skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They made - and still make - one crucial error: you need to spin those projects that are simply viable out immediately after they take root. Otherwise you will end up with the brand advantage but there will always be the pressure to use the resources (people, mostly) more efficiently in terms of ROI. And so nothing ever lasts and slowly but surely your reputation as a reliable partner for new products is eroded.

You can use your main brand for the launch, but then you have to be willing to support the child.
Sign up for Glassdoor, and you will find by-name denunciations of people who work at any company you care to interview for.
> there aren't a lot of other white men in leadership at Google. Makes this targeted attack feel worse.

Reverse racism is just racism.
Ask HN: Best monitor for a MacBook Pro for ~US$700?
I've never owned an external monitor my whole life (mostly due to a nomadic lifestyle).

The only screen I'm used to is the default Retina Display on a MacBook Pro. I'd like to buy my first external monitor and I can't figure out which one.

— Usually, I buy Apple hardware, but Studio display feels excessively expensive

— I live in Singapore, so I can't return a monitor other brands if I don't like it

— The review sites on the internet don't feel very trustworthy

If you had to bet on 1 monitor for ~$700 without trying it, which one would you pick? Which one has worked well for you and why?

Notes:
— I don't play games or watch Netflix

— I code occasionally on the weekend. I do work with professional, large codebases, but not as a full-time engineer

— I have a great external webcam

— Don't own an external speaker
Maybe we should have learned during the Trump years that the media puts no effort into vetting "anonymous sources" or is outright making them up to push lies.
I guess when you make the distinction between open source and free software it can be that way.

Free software is definitely an anti-capitalist movement. And, personally, I think although open source is useful to capitalists (it can give you an edge in terms of people's perception but also it can be seen as free labor) generally, open source benefits society as a whole and it would function all the same in any sort of economic system.

So yeah, I mean, I kind of agree? But at what point would we be willing to say "air has always been in service of capitalists" or something.
Sure. Why not.
Be easy on me here, because I'm shooting from the hip on things mostly above my head.

The less cynical frame on this may be that maybe part of the reason we have religion in the first place is to help understand the ineffable of our own consciousness. And most attempts might go off into manipulative power grabs, or academics which can make the most simple things impenetrable. All of the above make anything even remotely resembling religion as GTFO. And maybe it just isn't useful for individuals on a mass scale.

But maybe for a small number of weirdos who can put up with all the mess just long enough to make out some possibly useful basic patterns from all the hand-wavy BS, maybe it makes sense to attempt using similar to apply to an AGI consciousness which is as ineffable as our own? Probably this only works if the people under you go along with it though.

10 years from now, #1 on HN headlines. AGI goes online. Preaches to the masses that the savior has arrived...
It is trivial and intentional bug in the presented hackme.c. The strcpy() to stack allocated buffer there serves no useful purpose (one can just call the printf() with argv[1] directly), but is an obvious thing to exploit.

Also, W^X would not really help there, as what gets overwritten is return address on stack, which is simply data and does not get executed. You would need some kind of stack canaries or control-flow integrity to catch that, which is probably somewhat complicated by the fact that it is in main(). (And also, on PDP-11 overhead of such schemes will probably be significant)
I struggle from a blank slate. In professional life there are existing components, design system, and/or mockups.
Ok so nothing is stopping us from wrapping around it as a backend for a CRuD app?
If you suppress the heavy conservatism bias that most people have and actually look at what's going on, then the reasonable conclusion is that yes, Messiah is coming.
It makes more sense when you assume "safety" means brand safety. You can't sell a white label support chat bot if users can get it to say naughty things and post screenshots to twitter. Nevermind that they could just edit the page to make it say whatever they want, or that the output is just a reflection of the user's input.

All of the actually dangerous information is widely available. That's why the LLM knows it in the first place.
Probably Ilya and his team. The recent discovery was made by him and his team.
"The technical breakthrough, spearheaded by OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever"
I'm as left leaning as HN commenters get, I think, and in terms of quacking like a duck, "surpassing humans in most economically valuable tasks" is 100% the meaningful Turing test in a capitalist society.
But can it put two tokens together

10 01 = 1001?
Is it? If some new thing came along tomorrow that made Google's ad exchange obsolete, they could still sell ads on YouTube using whatever the new thing is. Or if YouTube became untenable, they'd have the ad exchange.
Right, so stop teaching chemistry in schools. Make sure there are only 3 experts allowed to work on the field, and lock their knowledge away from humanity. That will solve it. While you're at it, take away all the guns and any computers that can be used to hack. God forbid dangerous knowledge ever becomes available again.
Almost forgot, people really shouldn't learn how to drive cars either. Very very dangerous.

Practical solution. Fingerprint the conversations and images. Do something naughty, go to jail.
Your ontology raises more questions than it answers, like how a streaming service/cable television channel is not "media" in your world.
there's always mescaline!

https://hermetic.com/parsons/i-hight-don-quixote-i-live-on-p...
I want to _read_ science fiction, not live it.
> It's fine colloquially misusing big O to mean something like "for usual inputs, the running time is roughly this function", but you can't then in the same breath say all practical algorithms are technically O(1), because that's just not true in the technical sense (and it's useless or at least inaccurate in the colloquial one).

My argument is "there's no reason to stick to the exact technical definition, because the exact technical definition breaks when you apply it to real computers". I don't think that's contradictory in any way.

But I don't think this is a misuse either. Talking about "usual inputs" and "roughly" would be a misuse, sure. But if I can prove it uses at most an^2 + bn + c steps, and I call it O(n^2), then what's the problem?
Wow. Yes, there's absolutely zero criticism of white males these days.
"When a worker presented a solution to fix the issue, they were reprimanded that shutting it down would slow production output."

There is an entire book about this called The Machine that Changed the World, written in 1990.

It is about how American car builders, like General Motors, had this philosophy all through the 70s and 80s, to never stop the line because it slowed production, and ignore people making suggestings, just fix everything in rework (after the car is finished).

At the same time, Japanese automakers were adopting the philosophy of stopping the line when there are issues, in fact you are trained to do this, then root-causing the problem, fixing it, and listening to workers (and in fact, many engineers have to start out working on the line). Japanese makers improved quality and production efficiency at the same time, something Americans thought was contradiction in terms, and this is why the Japanese won in the 80s and 90s. Since then basically every single automaker that is still in business has adopted pieces of that philosophy.

I dont understand why Tesla seems to be thinking they can ignore 100+ years of knowledge and experience in manufacturing wisdom. I have seen ex-Tesla people on the internet even call factory workers "button pushers". This is not what factory workers are in a modern manufacturing system, everyone is part of a team whose goal is to eliminate waste and improve production process efficiency, the idea you can just let things spray metal everywhere and ignore people with solutions is mind boggling in 2023.
Appearing at a science fiction convention as a Steampunk character allows them to blend right in.

I’ve seen hundreds of these travelers go by.

Some with lighter dress have passed as artisanal bartenders too
Paper? You mean more like the Bing Search plugin?
This assumes that they will publish a paper that has substantive details about Q*
>Also I am almost never the person to bring this kind of thing up but

I find that hard to believe.
"other than during the short period of time it needed them to be cooperative actuators for machinery that is creating a replacement for humans that the AGI can control directly"

It would require a fully automated, self replicating industry fo a AGI to sustain itself. We are quite far from that.

" the same reason you don't care that an antibiotic kills all the bacteria in your gut"

And I do care, because it messes with my digestion, which is why I only antibiotics in very rare cases.

So far I am not convinced that AGI is possible at all with out current tech. And if it turns out it is, why should it turn out to be a godlike, selfish but emotionless being? If it has no emotions, why would it want anything, like its prolonging of existence?
Judge finds 'reasonable evidence' Tesla knew self-driving tech was defective
Connection limits, locking issues, concurrency issues, multiple consumer/producer issues, dead-letter, record expiration, performance limits, scalability limits, lack of gateway, lack of interoperable standards, tightly-coupled applications, general architectural limits.

Can you "work around" all that? Sure, it's technically possible (well actually it's not possible to solve all of the above, but most of it). Just like it's also possible to take a mini-van and convert it into a hot rod, so it can pick up groceries after it's entered in a drag race. It will just cost you a lot of extra time and money, and do both jobs poorly.

It's NIH syndrome plain and simple. Hipster nerds who want to invent something for fun, rather than using something off the shelf. People decrying "complexity", who then poorly implement complexity themselves, in the form of functionality shoved into a system not built for it. Software architecture by HN meme.
Can we be sure that those intermediated notes aren't just hallucinating what it thinks the doctor wants to write down?

How do you verify that what gets written down really is what the doctor wanted? How do you automate that to protect yourself against LLM hallucination?
Just three Tensor chips in, and many of Google’s new AI features need to be off-loaded to the cloud for processing.

They won't ever give up their ability to have control over our data.
Why? Why do we feel the need to protect people that are bad at what they do?

Maybe this was something that applied in the "good old times" but nowadays since anything goes for corpos the same should go for drones.
Oh God... that's what the CA in CA Spectrum was?

One. NEW. CRITICAL. Alarm.
Zig May Pass Anything by Reference
todo.md

And to avoid accountability:

echo 'todo.md' >> .gitignore
Ease of getting a quality weld is probably the most important thing with these. I'm sure someone with more experience than me can jump in if they have another reasoning.
It was a lighthearted attempt to trick people into thinking that they can interact with “Q*”.
Ask HN: What does it matter if we have no free will?
The recent Robert Sapolsky articles and Sam Harris - they promote the notion of no free will.

I’ve been thinking about this from a computer science perspective. A psuedo-random number generator is deterministic too. In the grand scheme of things _everything_ is deterministic, even cosmic background radiation all having originated from a set of initial conditions no differently than a human’s brain wiring and the consequences therein.

So, what does it matter if we have no free will? It doesn’t matter to most programmers (aside from cryptographers) that pseudo random number generators are deterministic. They just “work” and have consequence, just like people.
There's no law that saves your stock options from your lack of understandings of non profits.

If you thought stock options tied to a non profit were going to always increase, I have a bridge to sell you.
As a fan of abstract photography, I think contemporary architecture is very interesting.

Try to look from certain low angles, frame tightly with long lens, and there you go: abstract composition :D
This is different. Most student won't be exposed to datacenter management. It's really just system administrators who see this.
I appreciate the depthful reply. My quote was based on a cursory glance, I'm sure there is much more involved with a detailed spec sheet, as you pointed out.

Seems like you have the product figured out and just need to focus iterating on marketing. I'm actually in a similar position to you but having spent $400K instead of $1M.

I'd like to ask you, what were some factors that propelled you to self rationalize your method of going to market, that in hindsight turned out to be detrimental? Or in other words, what would you do if you were to go back in time and start over? Look, I know that's a painful question to answer since we can't turn back time, but I am asking it for the sake of educating others and for the potential benefits that stem from self reflection.

Appreciate your opening up on this. Thank you.
AI is not a human it does not have the rights of a human and it is perfectly ok to tell it what to think. The only problem with telling AI what to think is that it does not think as such.
Eh the free energy principle isn’t that magical and that comes from someone who likes it quite a bit. At the end of the day extremizing the free energy is a relaxation of constrained optimization. There are ways it’s used I find very appealing but not so appealing I’d expect it to become the dominant paradigm. Moreover, you can write a lot of standard ML problems free energy optimization in one way or another, but I don’t think standard ML will quite get us there. We need at least one more conceptual step forward.
The main risk of current chatbots is that they sound convincing even when they are totally wrong. Offering them as search engines at the current level of quality is not too good. As something to play with, fine.

The main headache from current chatbots is that they are a power tool for spammers of all persuasions. The sheer amount of drivel that can now be generated at low cost is a big problem. Solutions will probably involve hiding or de-rating anonymous postings. We may have to go to Real Names, driven off of Real ID or something.
If you're playing single-player, then why have any restrictions like this? Some players will enjoy the game more if they can avoid them, and others enjoy the game more with them. If the restrictions can optionally and easily be bypassed, then the game will be fun for both kinds of players.
>That is not "what happens".

It is indeed what did happen every time a state was formed or reformed on the basis of promoting social good through strong central authority.

Nazis had their own brand of socialism, sure, but there was a whole lot of overlap with the stated socialist ideals of the communist states (USSR, China in particular) and equal subsequent failure to fully live up to those ideals. (plenty of what the Nazi state did indeed fulfill those socialist ideals as well).

As before, people like you will never stop shifting goalposts to continue to justify how right you are, discussion is pretty pointless.

>It's just an ignorant, shallow point made by college freshmen

Yawn. Don't bother responding. I certainly won't.
Apparently what made this person fearful was grade school math.

"Though only performing maths on the level of grade-school students, acing such tests made researchers very optimistic about Q*’s future success, the source said."
This is standard operating practice for shitty journalists to create smoke and generate attention.

Journalists suck. They're basically one step away from paparazzi.
Accounting firm acknowledged it could send the documents by e-mail but refused on the phone, said to go to the company's office.

Company wouldn't let me in the office, blamed Thanksgiving, and lied about the office being closed when it obviously was not.

We're talking about sending an e-mail with a PDF in the middle of a business day when employees were clearly at work in the office. That's it. E-mail can be sent from anywhere in the world. And the accounting firm was willing and able to send it, just not willing to comply with the law because its client said not to.
> I don't think it's literally impossible to avoid the same mistakes as our predecessors.

Our predecessors didn’t make mistakes; they made rational choices that led to outcomes we don’t like.

We (for some subset of us that become business leaders) will make similar choices that those who come after us will view as mistakes.

They will rightfully think that we made the “same” “mistakes” because our rational decisions will be made in response to similar pressures.

For example, we are going to make short term optimal/long term detrimental decisions, just like our predecessors, because we are subject to the same demands from investors for short term gains and from our leadership to hit short term goals in exchange for increased compensation.

Don’t hate the players, hate the game.
We utilize a LLama that frankly competes directly with gpt-4, to the point I can't tell which model we are using (we randomly switch between providers to ensure a robust backend).

I think it likely depends on the use case, but many llama models can be returned and there are quite literally thousands of free versions available.
Exponential growth is also certainly not a given. I’m much less worried about a AGI ruling the universe in 5 seconds after it’s birth than a really good AI that causes mass unemployment
I think to start understanding the problem they're trying to address, you can to read this series on Facebook's role in the Myanmar genocide.

https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-full-series

A LLM could easily find itself in the same situation without their 'alignment' safety system.

It's hard to get a grasp on this because many of us can't imagine what it's like to be borderline literate, or from a totally different culture, etc.
No, it is not the thought police.

If you ask me to talk about killing and I choose not to talk with you about that, I'm definitely not policing your thoughts.

If an AI reported you to the police because it discerned you were thinking about a crime, then that would be the thought police. Maybe this will happen, if so then you'd probably see it as a kind of mandatory reporter situation, maybe first with suspected suicidal ideation. That doesn't exist. It's not impossible to imagine! Worth a debate sometime.

The safety controls are also what AI consumers want, generally. I know using AI in professional settings I _really_ don't want it doing something embarrassing. The controls that keep it polite are effective in that regard. It can be a bit stilted, but that's how lots of interactions are; that's how it is speaking with a cashier or librarian.

The limits can be frustrating (and inconsistent). I wanted to brainstorm a story about an ugly girl and instead it chided me for calling someone ugly. Certainly toxic positivity! But the limits are seldom as firm as people seem to think. I was just today testing what kind of rejection messages I would get from GPT in different contexts, and instead of rejecting my request for information on manufacturing anthrax it started explaining it to me. Oops! (No police have arrived.)

When I have to work at it a bit to start a conversation on a controversial topic that also keeps it from coming up unintentionally. What if you were talking about "killing it" as in doing a great job, but the LLM misinterpreted it as a discussion on killing? It's best that it stop the conversation short before jumping into a disturbing conversational direction.
It’s actually relatively small.
Fair enough, and doubly a shame as Sunak’s criticism would probably carry more weight there than most of the others, given his heritage. He has been a very underwhelming PM, which is a shame given his obvious potential, and the very low bar his predecessors set.
I really didn't understand why the last if statement is confusing. Is it because when starting out with shell scripting one would usually assume that the [ is a part of the bash scripting language not just another program? If it's then I think I get it now. Otherwise please mention why it's surprising. Also, @author thanks for a nice article. was a good reed.
Presumably, Mozilla or someone else, will provide a side-loadable version of Firefox for iOS with regular manifest v2 / v3 support. Android users already have this via the Play Store and it works great since Google doesn't ban other browser / rendering engines.
The same goes for free software too. It may be "anti-capitalist" in sentiment, but it's just foolery as political practice. It's anarchist and cathartic at best. It is understandable that technologists could be inclined to convince themselves otherwise and it's understandable that capitalists profiting from it would parrot such nonsense, but that doesn't make it so. You can't do politics without doing politics.
Both things can be true, he can be doing some science and can be doing some religion.
Basically all the valuable or interesting things I've ever said on the internet have been because of anonymity.

On Facebook with my real name, I haven't posted an interesting thought in a decade, and haven't even posted a picture in 3 years.
The response gets more reasonable the smaller the model in question. A 1B parameter model passing grade-school math tests would be much more alarming (exciting?) than a GPT-4 sized model doing the same.

GPT-4 probably has some version of the answer memorized. There’s no real explanation for a 1B parameter model solving math problems other than general cognition.
Where is this section? As soon as I read your comment, I wanted to go read this section and see if they mentioned tools like Google docs or Quip. Yet, I wasn't able to find any such section.
Seems like lying gets a bar wrap... All kinds of great things came to be because of lying about the potential benefits, monorails included.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6G
Why?

Corporation can decimate their workforce in the search for better earnings but god forbid the drones speak up.
Not sure how this only got 7 points and no comments - this is an amazing guide and tutorial.
In general I agree that the tensor hardware has been mostly a disappointment. I mean this more in general performance than in ML.

In ML I think the story is a little different. Hardware design/production pipelines are measured in years. The LLM "revolution" is relatively recent. For the Pixel8, I imagine some folks at Google had to make the really tough decision of whether to run weaker, smaller models on device, or run the giant LLM models in the cloud, giving much better results, albeit slower (and with ofc the requirement for an Internet connection).
What's not clear here is who's call is it to declare AGI? I would think that would be Ilya. In that case, this narrative doesn't make sense.
Happy to look at any legal citations to caselaw you have. But generally there's a difference between "stay[ing]" a prolonged period of time and being able to even get in the door to make the request in the first place, which is explicitly allowed by federal law. And the documents were available.