Ellison and Oprah spend money on real estate, the Waltons on crushing American small business, and Buffet on fleecing poor people buying mobile homes.

The EV revolution and much cheaper space access can be traced to one billionaire. Bill Gates is curing diseases. Imagine what else could be achieved if the other rich put their money toward similar projects.
They disclose their latency in the paper in section 6.4, pages 10 and 11: http://keonjang.github.io/papers/sigcomm10ps.pdf#page=10 . It's something like 0.4 ms.
Hey I work on that! I can only share information that's already public unfortunately, which isn't much beyond what's on that page...
But Plato gets taught, and these writings by Mead don't. Linking Plato to tech-bros is indeed a stretch.
At first I was deeply annoyed that this was presented as a video (why don’t you just tell me what it’s about?!), and then after about five seconds I was enthralled. Great watch.

Like another poster said: brilliant.
Metagenomic sequencing: The field exploded after technologies and techniques were developed for using next-gen sequencing to characterize entire populations/communities of living things, first with 16S rRNA sequences, then with full genomes. The cost to do this has also gone down many, many, many orders of magnitude in the last decade or two (just search "sequencing cost graph" on google).
The big question is whether he will plead guilty and/or the judge will convict him.

In US, you can be rich and get away with a lot of crime and crookedness.

If Trump does go to prison, that will make quite the news.

Putin and Xinping will be laughing because they have such a strong hold on their countries, them going to jail is unthinkable.
How would you envision it work otherwise?
The answer to why BigCo can’t outcompete startup is always the same.

In BigCo you have ego that blocks authentic artistic critique. There are traditions. There are rules. We learned our lesson last time.

In the best organizations, artistic critique is a time-honored tradition passed down from the elders to the padwans. Young Jedi learn how to navigate the matrix with the blessings of their ancestors.

Unfortunately, hacking culture in a big org is outré. What made Apple special was that Steve Jobs created many hidden micro cultures within his asylum that allowed so many unorthodox experiments, some of them even worked out.

Maybe you have some other examples of people who have been able to hold a core business and build the next iteration many many times successfully? They’re rare birds.

Edit: for clarity, Google could have a killerAI product in a year if they would kill their ego. Demis Hassibis (I think that’s how you spell his name, sorry) the CEO @ DeepMind can absolutely build the thing they want, but they’d have to give him carte Blanche, and they won’t.
> Extensions are unavailable while your Bard Activity is off.

bummer, guess I wont be using it
Assuming there's one within walking distance for the kid.
You're starting to make as absurd of statements as the other guy in this thread. Franz Ferdinand was the defacto leader of the entirety of the entirety of Austria Hungary, and had already assumed all major responsibilities. He was the heir to his brother (not his father) 84 year old Emperor Franz Joseph, who would die 2 years after Ferdinand's assassination. And if you know anything at all about history, this is also where the House of Habsburg met its leadership end, having been in power since the 11th century! The succession mess after Franz Ferdinand ended up with Charles I becoming the heir. And as Joseph died 2 years after Ferdinand's assassination, everything slid down hill rapidly.

Simply suggesting Austria Hungary should have been content to simply let the state, which had just backed the assassination of their head of state, investigate themselves, and be happy with having caught the useful idiots at the end-point of the act, is beyond absurd. This is why their terms to Serbia included the presence of Austria-Hungarian investigators within Serbia. And ultimately I think that accepting a state backed assassination while opposing invasions is just arbitrary mental gymnastics. In many ways I think assassinations and other such acts should be treated vastly more harshly, as there is something particularly pathetic about those who act in the shadows, exploiting good faith and idiots.
It's not free, though. There's a free tier, but the product is ChatGPT Plus, metered access to API/newer models, etc.

Usually this truism is invoked in reference to advertising business models where the actual customer is advertisers, and you're just inventory so from cable TV to web search the business has usually been happy to take a shit in your mouth whenever it serves their advertisers.

We will see how things pan out with ChatGPT as the interests of a ChatGPT Plus user likely align closely with the interests of someone on the free tier. Historically I think freemium business models tend to be kinder to their customers than advertising-based ones, or at the least, they simply lean on you until you upgrade to paying customer (if they do enshittify the free tier I think you would see an amazing conversion rate to ChatGPT Plus because the product is so good and unique).
Sadly this is a common pattern, anyone who wants to be an x should be the last choice to be an x

In the past I've considered x to be any of, Politician, Police Officer, Central Banker, Ambassador, General Staff

It isn't a stretch to add "Steward of AGI" to the set
That's not absurd, you absolutely don't want invalid strings being created within then passed between layers of a text-parsing model.

I don't know what would happen but I doubt it would be ideal.

'hey ai, can you crash yourself' lol
To add to the replies, the funny part is that they made two entire, much bigger sequels/expansions based on the same engine (and very similar mechanics/assets). So not only did this make it into the final release, but was rolled forward to two other entire releases.
I have taken a several hour hydrofoil ride in the Mediterranean in moderate swells.

The ride is deeply nauseating as the foils are positioned towards the outside corners and (on this 200+ passenger craft) catch the swells independently. The result a ride with similar pitch and roll as a traditionally-hulled ferry, with far more yaw and far less periodicity.
I really wish they wouldn't call it the second brain. It's very misleading given how the enteric system works in comparison to the brain.
I’m curious about the IRS angle. Anyone know more about that?

One reason open source software projects struggle to get donations is because the IRS is skeptical of OSS as a true non-profit activity, so often doesn’t allow 503c tax deductible donations. OpenAI seems like a data point in favor of the IRS skepticism.
I think the parent comment is implying that they don't believe they are liable for infringement since, based on their understanding of the law, model weights are not copyrightable in the first place, and until a court actually rules on the issue, there's nothing to remediate.
The memorization use case is brilliant. Put your talk track for a presentation in and say “help me memorize this by quizzing me”. Thanks!
dns.adguard.com is also a free option

https://adguard-dns.io/en/public-dns.html
So you would build a solution that combined both using Blazor? I still don't understand, this is just like if you were to build a WebAPI and a front-end JavaScript SPA, except Blazor is your JavaScript SPA. You have your unit tests for your WebAPI, and you have your tests for your JavaScript SPA (in this case Blazor, but fill in Vue or React, etc.). You could then write integration tests if you wished, but there isn't any more testing or development process than if you were building a WebAPI with a traditional JavaScript SPA. Blazor is just affording you the ability to use C# rather than JavaScript.

If you were to include your business logic directly into your Blazor application, then you are setting yourself up to run into the exact same issues that you faced with WebForms, if Blazor were to be discontinued. You stated, "Stick to WebAPI and put whatever you want in front. That way you can migrate either front OR back independently of one another (and or do piecemeal migrations)." Blazor is what you put in front. Blazor gets discontinued, you put a standard JavaScript framework in front. The amount of code written and the amount of tests written should be the same whether you use Blazor or React/Vue/Angular/Svelte/JS Framework of the week. What you get with Blazor is the ability to do all your front-end in C#. I think you are going at it as if you build old WebForms or Silverlight, and I just don't see why you would do that knowing full well that front-end tech changes rapidly.