skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So the complaint is that, in order to see if Twitter would place ads next to hate content, Media Matters first followed accounts that post hate and then scrolled down?
The market seems to think this is inconsequential.
Oh yeah, the worst thing you can do is speak up at work. Especially if any of the higher-ups are assholes up to no good. That's why recruiters value long-term stays at a job because it shows that you either have too much to lose or are too much of a coward to stand up for yourself.
My cofounder and I started this project to solve issues I had building my own API service. I had built a data API service and then realized I needed a way to service customers. I fell down the rabbit hole of building user onboarding workflows, account recovery, issuing and storing API keys, etc. It ended up being more work than the API itself!

It's the cost of doing business, I suppose. But it was such a pain that I got together with my cofounder and we decided that we should build a company to make that part easier!
You need actual malicious intent - what protects media matters is the same thing that protects most crazed AM broadcasters right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
Thank you for being a donor! Naturally, you can expect us to eventually publish an annual report that details revenue, expenses, and programmatic activities. At a high level, the payments to Element includes administrative services (accounting, legal, etc), operation of the matrix.org homeserver, and secondment of several personnel whose responsibilities include advocacy, program management, standards work, and trust and safety. The MSA also includes provisions for the Foundation to reimburse Element for any bills they pay on our behalf.

In terms of funding development, the Foundation's focus has mostly been on building open source trust and safety tooling since that is a gap that others haven't addressed.
Everyone contracts those out now.
"Interim CEO".
Thanks! Let get a demo video going. In the meantime, there are little snippets of the UI on https://www.catalystmonitor.com/.

It's a bit like Datadog in the sense that you do have dashboards but it doesn't monitor blackbox metrics (like CPU %, etc), and focuses on whitebox metrics like error %.

What Datadog and other monitoring products don't do (AFAIK) is give you the ability to drill into your error %. You can breakdown your frontend pages and backend endpoints by path params, status code, log messages, (and soon) user to find commonalities and narrow down your smoking gun. After you find your smoking gun, you can immediately get traces and log messages of what happened from frontend to backend.

For example, if I notice a server endpoint has a high error %, I can check my breakdowns to see if it's specific to a user or endpoint, and if there is any log messages that happened for every error. Once I've narrowed it down, I can quickly find sessions that include the server endpoint with the breakdowns I've selected, and see what happened on the frontend and backend(s). The idea is to provide this value with minimal setup.

Paging is definitely something that I want to implement.

Text is hard so I'll record a video.
That seems like a rather... interesting... argument to make. It feels like it weakens the efforts to convince advertisers that their ads are safe from showing up next to objectionable content - it's not our fault your ads show up next to content you don't want them to show up next to, it's all the user's fault!
I've had my seat changed after I paid extra for it, and I submitted a refund request and it was honored.
We don’t know yet. Hence all the people wanting to prioritize figuring it out.
> unless all the benefits accrued to the owners of the tech instead of the people whose (stupid) jobs are being replaced.

The workers doing the jobs will never benefit. They'll be shown the door and the owners will reap all the profits.
I appreciate it. We both come from data and backend backgrounds, landing page design isn't exactly our strong suit :). Getting some proper design resources brought in for our marketing page is on my todo list after we finish the product.
Intel® Xeon® Platinum 8490H Processor
Total Cores 60
Total Threads 120
Max Turbo Frequency 3.50 GHz
Processor Base Frequency 1.90 GHz
Scalability S8S

Up to 60 x 8 = 480 cores or 960 threads

AMD EPYC™ 9754
# of CPU Cores 128
# of Threads 256
Max. Boost Clock Up to 3.1GHz
All Core Boost Speed 3.1GHz
Base Clock 2.25GHz
Socket Count
1P / 2P

Up to 128 x 2 = 256 cores or 512 threads
What's really interesting is that OpenAI has been maneuvered into a really bad strategic position. Theoretically, they could jump into the arms of any other FAANG and get the compute and funding they need. However, Microsoft remains a 49% equity holder so they don't have much to offer to this new corporate savior. Microsoft effectively licked the OpenAI cookie once they bought such a large stake in the company.

The only strategic play left to OpenAI is spite. They can choose to burn down Chat GPT which will lead to a scattering of their talent across competitors (although Microsoft will likely just pick up most). This will slow down Microsoft by a couple of months but will be nothing more than a bump on their way to AI dominance.
Media Matter's defense will most likely be filing for dismissal due to improper venue.
"I think the advertising community is now working to save the reputation of a beloved member of our industry who does not share Elon Musk's views and certainly did not know them when she accepted the role of CEO. If she did, she would not have accepted it".

Ha. What this actually is is a veiled threat to try and further sabotage X/Musk.

They're "advising" her to leave and giving her an out before they're "forced to conclude" that she is culpable too.

That is to say, warning her that if she doesn't do what they want, and resign, futher destabilising X, they will make her future career prospects miserable.
> The fact that Altman did so is not a virtue, in my opinion.

And did it so shrewdly he didn't get fired earlier, before he was "too big to fire."
Indeed. The line between an earnest report of bad news/behavior and a less than earnest political play can be extremely unclear.
Why does for profit company A care about non-profit B’s governance ?
It's great - there's just a group on HN that think it's status-y to hate on it.
Given the resources consumed by sickle cell patients, who often require multiple lengthy hospitalizations I bet it would be close to breakeven even at this price
We don't have a lot of experience with taking cells out of the human body, processing them, and then putting them back in. A significant amount of the cost, above and beyond the R&D required to develop the treatment and the cost of actually performing the cure, comes from extreme quality control measures that reduce the chances of infection and other problems. Also, you have to basically run a full, certified lab and house it with people qualified to perform the cure.

Everything about this is bespoke (each treatment is based on the individual cells of a patient) and artisanal (the process requires a highly skilled individual to complete), and run by a guild (only so many people are allowed to run gene therapy trials).

On the other hand, since this is a cure, and probably reduces long-term medical care costs, it could very well actually be "cheaper" in the long run, which incentivizes the government to treat as many people as possible.
Yes, except their obsession is really with getting even more money than the billions they already have, rather than an obsession with AI for advancing humanity, blah blah blah, which they have (not just like) to pretend it is, otherwise no one will respect them, let alone ass-kiss them (which, deep down, is what they really want, hence all the yes-men they surround themselves with).
Well no shit, reporting wrongdoing means getting on the wrong side of someone more powerful than you. Here are things that would make it possible to fix this:

- Unionization
- Strong Federal whistleblower protections

That's about it. Of the two, the most important is unionization, because the company can buy off the feds via the revolving door.
I thought AI ethics was not creating racist bail predictors or health insurance bots that automatically deny claims with a 90% error rate.
For each 25mcg of vitamin D, get 200 mcg of K2, as typically sold by e.g. Thorne. Scale these to the desired vitamin D IU amount.

Aside, 0.5 mg of boron and 250 mg of magnesium. Since you will take magnesium as a salt, not in pure form, it needs to be a bit more.
When someone threatens that they'd rather join Microsoft, that tells.. well, something!
I wish they enforced no small backpacks on the overhead.
The letter reads:

> To the Board of Directors at OpenAI,

> OpenAI is the world’s leading AI company. We, the employees of OpenAI, have developed the best models and pushed the field to new frontiers. Our work on AI safety and governance shapes global norms. The products we built are used by millions of people around the world. Until now, the company we work for and cherish has never been in a stronger position.

> The process through which you terminated Sam Altman and removed Greg Brockman from the board has jeopardized all of this work and undermined our mission and company. Your conduct has made it clear you did not have the competence to oversee OpenAI.

> When we all unexpectedly learned of your decision, the leadership team of OpenAI acted swiftly to stabilize the company. They carefully listened to your concerns and tried to cooperate with you on all grounds. Despite many requests for specific facts for your allegations, you have never provided any written evidence. They also increasingly realized you were not capable of carrying out your duties, and were negotiating in bad faith.

> The leadership team suggested that the most stabilizing path forward - the one that would best serve our mission, company, stakeholders, employees and the public - would be for you to resign and put in place a qualified board that could lead the company forward in stability.

> Leadership worked with you around the clock to find a mutually agreeable outcome. Yet within two days of your initial decision, you again replaced interim CEO Mira Murati against the best interests of the company. You also informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed “would be consistent with the mission.”

> Your actions have made it obvious that you are incapable of overseeing OpenAI. We are unable to work for or with people that lack competence, judgement and care for our mission and employees. We, the undersigned, may choose to resign from OpenAI and join the newly announced Microsoft subsidiary run by Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. Microsoft has assured us that there are positions for all OpenAI employees at this new subsidiary should we choose to join. We will take this step imminently, unless all current board members resign, and the board appoints two new lead independent directors, such as Bret Taylor and Will Hurd, and reinstates Sam Altman and Greg Brockman.

> Why would the board say that OpenAI as a company getting destroyed would be consistent with the goals?

A few things stand out to me, including:

>> You also informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed “would be consistent with the mission.”

Have they really achieved AGI? Or did they observe something concerning?
Very few.
I was implying that Intel would help the victims.

Attestations are quite certainly traceable to the EPID, which is a fuse array -- it's on the die, not the motherboard. In order to attest, the key that encrypts the victim's data would have to be SGX-generated. What kind of RNG do you think it uses? Maybe Dual_EC_DRDBG?
The AI industry seems to exist in order to make it possible for there to be value without labor.
Agree on LLMs being effective for nudging therapy like CBT. I built an obsidian plugin "ChatCBT" with chatgpt 3.5 that has really helpful for pulling me out of episodes I start to spiral in negative thinking. I'm shocked how effective this is with a basic prompt (you can see the prompt in the codebase)

https://github.com/clairefro/obsidian-chat-cbt-plugin
If everyone quits how will they follow the executive order on AI safety?
> junior devs straight out of no-name universities getting jobs easily

I'm a soon-to-be grad from a Top 5 Canadian school with multiple internships (no big names, unfortunately), it's been very difficult for me to get callbacks. In fact my ratio of getting past the first screen is about 2/125.

I would blame your experience more on the market.
There are better strategies for returning random numbers in a range, in terms of the fraction of values that will be rejected.

The code shown here recognizes the problem (the example of generating numbers from 0 to 25 inclusive) and finds a construct that makes things better (the modulo some-power-of-two step), but it's possible to do better and have nearly no rejections.

Here's a really good tutorial on some further steps that can be taken to reduce the quantity of numbers sampled, and make it faster to reject unusable numbers:

https://sts10.github.io/2020/10/10/lemire-neaarly-divisionle...

However, the initial / best example assumes that 128 bit arithmetic types are available and reasonably efficient and I think that may not even be true in typescript(?).
Nice, it's getting closer to Linux gamers with Nvidia GPUs ditching the blob and switching to Nouveau + Mesa.
The Reality of Dying in Cuba
Funny you should say that, as another user on here has the opposite problem:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38357133
> and we have a reason to believe they're representative of Twitter's engagement process.

I'm not even sure they need to argue that, given the article itself doesn't seem to make any direct claims with respect to frequency of occurrence.

Granted, I'm not exactly sure how implication is analyzed in defamation cases, but I don't think whatever implication may be present here is particularly strong, if that.
And what wrongdoing do you think is happening in this scenario?
More accurate headline would be "75% of Software Engineers Who Reported Wrongdoing Claim They Faced Retaliation". I know there are some obvious cases where people were explicitly retaliated against, but I'm also not sure you can just automatically trust someone when they say they didn't get that raise they obviously deserved due to retaliation.

Also, I stared at this sentence for a long time trying to figure it out: "Meanwhile, the Horizon IT Inquiry continues to investigate how faulty accounting software has been blamed for multiple suicides and what has been described as “the most widespread miscarriage of justice in UK history”, with those wrongly imprisoned including a pregnant woman."

Maybe if I'm British that makes more sense but seems like it was just thrown in there to crank up the drama.
Went through Southwest that does the shenanigans of "you don't get a seat", just group number. Everyone ahead of you can choose the seat they like".

It wasn't a great experience. They charge arm and a leg to upgrade.

My best airlines has been Alaska Airlines. If you have the card, 1st bag free, complimentary drinks, seat selection, reasonable prices.
It's a lot less relevant to find some way to "trick" it into displaying ads in situations like this if users wouldn't normally see this, and it could easily be defamatory if you went on to claim that this was therefore routine or a serious problem.

For example imagine that it takes exploits, URL editing, or something similar to do it. The question here really is how much effort you really need to put in to get it to happen.
GPT-4 has gigabytes if not terrabytes of weights, we don't know what happens in there.
I'll give a small suggestion: If you want to reach consensus, don't use pejorative terms.

Here's a history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Viral_licensing

FYI: The Linux kernel is GPL, and is used on most cell phones, routers, and a huge number of other embedded devices. It powers most of the servers on the internet too. It's simply not the case that it has been any hindrance to commercial use. You should reconsider some of your comments. You equate GPL with non-commercial.

I've built software under GPL-style licenses which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars of commercial value.

It limits some modes of commercialization, but this is one of the places your thinking is confused.
juggling? like you're walking around and using the laptop while physically tethered? that's unwieldy for sure!

but how often is that?

any time i've used my phone as a hotspot i was not walking around.

i'm not arguing that nobody ever needs this. i bet some do. also if cost is no obstacle of course it's better to have multiple options. i'm mostly responding to the commenters above that are aghast that there still aren't modems on Macbooks in 2023. i feel it's a very niche feature!
Assuming these employees follow Altman to Microsoft, it seems like Microsoft got a pretty good deal on their $10B investment in OpenAI, most of which they haven't paid yet.
Could you elaborate on why? I'd appreciate more perspective on the matter.
Copernicus and Galileo, yes, but not Kepler.

Kepler didn't just state that planets move on eclipses in general. Here's his three laws [1]:

> 1. The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
> 2. A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
> 3. The square of a planet's orbital period is proportional to the cube of the length of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

The first two laws are extraordinarily specific heliocentric. He did not just state his laws, he backed them with numbers. With tens of thousands of observations tallied over many decades by Tycho Brahe and himself. Whoever claims Kepler did not have proof, has now idea what they are talking about.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_m...
Personally, I feel like the risks of future AI developments are real, but none of the stuff I've seen OpenAI do so far has made ChatGPT actually feel "safer" (in a sense of e.g., preventing unhealthy parasocial relationships with the system, actually being helpful when it comes to ethical conflicts, etc), just more stuck-up and excessively moralizing in a way that feels 100% tuned for bland corporate PR bot usage.
This is alas just a link to /r/cuba on Reddit.
Now do it anonymously without peer pressure.

OpenAI employee: “Yes, lots of peer pressure. Didn’t have a choice. They were calling people in the middle of the night.”

https://twitter.com/seriouslyrick/status/1726767686418338257
Very interesting.. so what makes Mirai so important as a base that they can't just rewrite it of sorts? Is it just a lot of work/boilerplate? Or would it be too time consuming to rewrite some base code so the fingerprint is different?
I was curious what trading might have looked like for OpenAI given all the drama. But since the company is private that makes it hard. Still, prediction markets have been going crazy over the news. Look at how sure people were that Sam wouldn't be coming back as CEO: https://polymarket.com/event/sam-back-as-ceo-of-openai

You can see at the start people were almost 100% sure that he wouldn't be coming back. Now people are only like 30% sure (which to me still seems very high given the current situation. The leverage that Sam has at this point is actually insane. It seems to me that only the board members want Sam gone. The investors, employees, and partners all want him back. Along with the public...)
> Not quite, but so verging on false. Tons of labor with zero knowledge, design, coordination, and skill can yield near zero or zero value. Likewise, there are cases where comparatively less labor can yield outsized value.

I don't understand the quip, there's literally no value without labour. Some labour might have outsized value given inputs and costs, some might yield zero or negative value but all value depends on labour.
Can't wait to see the warez .NFO for the GPT-4 leak
I'm not sure the problem is that he got fired, so much as how he got fired.
"If we didn't show ads with any toxic content, some of our users would never see ads at all! You can't expect us to operate a business like that!"
I think there is already an OpenGL implementation over Nouveau (4.5 level)? So that can exists as is, or Zink can be an option. And remaining 4.6 parts are Vulkan related, so may be it can reach 4.6 without Zink too now.
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/regulation/nyse/sea34.p...

You can read the act yourself, a cryptocurrency (depending on the type) is not a security by the definition provided. Nor does the cryptographic token have an issuer. Quite literally, most crypto has none of what’s defined under the SEC scope.

That said, sure _some_ of the crypto tokens would could count as securities. But even then it’s not clear the exchanges should be the ones being targeted.
By the dozens of employee accounts I’ve read in the last 72 hours they all spoke with affection, and I could not find any detractors. A repeated theme was that he always took the time to listen and he cared and went out of his way. I’ve never worked with a CEO I would describe that way. I don’t know how widespread that is among their employees, or whether they’re mostly pissed at the board for destroying their financial futures, but I’d say this situation and their level of devotion is mind boggling, almost cult like.
While I didn't lose my data, it was an annoying roadblock. Still, not a bad trade off for me at this point. If they keep tightening the screws I may seek out an alternative.
Does openai exist without stack overflow or quora?
SEC alleges in new lawsuit that Kraken failed to register and commingled cus
Because raising prices just because you don't have many left is price gouging. Turns out people don't like being charged more money for no reason than "fuck you, that's why".
That is a "black swan" argument from Musk, et al.

Media Matters set up a test account that showed that it was possible for X's algorithm to pair ads with objectionable content. Given that, how can X claim that "no company has its ads run next to anti semitic content in general" when Media Matters has shown that it is possible? Unless Media Matters "photoshopped" or otherwise manufactured the results--but that isn't what the filing claims. They claim that MM set up a few small accounts following only a few other accounts-fringe content and brand advertisers--and then scrolled through the feed until they found something bad.

The line in the filing that mentions that MM's tests used existing accounts to get by new member restrictions shows the fragile nature of X's arguments. Most real-life users are going to have existing accounts, so it's that experience you want to check, not the highly-constrained environment X puts new subscribers into because they don't trust them yet.

Customers like Apple, Comcast, NBCUniversal and IBM, are sophisticated ad buyers that wouldn't let a single story change their buying strategies without additional information/confirmation from X. If they made the choice to leave X, I'd bet that the Media Matters story was the last straw, not the first one. And it's quite possible that the Media Matters story was the result--rather that the cause--of those companies' decision to leave the platform in the first place.

While X is trying to spin this a Media Matters "did bad things" to convince Apple, IBM, Comcast, and NBCUniversal to stop advertising with X, it is far more likely that the highly volatile and bombastic behavior of X over the last year had far more to do with that result than Media Matters' article did.