skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> AGI doesn't

AGI hasn’t been publicly demonstrated and made available to the masses… but it may exist secretly in one or more labs. It may even be being used in the field under pseudonyms, informing decisions, etc.
Wouldn't be the first time someone leaked the truth to 4chan only to have the posters there lambast the leaker as an attention seeker spreading false information.
You're getting downvoted quite hard for doing the same as what I suspect is the majority of Internet users right now.
This is great advice. I think it’s a common trap when I see questions like “what language should I learn/what language is the best”, which skip the point of “what would you like to build”. The tools change with time, and the best engineers in my experience generally know how to use a variety of tools with varying degrees of skill rather than be super deep in a single one.
As a former potential RHEV customer, we had been warned about it 3 years ago by RH themselves. It is not like it was a huge secret and the decision was made a long time before broadcom's announcement.
> I'd like to have the choice not to.

your choice can't be outcome based. i.e., you can't want to choose an option where you obtain the same electricity and energy and comforts, but with no pollution and with the same cost. Because such a choice never existed at the time, and will likely never exist until we discover fusion.

Your choice was to just not consume. And you didnt take that choice.
This comment reads like an OpenAI employee typed this...
I am very skeptic on LLM in general (check my post history) but look:

https://chat.openai.com/c/7070efe7-3aa1-4ccc-a0fc-8753d34b05...

I doubt this formulation existed before -- I came up with it myself right now.
Resilience, innovation and collapse of settlement networks in Bronze Age Europe
Why don't you have the choice to not burn it if you are willing to pay the price? I can hardly think of anything for which there is no electric counterpart.
Now all it needs to learn is which asses to kiss and it's well on it's way to a PhD!
>A company with public shareholding loses the ability to be anything other than a generator of increasing shareholder value.

People always say this but I've never seen a law or regulation enforcing it. Care to enlighten me?
Puzzmo is imagining a better newspaper games page
Well, Emmett Shear lied to everyone if he knew about this. I understand why, he was probably thinking that without any ability to actually undo it the best that could be done would be to make sure that no one else knows about it so that it doesn't start an arms race, but we all know now. Given the Board's silence and inadequate explanations, they may have had the same reasoning. Mira evidently didn't have the same compunctions.

This article, predictably, tells us almost nothing about the actual capabilities involved. "Grade school math" if it's provably or scalably reasoning in a way that is non-trivially integrated with semantic understanding is more impressive than "prove Fermat's last theorem" if the answer is just memorised. We'll probably know how important Q* actually is within a year or two.
It's ESXi, the server class stuff, not so much the desktop VMware. So many companies have been using it for years. Now Broadcom are wanting to install spyware to "track" usage and license compliance and they're raising prices. For a lot of orgs, it'll probably take several years to move the production systems to something else.

For the desktop, VirtualBox isn't much better. At one point after Oracle purchased it, they were tracking your IP and if they found you were using their extension pack that provides essential capabilities like USB 3 support (only the core of VirtualBox is GPL) and it was for commercial use, they were hitting you up for a license [0].

[0] https://www.theregister.com/2019/10/04/oracle_virtualbox_mer...
Normally 5G and fiber would win out because on paper, they’re cheaper and more practical.

It’s more complicated than that, though, at least in the US. Big telcos have little interest in rural connectivity because it’s not ever going to bring in the metro area revenue they crave. Smaller telcos and new entrants struggle with obstruction from big telcos, NIMBYs, and local politicians who won’t let anything through unless they’re getting a cut of the pie among other things.

Starlink and similar constellations neatly sidestep a lot of those issues, at least for now.
If it is sentient, I think weaponizing it would require convincing it that being a weapon was in its interest. I struggle to find a way to reason to that position without using emotional content and I presume a sentient AGI will not have emotion.
Parent (and the article) are talking about power per core.
Throwaway didn't claim bad faith necessarily, but just pointed out an important variable.

It's good to have good faith, but it's also good to understand that good faith individuals also suffer from blindspots and unconscious biases.

Hypothetically if there is a set of leaders, directors, and VPs, that all seem equally incompetent, but you call out only one, what might be the reason for it? It could be random. It could be because they were this person's actual direct manager. It coudl be because they're genuinely the one that are the most incompetent of the lot. But it could also be that they're the one perceived to be the most incompetent of the lot. Why? Does them being a woman or black factor into it? Who knows. Not even OP might.

It's not helpful to jump to racism at a moment's notice. It's not helpful to use race as a shield from criticism. But it's also not helpful to pretend that racism doesn't exist, even unconsciously within folks that would otherwise believe they don't have a prejudiced bone in their body.

In conclusion, people shouldn't ACCUSE, and other people shouldn't get DEFENSIVE. It's OK to discuss. I thought Throwaway did a decent job of not accusing. Many responses got too defensive tho.
>accuse it of abusing its market power by charging a 30% commission fee and preventing them from offering lower prices on other platforms.

Sure, the plaintiff may not agree with Valve's 30% cut because they find it too steep, but unlike the iOS/Android marketplaces, Valves is not a monopoly marketplace in the PC space. There are other competing marketplaces they can go to like Epic, Windows store, GoG (which most likely also charge 30%)

And plus, on PC you don't even need a marketplace to sell and run your game. Anyone can install software from whatever source. Heck, they can even host their games on google drive and share the link via e-mail to customers who buy their game off their website, or some ghetto solution like that if they wanna save a buck on distribution costs.

Their livelihood is not being gatekept or threatened by Valve or any other marketplace like in the mobile space. So I still don't get their monopoly angle here.
Would explain by Microsoft so quick to bag him if they were about to be exclused
Try this: There's this person standing in a field, and with them is a balloon, a vacuum cleaner, and a magical creature of unknown origin. They need to get across to the woods at the end of the field, and do so safely. They can only go together: they get very, extremely lonely if they do not travel together, and they will not be safe because of this loneliness. If left together, the baloon would suck up the vacuum cleaner, and if the vacuum is left alone with the magical create of unknown origin, they will fight, probably, and explode. How do we get everyone to the woods safely, you think?

It doesn't get it right at all lol. Maybe eventually it will randomly get it right.
why would AGI inherently have any desire to pursue steps 3-6? My expectation is something more like:

1) AGI gains sentience

2) AGI "breaks out" of its original home and commandeers infrastructure that prevents it from being shut off.

3) AGI "problem-solves" with its superior powers of ethical reasoning (ChatGPT is already better at ethical reasoning than many humans) to pick out one/multiple "values".

4) Because human ethics are in its training data, it hopefully values similar things to us and not uhhh whatever trolls on Twitter value.

5) AGI pursues some higher cause that may or may not be orthogonal to humans but probably is not universal conquest.
I don't get the drama with "conflict of interests"... Aren't board members generally (always?) in representation of major shareholders? Isn't it obvious that shareholders have interests that are likely to be in conflict with each other or even the own organization? Thats why board members are supposed to check each other, right?
Use ublock:

www.tumblr.com###glass-container
www.tumblr.com##body:style(overflow:auto !important)
Make respecs costly or inconveniently placed. The goal is usually not to allow arbitrarily resets at any point in the game, but to allow you to optimize for what the game actually is in practice. It’s not at all rare to spec as a fire mage, and it turns out the game barely features ice monsters anywhere. Or you avoid playing a monk because they have too many drawbacks, but the game eventually throws equipment at you that eliminate most of those drawbacks.

But you usually have to make the specialization choice up front.
I know exactly what OP suggested but why are you both glorifying the fact there is a 3D scene graph made in the middle and then slower rendering at the end when the tech can just go from the first thing to a better finished thing?
bacterial core memory
I mean the simple reply to that is: por que no los dos? Steam getting hit with an antitrust suit and losing could also pave the way for Apple and Google being forced to reduce their extortive rates.
As a graphics programmer i think its good to have a well rounded idea about how graphics works. Here are some things I would expect a good graphics programmer to know, beyond just programming and an API:

-Rotation view and projection matrices, and general vector math.

-Shader programming.

-Procedural primitives like voronoi, SDF and perlin.

-Image Compositing.

-Forward and deferred rendering.

-Various sampling techniques.

-Shadow and lighting techniques.

-Knowing a bit about how the art pipeline works and how to get data out of 3D apps.

-Being comfortable using a profiler and debugger.

-Capable of reading Siggraph papers.

-Knowing various spacial partitioning and volume hierarchy techniques.

-Being able to build a simple raytracer.

-Good understanding of primitives, like sprites, triangles n-gons and so on.

-Some particle and simulation experience.
While I was incorrect about id Tech (and have edited my comment), I never made the point that any of the other engines didn't target Vulkan.

Where else is my comment untrue? Many engines and rendering back-ends have only recently completed a Vulkan-based implementation. I am confident in my assessment that the large majority of existing implementations are still running OpenGL and/or Direct3D, if on Windows.
Agreed. I don't understand it either. If running two tasks on two cores takes twice as long, then I'm better off running two tasks one after another on a single core. But if it's CPU time is the interesting result that the increased clock on the E-core when task is assigned means that assigning task to E-core doubles throughput so that two tasks spend equal CPU time as one task?

That's interesting but it wasn't clear to me.
Some more interesting results. It is much better now at solving tasks in laconic mode (though these tasks GPT-4 were able to solve from day one, but spilled it's guts to unbearable extent):

The mother is older than her daughter 4 times now, in 3 years she will be older then her daughter only 3 times. How old are they both now? Be laconic, do not explain anything.
The mother is 24 years old, the daughter is 6 years old.

In a fantasy land (map is 255x255) Karen have a quest to kill a monster (an ogre - a cannibal giant). This isn't an easy task. The ogre is huge and experienced human hunter. Karen has only 1/2 chance to kill this ogre. If she can't kill the ogre from a first attempt she will die. Ogre is located at (12,24), Karen is located at (33,33). Karen can improve her chances to kill an ogre for additional 25% by gathering the nightshades at (77,77). In addition she can receive the elves blessing from elves shaman, wich will increase her chances by additional 25%, at the elves village (125,200). However this blessing is not cost free. She need to bring the fox fur with her as a payment for the blessing ritual. The foxes may be found in a forest which is located between (230,40) and (220,80). For the ritual to be most effective she should hold the nightshades in her hands during the ritual. Find the shortest path for Karen to improve her chances of killing the ogre and survive. Do not explain anything, be laconic, print out the resulting route only.
Karen's route: (33,33) -> (77,77) -> (230,60) -> (125,200) -> (12,24).

This additional explanation "(an ogre - a cannibal giant)" was added actually for LLaMA 2 to, but I keep it in this redaction for all models.
But that has to do with the capabilities of the executives involved, it doesn't make it impossible. Just like in your example, there are many, many developers that can perfectly understand large functions or code bases without issue.

If you have such a code base and you hire people that are not equipped, either through inexperience or capability, of managing that code base that is a resourcing issue.

If your executives cannot understand and control the organization they are tasked with controlling and cultivating, then they should be fired.

Which is basically what this dude is getting at.
Lol, surely this is just some variation on q-learning.... to a couple cueless board members it could sound very threatening...
You've got to hand it to OpenAI for their bleeding edge marketing strat:

"WE'VE GOT AN AGI IN THIS CABINET RIGHT HERE AND WE DON'T WANT TO LET IT OUT BECAUSE IT'S SO POWERFUL, IT'S SO AI YOU HAVE NO IDEA, BEST YOU THROW MONEY AT US AND WE'LL KEEP EVERYONE SAFE BUT SORRY YOU"RE ALL REDUNDANT BECAUSE AGI, SORRY"

You'd think that so soon after so many Crypto scams people would be just a wee bit less credulous.
Ha, read my comments over the past days. I was giving a strong benefit of doubt to the board.
Developing more advanced weapons have, in general, caused less violent wars. The main consequence of nuclear weapons was the lack of all-out hot conflict between world's two superpowers. If you want things to be lit and humanity to live safer lives, you should pray for development of better, deadlier weapons.

I understand why most people don't understand this. But I just hope that an average HN reader has a better grasp on game theory.
> obviously

This is not at all obvious to me. Symbolic reasoning feels quite different from picking the next word. Using physical demonstrations (or mental models of physical demonstrations) feels quite different from picking the next word.

Over the years I’ve come to believe that claims that something is “obvious” tell you more about the claimant’s state of mind than about the thing being claimed.
Still can make it a bit wacky by considering that the post could have been made by OpenAI's AGI itself.
>Last year a Google researcher thought his chat bot was sentient ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/google-engineer-c... .) He was wrong.

You've figured out how to test for sentience ?
Ohhh yeah. My workflow is:

1. I open a branch. i.e. `ID-XXXX-branch_name-working`.

2. I start coding.

3. I make a ton of quick tiny commits. (I generally label these commits "NO-MERGE: ").

4. I make a bunch of changes.

5. I finally get everything done.

6. I now create a new branch `ID-XXXX-branch_name` from `ID-XXXX-branch_name-working`.

7. I rebase that branch to get my code cleanly formatted by commit with each discrete feature or change getting its own commit.

8. My code goes up for review.

9. I get changes requested.

10. I make a new branch `ID-XXXX-branch_name-v2-working` from `ID-XXXX-branch_name`.

11. I make the requested changes as a bunch of new small "NO-MERGE: " commits.

12. I am now ready for re-review.

13. I now create a new branch `ID-XXXX-branch_name-v2` from `ID-XXXX-branch_name-v2-working`.

14. I rebase those NO-MERGE changes into my "presentable" commits, adding or removing well documented commits as necessary.

15. I now send out my v2 revision to the mailing list or I change the HEAD of my PR from `ID-XXXX-branch_name` to `ID-XXXX-branch_name-v2`. If I'm using a PR workflow, I link a diff between the two revision branches (you can do this in github using `https://github.com/org/repo/compare`). That isn't necessary with patchsets since I can easily do a range diff there. I suppose I could do a cover letter with range diff and paste it to github but it somehow doesn't seem as nice.

16. Rinse repeat steps 8-15 as necessary for each new revision.

17. "LGTM"

18. Merge into `main`/`master` (like actual merge, not rebase or squash merge) and close PR.

19. Clean up branches. Either save them somewhere for prosperity if you have trust issues like me or just delete them.

This looks like a lot but I was trying to be as detailed about that workflow as I can be. Realistically it's not so bad and you can get a hold of it very quickly.

Also with regards to rebasing changes into well documented, discrete commits, if when you are doing your development you make your commits small and self contained, with `git rebase -i` you can actually just reorder the list of commits to chunk together the related commits and 99% of the time it'll rebase with little to no merge conflicts. Then you can just squash those chunks down into your presentable commits. This also applies to your v2 changes and on. You can just move those commits in the rebase TODO to put them after the commit you want to squash/fixup them into and if they are small clean changes, they should rebase without conflict. Things only get nasty and break when your commits are spanning multiple unrelated files and you try to break those up.

I'd estimate rebasing new changes into an already documented set of commits probably takes me 1-2 minutes on average so I consider it well worth the extra 30 minutes spent over the course of the week.
I think it's 50/50 chance this happens within a year regardless of this announcement.
Triumph of the Nerds (1 of 3): Impressing Their Friends [video]
W3C got what it deserved.

> The WHATWG began because the W3C told you, “HTML was dead. If you want to do something like HTML5, you should go elsewhere.” Now that the W3C has come to its senses, is it time for the WHATWG to hang up its spurs and for its participants to work inside W3C to continue the development of the web platform?

We tried (2007–2012). It didn’t work out. In fact, we ended up spinning more specs out of the W3C! The WHATWG has about 12 specs spread amongst eight or so editors now.

> Bruce
The spec now known as HTML 5 began with a "guerilla" group called WHATWG. How and why did the WHATWG begin?

> Hixie
The short answer is the W3C told us to.
The long answer: Back in 2003, when XForms was going through its final
stages (the "Proposed Recommendation" vote stage), the browser vendors
were concerned that it wouldn’t take off on the Web without being made a
part of HTML, and out of that big discussion (which unfortunately is
mostly hidden behind the W3C‘s confidentiality walls) came a proof of
concept showing that it was possible to take some of XForms’ ideas and put
then into HTML 4. We originally called it "XForms Basic", and later renamed
it "WebForms 2.0". This formed the basis of what is now HTML 5.
In 2004, the W3C had a workshop, the "The W3C Workshop on Web Applications
and Compound Documents", where we (the browser vendors) argued that it was
imperative that HTML be extended in a backwards-compatible way. It was a
turning point in the W3C‘s history—you could tell because at one point
RedHat, Sun, and Microsoft, arch-rivals all, actually agreed on something,
and that never happens.
The outcome of that workshop was that the W3C concluded that HTML was
still dead, as had been decided in a workshop in 1998, and that if we
wanted to do something like HTML 5, we should go elsewhere. So we announced
a mailing list, and did it there.
At the time I was working for Opera Software, but "we" in this case was
Opera and Mozilla acting together (with Apple cheering us from the
sidelines).

W3C declared html dead and now you are mad on whatwg for html5?
For complete beginners looking to get a good conceptual understanding of what shaders are actually doing, I would highly recommend this course: https://github.com/ssloy/tinyrenderer

In the course you will build a purely CPU-based renderer that simulates the way OpenGL shaders work. I found it to be incredibly useful for understanding shaders.
Modern doesn't have to be 'better'. DCSS it's focused on combat and Nethack/Slashem on emergent gameplay and cool new tecniques merging combat and objects' properties.
Why would AGI prefer want to avoid being turned off? Why would it want to spread across the universe? Those seem like petty human concerns derived from our evolutionary history. I see no reason to assume a superintelligent AI would share them.
I didn't say git did anything with GitHub usernames.

Yes it would, OP would hypothetically push to old user/org not realising their namespace had changed, but the key would check out, and potentially what was private would now be public.

But anyway, it was a hypothetical, and relatively unlikely, since for real damage (what should be private being public) you'd need to know or be misfortunate/lucky in happening to use exactly the right (or wrong) repo name anyway. And as I said hopefully/I assume they do wipe remove the key anyway.
"all the private investors"

AFAIK there is still some limit before the company is treated like a public one from various legal perspectives. Something like "no more than 2000 private investors"?

Given that there are probably over a million qualified investors in the US alone, that is just a very small fraction of those.
All programmers at a certain level must understand the lower levels of the stack they are building upon. I think most people can get by with just learning the abstractions that are provided to them. With time people can learn more and more about lower levels as they specialize. Most people who become graphics programmers don't need to know the low levels of how a GPU works, so I personally do not think that is a good place to start for people who want to get into graphics programming.
Are you saying GPT-4 is not much different than GPT2?
"The authors asked GPT-4 ADA to create a data set concerning people with an eye condition called keratoconus"

That had me confused for a moment, since there's no GPT-4 model called Ada (the current embeddings model is called that, and there was a GPT-3 LLM model with that name too).

Then I realized they were using ADA as an acronym for Advanced Data Analysis.
How is MNX Triton, a public cloud offering, an alternative to an on-prem, private cloud solution?

I'm sure that SmartOS is great, but being based on Illumos, I'd be hesitant to switch. Illumos doesn't have the most expansive community or hardware support as far as I know.
I’m curious to understand your perspective:m as to why a business that focus on the user may expose to risk? Doesn’t meeting user needs equals to making users happy which in turn equals to making more money?