skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would say generally I think the idea of placing ads "next to" or "on" hateful content doesn't really get me upset. If its a list of people you follow with ads and you follow crazy people I don't think it's surprising that would happen. It's also unclear why advertisers should care, given that its personalized. Maybe you could argue if an account is saying hateful stuff, they shouldn't put any ads in their list of tweets if you go directly there?

That said, the Media Matters article starts with quote from X CEO Yaccarino (https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/x-placing-ads-amazon-nb...) specifically saying they put controls in to prevent it. So it seems fair enough for a journalist to check if those controls work. Clearly, they don't in this case. Or the controls are for another case.

I do think Media Matters could have been clearer about its methodology, since I agree with X that making an account that only follows hate accounts and seeing if it shows ads is not really what the article implies. I don't see how serving ads nearby to hateful content is more objectionable really than just having the hateful content in the first place. The connection to ads seems more like a tactic to try to force them into action, which is more activism than journalism.

However, it's crazy to try to sue them for this. It's not illegal and it is mostly accurate! It's especially unacceptable that these virtue-signaling Republican AGs are trying to capitalize on it. Gross!
National defense is a public good. It is permissible to tax for public goods (nonrivalous, nonexcludable).

Welfare ia decidely not a public good. Apples to oranges.
Jaron Lanier looks into AI's future [video]
The obvious answer is he was the one Sam gave an opinion on. He was one of the people doing duplicate work (probably the first team). Sam said good things about him to his ally and bad things to another board member. There was a falling out between that board member and Sam and she spilled the beans.
https://archive.is/RCQnv
>> I don’t think I have the inherent right for the government to have no photos of me.

Why? The government should have no info on you at all unless and until they have an articulable reason to suspect you to be in violation of the law. Then they should only be allowed to retain data about for the duration of your criminal history (which could be for life )

Customs and Border patrol should not even be allowed to ask you any questions or stop you at all upon reentry to the country unless again they have a clear and articulable reason to believe you are in violation for the law

same with the TSA.

the fact that we have allowed general "detainment" in the name of safety was the start of the slippery slope that they continue to advance further and further to more or less cancel all 4th and 5th amendment protections to the point now where those protections basically do not exist with in a 100 miles of any border which is like 80% of the nation.

it is absurd to simply accept this as normal, and inline with individual freedom. it is not
The SEC has no place in a free market. If people trust a company which co-mingles funds, they should be punished for misplacing their trust. Both the scammer and the scammed deserve a share of the punishment. Life naturally punishes the scammed already and teaches them a lesson at the same time... Without the help of the SEC... How good is that?!

If my startup fails because I hired the wrong people, I take the full blame. Why should it be different if I invested in the wrong company or trusted the wrong company with my money?

As someone who is trustworthy and providing a service, I am harmed by the SEC creating a false veneer or respectability for investors to invest in my biggest competitors. I'd rather investors be forced to do due diligence.
I agree with your main point that these are not new risks. Deepfakes have been available since Photoshop existed. I can create an photo (or even video) of your politician of choice doing something untoward without using AI. What is the additional risk that AI brings to this scenario?
Microsoft already has several employees whose position is titled as "CEO" -- the heads of GitHub and LinkedIn at least -- other than head of the whole firm.
Have a look at this similar course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/programming-languages
I enjoyed it quite a bit and the lecturer is fantastic. It also uses SML and teaches similar material, though maybe not as in depth since this is just the first section of a three-part semester long course.
I don't know about that, but shiraz never gives me headaches.
I’m familiar with the act

Your interpretation is far removed from reality but I appreciate the enthusiasm

the act regulates the nature of a specific transaction and therefore does not need a description of the asset itself. It never needed to imagine crypto, or fungible orange groves as the howey test was about, or anything.
Don’t confuse the lizards who know how to take advantage of chaos with a pre planned conspiracy
No way to be sure without seeing the paperwork but that word 'owner' is a strong tell that this is stock, not just a profit share (note the direction of the arrow, but even if it is just a profit share that profit share still is a function of the stock held by the entity and if that stock loses its value because the underlying company is destroyed then so do the profits). So with that as a base I hope you can understand why I think the fiduciary duties of the board extend to the employees affected by their decisions because it directly impacts the value of the stock held in that company to which they - and the other investors mentioned - hold (possibly indirect) title.

These arrangements are pretty common in fact (though not the non-profit bit, just the separate entity for smaller shareholders and investors), and the other stand out is that they label the other party in there as 'investors', not 'donors' or some other party to which you are not required to answer.

So to me it is far from clear cut that they only have the mission of the non profit to guide themselves by and they set themselves up for that by wanting too much control (also over all of the other entities). Control is good when you want to have your way, but too many hats on your head with too many different labels can constrain you or open you up to liability or conflicts of interest. It's one of the reasons why I try to limit my engagement with various companies to a single role.
Most of my jobs have been deeply uninteresting at a product level. Not even the designers or product people -really- care. I suspect working on interesting projects is the exception, not the rule.
Now let’s assume that Apple could hire 90% of Qualcomm’s engineers and not have to worry about patent lawsuits…

Again I’m 100% sure that Microsoft wouldn’t base its entire technology line on another company’s IP without having very favorable licenses. That’s just not how these things work.
Kubota bringing fruit harvest drones to North America [video]
The best theory I’ve seen is that D’Angelo is just angry because Altman scooped his AI Chatbot company Poe on dev day without informing him first:

https://twitter.com/scottastevenson/status/17267310228620087...

if this was the case it would explain why he can’t give the real reason for the firing: because saying it out loud would put him in severe legal Jeopardy.
The model page is the only info I’ve found on it. As far as I can tell there’s no paper published on the technique.

In the “Merge Process” section they at least give the layer ranges.

https://huggingface.co/alpindale/goliath-120b
Well here's the power of collective action in play.
That's old news right now. Watch the interview after the markets closed.

Here's a bit more context -

https://www.threads.net/@reckless1280/post/Cz4ulUmLh2_
I am interested in reading your book on Raja Yoga, but I am a student experiencing financial difficult at the moment. I just thought I would ask you if there is a free digital copy available.
Sorry for your loss. Truly.
I know it is hard to keep up all the twists and turns.

https://www.threads.net/@reckless1280/post/Cz4ulUmLh2_
Only if GPT-2. GPT-3 is smarter than this, let alone 4.
I've thought they should have run more decisions by ChatGPT to predict what might happen
I had the same feeling. Huge corp with deep pockets targets smaller research company in order to catch up with the competition. I'm surprised a traditional acquisition hadn't happened before. Now it's happening in a weird way but it's the same outcome.

Anthropic is probably next.
> Any reason not to just make it MIT?

Yes, I'm not funded by the millions (like Khan Academy, the org that created/sponsored Katex) so I would hate to see all my hard work get copy/pasted by a company, rebranded as their own and sold to the public in a private manner.

> I don't want to think about licenses at all in my life

If you don't want to think about licenses ever it's just a one-time payment of $19, that's exactly why I dual-licensed it; follow the license, or pay $19 to not deal with the license.

> That makes me less interested, really

That's okay, if you don't think it's a library worth $19 (or following the license), it means it doesn't provide enough value for you to be worth of your money. For the average developer in the world that's less than 1h of their time though, so if you think that my library will save you 1h vs others, or vs doing it by hand, then it's "worth it". Many developers think all the tools should be MIT, and that is okay, but I don't share that ideology.
TX AG Pax­ton Opens Inves­ti­ga­tion into Media Mat­ters
>Sustkever is said to have offered two explanations he purportedly received from the board

He received from the board? Here we go again with the narrative that Ilya was a bystander, at most an unwilling participant. He was a member of the board, on equal footing with the other board members, and his vote to oust Sam was necessary for there to be a majority.
Sure, but the issue is that defamation requires a false statement of fact. Elon may not be happy that the article is missing context, but that's not the same thing as claiming something false.

> X contends no actual users were or ever would be in this same circumstance, so no brand damage was actually done.

If that's what they want to contend then this lawsuit is probably not the right vehicle. They'd probably be better off making that argument to their advertisers.
Because it causes preventable harm.
Jeez, these people seem so dumb. Throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.
That's kind of a softball, can easily be counted with "part costs vary a lot based on the market" or something like, regardless of cost we guarantee you this price point

No business wants to share it's internal costs, it's their prime competitive advantage
Switched to https://www.usebruno.com/ weeks ago. Real OSS HTTP Client :)
I’d bet a bunch actually have at either Google, Microsoft or Meta Research. Microsoft’s had an ok track record recently of letting acquisitions stay pretty independent. The atrophy and cultural reversion to the mean of a large corporation will still happen, but at a slower pace.

If I were Microsoft I’d also look at making it easy to get investment from folks leaving soon after the acquisition through their investment arm.
For me it is that we've barely begun to accept the impact of social media. Social media + AGI may well destroy any form of governance that we have as viable (ok, sometimes borderline viable) today. And when you kick over that many holy houses in one go there is a fair chance that even if you did it with the best of intentions you'll inherit a bunch of chaos.
The project looks pretty active and healthy. What makes you say it needs more love?
The OpenAI board seems to have fatally miscalculated the loyalty to Sam A. And in realizing their error is scrambling to undo their miscalculation. The sad thing is probably was for the right reasons (AI safety over profits), and will result in the precise opposite (unbridled capitalism in AI).
This board doesn't own the global state of play. They own control over the decisions of one entity at a point in time. This thing moves too fast and fluidly, ideas spread, others compete, skills move. Too forceful a move could scatter people to 50 startups. They just catalysed a massive increase in fluidity and have absolutely zero control over how it plays out.

This is an inkling, a tiny spark, of how hard it'll be to control AI, or even the creation of AI. Wait until the outcome of war depends on the decisions made by those competing with significant AI assistance.
They've hired a bunch. Tech giants pass everything through legal—too big not to. IP & patents remain a PITA regardless of market cap.

Licensing ChatGPT versions developed by OpenAI seems favorable enough to me. The question boils down to what happens if OpenAI stops development. I highly doubt the bright minds at OpenAI gave away their IP for widely available compute credits.
Putting the high Q product into the hands of anyone, and established beliefs. The general trend is "but the computer said so, it must be right" as in google maps misdirection into swamps. How can anyone wind up in that place?

Specifically photoshopping, no: thats been around for ages. Movies? Less such. They're pretty terrible without AI assist for smooth blending, and voice faking.

Mainly I'd say upscaling from Photoshop to believable movies, and sheer volume of materials are the probable risks. But its incremental not revolutionary.

And this is only specifically this one niche, right? Overall in the scale of things, I'd say the risk is misplaced belief overall. Applied to different contexts.
And labor makes those AIs, even if it's a separate company. Until AI digs up the resources, builds the machines to do that, makes the computers they run on and writes the software there'll always be a labor factor.

Plus, once AI does all those things, it now pretty much falls into the labor bucket.

There is no value without labor.
"I think the open source idea it comes from a really good place. I think that people who believe in it believe that it makes things more open and democratic and honest and safe and all that.

The problem with it is the mathematics of network effects. So let's say you have a bunch of people that share stuff for free, it might be music it might be computer code, it could be all kinds of things, and you're saying oh we're being very communitarian.... the thing is the exchange of all that free stuff is going to tend towards monopoly because of mathematics"
This whole situation can be neatly summed up as the OpenAI board saying "Hey Elon, hold my beer!"
oh interesting, i was referring to this by greg who did the same:

https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1725667410387378559

my bad then, seems to be a thing with these guys ig
The interview was “found a billion dollar tech company” and they all already passed.
Yeah stuff this went from “oh shit!” to “meh” in a hurry once I actually started using these things rather than just reading reports about them.
Do you work in other languages in your spare time?

Do you feel left behind working in a mainly OOP language when the industry seems to be heading towards functional programming?
> However, if you have a British Library login and your password is used elsewhere, we recommend changing it as a precautionary measure.

So they store user passwords. This is security 101 stuff.
imagine you are Mira. you are told Thursday they will fire Sam. You would think she would at a minimum ask why. Let's assume she does that. Then they give the two reasons Ilya did.

What normal non-self serving human would even go along with the plan at that point? Now she realizes she must bail to hitch a ride back on her Sam gravy train. She is major sus here.

Any non greed ego driven person would have told the board they would not accept the intern-CEO title and would resign if they fired Sam for those two reasons (or any apparenlty now in hindsight).
I'm pretty sure the revolt is now 95% of employees, can it grow any further?
Yeah I think anyone on HN could write that website in a weekend. With uncensored GPT-4 you wouldn't need more than 10 people on staff and most of those would just be there to fix the printer.

Edit: I thought this would obviously be satire. Guess not..
A strategic play is to release the models - the nuclear option. Go full OpenAI. Even if Microsoft has an exclusive license, leaks and breaches happen.

The board should have led with this as an implied threat behind closed doors and given both Altman and Nadella a face-saving public retreat. Altman goes off to start GPTSoft with equity, a license to GPT4 and access to Microsoft's cloud compute. Everyone gets to call this a win. Public humiliation was a mistake.
If you really want BBR, you can build a custom kernel: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/frebsd-13-tcp-bbr-congestion-...
Obviously the Microsoft thing is a negotiation tactic. It does make sense from an IP and hardware perspective, but I'm sure the team would be less than enthused. I think Sam's still hoping to figure out how to return to OpenAI.
the biggest being I can copy in LateX file and get all the benefits of overleaf! I Love overleaf
transport encryption is literally the bare minimum for anything on the network these days (to the extent that iOS endeavors straight up blocks all the standard unencrypted protocol ports by default).

But also transport encryption is not relevant in any conversation about messaging security. In the context of messaging for the last decade, the messages are either private or they are not, and TLS (or whatever transport level encryption you use) does not give you a private channel.
If this is true Ilya messed up and the board followed him when they should have talked him down.
In the real world, we try to have government operate law enforcement. Doesn’t always work, but it works a lot better than outsourcing law enforcement on financial scams to retail investors.
I was expecting that most of the "unique" trees would be in parks, e.g. the Botanic Gardens, but then looking at the distribution graph, wow, I can see so much diversity in the street trees "long tail"; almost as much as park trees.

Would be cool to see the rest of Greater Sydney as well!
I’ve heard “HR said we can’t hire any more white men”.

Was that exactly what HR said? Who knows. But it affected that hiring round.
Yes, and so did MtGox and QuadrigaCX. It doesn't mean that they are unbacked but it is a huge red flag.
If OpenAI ends up a shell of a company with billions in cloud GPU credits, in some ways merging makes a lot of sense?
Unless you are independently wealthy, you are indeed a cog. Maybe you're a well paid cog. But you're still a cog.

Even doctors have to work for a living. That makes them a cog too.

Nothing wrong with seeing where you fit, and securing your future with strategic choices to get away from toxic shit. But you're still a cog.

And you can be an engineer and still be a cog.

The other name for a "cog" is a proletariat.
They aren't a non-profit, haven't been since 2019. They may market themselves as non-profit but they are in fact a for-profit corporation with a 100x return cap. Microsoft is currently their largest investor. Profit capped at 100x means microsoft expecting to get $1.3 trillion back on their $13 billion investment. The board ultimately answers to its investor and employee stakeholders since it isn't a non-profit.
There was a new version released 2 days ago...

> Version 2.4.0 (18 November 2023)
Why does there need to be a broader objective?

Even absent a broader objective we should still look to history and understand that government only ever increases its own power, only ever reduces the liberty of the citizen.

Government actions move in one direction, to yell into the void "well that is a slippery slope fallacy" as if that means we should simply ignore all of the lessons history has to teach us about giving up liberty for perceived safety is crazy to me.

I am not sure what value there is in proclaiming a slippery slope fallacy or how that it a rebuttal to the very real historical record.
Or...you call Sama and say "hey just an FYI, they asked me to be CEO and I said yes. I have no idea what's going on, and I'm loyal so keep me in the loop if we're going to leave or something".
These are all very valid points, and I appreciate you making them!

But what I was trying to point out to GP is that the conversation here is not starting from 0. Certainly I'm not suggesting that ACM membership or their code is a sufficient answer, or the only possible answer.

As a tangent, I'll point out that often, codes of conduct or ethical guidelines aren't "policed" in the way you seem to imply--by some kind of active enforcement function. They generally come up after the fact, in some venue like a deposition or court case where questions like "did X act in accordance with the generally accepted standards and practices of Y". And I wouldn't expect the ACM to publicize most of what they do, anyway.

The reason I bring up ACM and their code of conduct is because a compatriot of mine has been advocating for companies to encourage or require their employees to become members of the ACM, and to pay for it. The idea being that progress can be made on becoming the kind of big-P professional GP is describing. I don't really know if that can work, but I do think it sounds like it's better than nothing. And that it could be a basis for improvement in time.
They may retain him, but his time of being on the board or any board is at an end.

The rest of the board. My god. Why were they there?
Yeah, that narrative doesn't sync with the prior paragraph...

> chief scientist and co-founder Sutskever, who helped vote Altman out and did the actual firing of him over Google Meet
An interesting perspective. Not entirely sure that's the same line of reasoning advertisers use - they may be more risk-adverse and just go for a blanket "we don't want anything to do with <objectionable thing>" than "we don't want to show up next to <objectionable thing> unless the user likes it"
I basically mean poorly thought out, first order thinking. Immediate gratification, not examining consequences, etc.

Like Sam Altman needs to start a company on Saturday because he was fired on Friday? The board firing him without informing or discussing with investors...

Or Microsoft has to hire him on Monday (they have the most to win/lose tbh, so maybe it's justified).

I just meant the decisions seemed to not think of the longer term / downstream ramifications, the way children often behave.
It turns out the AGI was a board member.
Since the board hasn’t given any remotely convincing explanation for the firing [0], their miscalculation seems to have rather been that nobody would be asking any questions. Which is really bewildering.

[0] see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38356534
I think I would be hard pressed to say maintenance free but definitely significantly lower maintenance costs. Turbine blades are intrinsically expensive, made of titanium and operate at high temperatures under high loads. Electric motors have much simpler operation and when made at scale, can really benefit from a replace after 20,000 hours model, instead of a overhaul every 1800 hours, with 200hrs inspection intervals, which we see in some turboprop engines. Fuel cells and batteries are much the same, replace after a certain life, and with built in tolerance to failures. Unfortunately, with fuel cells, as opposed to batteries, we still have some balance of plant that will need maintained, compressors for example, however unlike a turbine engine, they don't operate at high temperatures and are a smaller part of the system, so we can design for much longer lifetimes that you can get away with in a turboprop. All this leads us to estimating 65% saving on engine maintenance. Battery electric companies are going after more like a 90% saving.
With a phone you can always take it outside or place somewhere where there's better signal than indoors.
If true, then the board has gone rogue. The only question is why? What could have possibly caused them to do this.
And expensive...and out of reach of most of the people who need it.