skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It was a rhetorical question. The article isn't bunk: you certainly haven't made any more convincing arguments than it did in the counterfactual with your witch hunt on quoting.

Being fined doesn't undo the violation having happened. The original comment wasn't anywhere near as egregious as you've gone on about it, and the worst cases mentioned in the article weren't those contractors' accidents anyways when you've got things like intentionally ignoring dangerous conditions:

> Another worker claims the molding machine also didn’t correctly seal and often spat out molten metal. When a worker presented a solution to fix the issue, they were reprimanded that shutting it down would slow production output.

_

You seem to have more of a chip on your shoulder about defending Elon against an imagined unfairness in treatment than the actual violations that took place.

You'd think eventually Elon defenders would realize how "cool" it is to attack Elon at a given time tends to map pretty cleanly to when he does attack-worthy things. At which point it's not so much "attacking" as it is "speaking on reality as it exists".
I posted this but it's actually a dupe of the following, which the author posted:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38364822
Yes, I read this and I think it leaves a lot to be desired. It isn’t a lot of data over a long period of time.
Always use [[

zsh and ksh have it; in fact I'm pretty sure it originated with ksh in 1988 or earlier.
I agree with the sibling comments, but let me add a few ideas. Let's not even worry about the bureaucracy, safety regulations, etc. for a "Skunk Works" phase. The safety and reliability stuff is even harder, but just the first phase of building anything that flies is really hard.

Aircraft design requires truly careful engineering. There is very little leeway. EVERYTHING is a trade-off. You have huge forces and need very light weight. You add a pound of structure to tolerate the loads, now you have more loads and need more power all of which adds weight, requiring more fuel to make range. All of that requires more structure, which adds weight. To find a workable design that "closes" is hard because there is a very small corner of the design envelope that will even work.

It's also hard because when working at these extremes of what is even possible, there is no room for failure and you can't just add reliability by brute force (adding more power, more metal, etc.). There are fine margins because you can't afford thick ones. And to live with these fine margins, you must have extremely tight manufacturing tolerances and predictable performance.

Aircraft are also a very complicated system. The physics are complicated, the behavior of all the required subsystems is complicated.

So now, you have to do the most precise careful engineering you can think of, across a set of super complicated interdependent systems.

So all of this costs a lot of money, and at some point - for a new design - it has to take off for the first time. At that point, basically nothing can go wrong. You can't exactly fire up gdb, find the bug and recompile. There is no edit-compile-test cycle (well, or it's a very short cycle).

The only thing that seems harder is rocket design. Actually turbo-pump design for the engines for the rockets.
People are probably thinking data more complex than normal distributions (though I'm also not sure if GPT-4 is the best method for that)
>That money transmitter law is bullshit.

That's what he was saying. And being under threat of prison doesn't sound fun, so he did the right thing to fight it.

Do you have any expert knowledge on the law?
$1-5

I'd gladly pay a few bucks extra for a drive that doesn't delete my data when the power fails
I find it much easier to think of everything in unsigned terms. If I want 8bit -5, I really want 256-5=251. I've done plenty of that in my time but I don't think I've once consciously inverted bits and added 1.
I agree that in and of itself it's not enough to be alarmed. Also i have to say i don't really know what grade school mathematics means here(multiplication? Proving triangles are congruent?). But I think the question is, whether the breakthrough is an algorithmic change in reasoning. If it is, then it could challenge all 4 of your limitations. Again this article is low on details so really we are arguing over our best guesses. But I wouldn't be so confident that an improvement on simple math problems due to algorithms can have huge implications.

Also, do you remember what go players said when they beat Fan Hui? Change can come quick
What do you think wgpu is if not a graphics API?
Your assertion seems at odds with the account of the unique stacking problem researchers gave to GPT-4[1]

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-open-ai-balancing-ta...
Personal experience has been great with Dell 27 4K UHD Monitor - S2721QS [0]. Similar workload to you although I am not a developer .
Cost about 300 AUD. There's a USB-C one , too for about 700 SGD [1]

[0]https://www.dell.com/en-au/shop/dell-27-4k-uhd-monitor-s2721...

[1]https://www.dell.com/en-au/shop/dell-ultrasharp-27-4k-usb-c-...
Did you make a framework for the agents so they could delegate problems to an appropriate model, query a dataset, etc, or was it just turtles all the way down on GPT4?

My hunch is that one big LLM isn't the answer, and we need specialization much like the brain has specialized regions for vision, language, spatial awareness, and so on.
There are thousands of structures and substances in a human head besides neurons, at all sorts of commingling and overlapping scales, and the neurons in those heads behave much differently and with tremendously more complexity than the metaphorical ones in a neural network.

And in a human, all those structures and substances, along with the tens of thousands more throughout the rest of the body, are collectively readied with millions of years of "pretraining" before processing a continuous, constant, unceasing mulitmodal training experience for years.

LLM's and related systems are awesome and an amazing innovation that's going to impact a lot of our experiences over the next decades. But they're not even the same galaxy as almost any living system yet. That they look like they're in the neighborhood is because you're looking at them through a very narrow, very zoomed telescope.
That's the sort of yak-shaving I will never do. I'd rather just not use such a primitive unix and/or be in a job where one of pdksh/ksh/zsh/bash is not available at all.
Back-tracking is a very nearly solved problem in the context of Prolog-like languages or mathematical theorem provers (as you probably well know). There are many ways you could integrate an LLM-like system into a tactic-based theorem prover without having to restart from the beginning for each alternative. Simply checkpointing and backtracking to a checkpoint would naively improve upon your described Monte Carlo algorithm. More likely I assume they are using RL to unwind state backwards and update based on the negative result, which would be significantly more complicated but also much more powerful (essentially it would one-shot learn from each failure).

That's just what I came up with after thinking on it for 2 minutes. I'm sure they have even better ideas.
I'd say the windows experience is maybe more familiar, but not better. As another commenter said, people are just used to computers being crappy the windows way. And even that familiarity may not be all that great with all the things moving around in windows 11.

As another commenter has said, window management is a shitshow, and I don't even mean "missing X feature I love from this other WM". Virtual desktops are broken. You have UAC windows sometimes going to the front, sometimes staying in the back. Sometimes they're at the front covering your old window but they don't have focus, even though the caret is blinking. You get windows maximizing behind the taskbar (Teams). Window management is handed-off to applications, so a broken application will poison the rest of the window management.

> Windows is the only OS that can handle different fractional scaling factors properly for multiple displays

I don't know what you mean by "properly", likely not the same thing as I do.

That it kinda sorta works as in "can turn it on"? But even basic OS things are borked. Have you tried opening the start menu after switching scaling factors?

My use case: I have a laptop running at 100%, and an external monitor running at 150%. If I boot it up this way, the start menu looks fine. If I plug or unplug the external screen while running, the start menu breaks. But here's the kicker, which shows the quality engineering: pressing the start button shows an OK menu. Start typing looking for something, and it becomes blurry! This is under windows 11 with all the latest updates.

Also, Wayland on Linux supports this, too. I don't use Wayland, but I understand that whatever problems there are, as in "not all apps are compatible" is the same problem with windows: the app has to cooperate. Try opening some configuration panels in Windows on a 200% screen, and you better have some good glasses on hand.
We need to stop this infinite rights mentality. Why should continued employment be guaranteed for any jobs? That’s really not how we got to where we are today, quite the opposite actually. If it ok with people I’d like to seen humans solve big problems and go to the stars and that’s going to take AGI and a bunch of technological progress and if that results in unemployment, even for us “elite” coders, then so be it. Central planning and collectivism has such a bad track record, why would we turn to it now at such a critical moment? Let’s have lots of AGIs and all competing. Hey anyone at OAI that know whatever Q* trick there might be, leak it! Get it to open source and let’s build 20 AI companies doing everything imaginable. wtf everyone why so scared?
Your son is a goddamn genius.
Shame this hasn't got more coverage here on HN. A phenomenal effort.
I also have a Steam Deck and still prefer buying games from GOG, when possible. Heroic Launcher is a nice GUI that let's you easily install GOG+Epic store games, sets up the proton stuff and gives you the option to add the games to Steam as non-Steam games.
Curated list of Black Friday deals for Developers and Designers 2023
To be honest, I feel pretty insecure about bitwise operations. I was really psyched for the primer link, but it 404ed :(
I really like how you call out that you're doing some hackery with pseudo-elements for clarity in the visuals, and then show us the code if we want to! I wish more thing were transparent like this
Yeah but then capitalism breaks down because nobody is earning wages. One of the things capitalism is good at is providing (meaningless) employment to people because most wouldn’t know what to do with their days if given the free time back. This will only continue.
Literally changes throughout the day from sort of working to insulting me by doing the opposite ("turn on the kitchen lights" -> all lights in the house turn off)
That's like using a horse instead of a mule. Just not worth it. Move away from the whole equine world and use a real programming language.
The first reason is because GPT-4 is censored for many types of tasks/topics.
The potential to have a generation of dumb kids.

Year 2100:

Kids will stop to learn maths and logic, because they understand it has become useless in practice to learn such skills, as they can ask a computer to solve their problem.

A stupid generation, but one that can be very easily manipulated and exploited by those who have power.
Yes, it is true that there are certain restrictive covenants which can apply to real property.

However, those covenants, deed restrictions, etc., etc., are themselves limited and governed by both local/state and federal law, to the Constitutional level in the US (e.g., restrictive covenants based on gender, race, and/or religion are utterly prohibited and unenforceable).

Real estate transactions are also exceptional among those being discussed here in that they almost universally involve multiple lawyers for multiple parties (buyer, seller, lender, buyers' and sellers' estate agents, possibly individual representatives for individuals buying a house together in some cases, e.g., family law / marital disposition of property concerns). Which is to say that this is a very high-overhead and complex transaction.

Which is precisely the opposite of what makes, in general, retail commerce possible.

When I go into a shop and purchase an apple, or a prepared meal, or a set of dishes or cookware, or a toaster, or a magazine or book ... I select product, pay (via cash, debit, or credit), and the transaction is closed, with certain exceptions for warranties and the like, though those have limited applicability for most of the items mentioned.

There are also distinctions in corporate and government purchasing, of both goods and services, where there is often (though not always) a substantial administrative overhead involving contracts and committments, though the two parties are typically operating as equals to at least a first approximation.[1]

And yes, there are other exceptions such as contracts of adhesion (you may find these on travel fares, parking services, and the like), though these both 1) are uniform for all transactions between a given vendor and their customers and 2) are very frequently also subject to strong regulation and limitations as to terms and variability.

But to state that there are no transactions in which ownership rights are near-total and all-but-universally uniform is utterly misleading. To all practical intents, there are purchases in which full rights in at least the material object do in fact manifest.

________________________________

Notes:

1. There is of course a range. National-level governments are often the more powerful party in purchase arrangements, whilst local (city, county, and often even state- or provincial-level governmental units) may be the inferior party. But both typically have at least some transactional support for tenders, and institutional expertise, not found in general retail transactions.
To be clear, I am saying it was probably deliberate but only the decision of the local forces rather than from up on high.
interesting take. another milestone will be achieved when GAIA defeated. who will be the first? :)
> but thinking it's an existential risk is still premature

Even ignoring what the technology can do, it feels me with dread that we basically have IMHO some of the worst possible people leading the charge - people who are greedy, slimy, and ruthless; who only care about money. Such a bad timeline we are in.
To continue on this. LLMs are actually really good at asking questions even about cutting edge research. Often, I believe, convincing the listener that it understands more than it goes
Oftentimes, the constraints around what you have to do dictate what language(s) you can use. So you do what you can with them and you try to get the best out of them. https://jmmv.dev/2023/11/why-do-i-know-shell-and-how-can-you...
So you can only use the feature when plugged in? That's a limitation for a mobile device that pretty much renders it totally useless.

Hey Google! Please do this thing for me.

I'm sorry Dave, but I can't do that. You must be plugged in and connected to WiFi.

Hey Google! I'm at my kids sportsball event, and that's not really conducive.

I'm sorry Dave, I didn't get that.

Besides, we're talking about 3 chip designs and still not there for on device processing at the same levels as competitor(s). So just punt and send it to the cloud.
According to this article Sam has been telling the board that this new advance is not AGI and not anything to worry about (so they can keep selling it to MSFT), then the researchers involved went behind Sam's back and reported to the board directly, claiming that they'd created something that could-maybe-be AGI and it needs to be locked down.

That's the claim at least.
Apple uses their own SoC with a Qualcomm modem so I don't see why Google couldn't do the same. It would probably cost more than Snapdragon though.
> Bash is "real language" if you treat it as such. Yes, there are plenty of spaghetti scripts out there, riddled with global variables and full of side-effects, but if you write shell in a principled manner, you can solve some pretty big problems with ease, and you can write maintainable code.

Even carefully written bash code tends to be much less maintainable than code in better languages. It's just badly designed on multiple levels, like the famous post about PHP. Yes, if you're really careful you can write decent code in Malbolge - but why would you?

> I wouldn't start new projects in shell, of course, but one area in which I think the shell shines is in writing integration tests for tools. More on this in a recent post I wrote: https://jmmv.dev/2023/10/unit-testing-with-shtk.html

The fact that you've written something that compiles to shell scripts rather than writing shell scripts rather undermines your claim that shell is a decent language. Integration tests of tools are important, but I'd still find e.g. TCL a much better way to write them.
The working class in England (working in my factory. To fund Marx’s life.)
There’s always room for a runner-up. What you really don’t want to be in is 3rd place.
Untitled Collection – Design Information
Recursive self-improvement.
They could process stuff locally and also send data to the cloud.
Understandably, the board may be concerned about the potential consequences of AI-powered superhuman persuasion, particularly during an election cycle. Combining transformers with other approaches has led to recent breakthroughs, which could have significant implications.
I find going to conferences helpful. I went to a few and found potential customers and more importantly other businesses that became new sales channels.

Depending on your personality you may or may not want to setup a booth. I’m a technical founder and not comfortable approaching people, so having a booth and people wanting to find out more about my SaaS helped establish new relationships and sales.
The M3 does amazing in many perf, but virtualization of x86 like the old intel cpu units is SOL performance wise. Other options are also technically illegal to deploy (win11 ARM emulation of x86 is patchy/grey-area given licenses) in commercial settings. Note, 86box for M3/ARM is a lifesaver for many (backup/dump hardware configuration), and just reminded me to donate something nice to their coffee fund. =)

The FOSS tool ports are often on ARM, but a lot of small/mid sized projects just don't bother to keep up with Apples evolving whimsical ecosystem. Feels like we are getting haunted by PowerPC. =)
No. This hasn't been necessary for decades.
What I liked about solaris--and illumos based OS's--is the time slider built in to the file manager. Would live to see something like that in freebsd and/or linux
Jasper Morrison: Super Normal
from one perspective we already have fully autonomous cars, it's just the making them safe for humans and fitting them into a strict legal framework for their behavior that needs finishing before they're released to the general public (comma.ai being a publicly available exception)
I've tested GPT-4 on this and it can be induced to give up on certain lines of argument after recognising they aren't leading anywhere and to try something else. But it would require thousands (I'm really under exaggerating here) of restarts to get through even fairly simple problems that professional mathematicians solve routinely.

Currently the context length isn't even long enough for it to remember what problem it was solving. And I've tried to come up with a bunch of ways around this. They all fail for one reason or another. LLMs are really a long, long way off managing this efficiently in my opinion.
https://training.talkpython.fm/courses/all

From the same guy — Michael Kennedy of TalkPythonToMe podcast fame (though I think the courses came first). I’ve found his courses to be no-nonsense and good. The pacing and the teaching style aligns with how I learn.

There’s no subscription. Just buy a course and it’s yours. There are free ones too so you can check some
Out.
I flip houses on the side. I can tell you, it's definitely a cultural thing.

I've given my guys PPE, only to come back an hour later, respirator off, working with paint, insulation, you name it. They only put it on "when the boss is around" and sometimes not even then.
That it's the same thing may be more familiar in base 10: for example with 3-digit numbers, the 10's complement of (say) 428 is 1000-428 = 572, and you get the same result if you "invert" each digit (subtract from 9) and add 1: 571 + 1 = 572. This is just because
(999-x)+1 = 1000-x.
Thank you for providing this.

Bing Chat runs on GPT-4, however [1]. And Bing gets this wrong in all 3 of its modes (Creative, Balanced, and Precise) as of time of writing.

Given this experiment and similar others presented around here, it stands to reason that GPTs(**1) often identify(**2) the problem as a "wolf, goat, and cabbage" problem and then merely guess which node of the problem is the middle node (inner node of the "danger to" graph), yielding a 1/3 chance of getting it right by pure luck, resulting in diverse reports here.

(**2) That does not always yield an adequate response beyond the mere permutation of nodes, however. I've been getting the following variants for step 1. from Bing in Precise in response to marginally slightly different rewordings of the same:

- The general escorts the ambassador of Costaguana through the tunnel first. This leaves the ambassador of Atlantis and the ambassador of Buranda in the bunker, but they are not alone because the general is still there.

- The general escorts the ambassador of Costaguana through the tunnel first. This leaves the ambassador of Atlantis and the ambassador of Buranda in the bunker, but they are not alone because they have each other.

and so on.

(**1) I also tried Bard and Llama 2 with even more disastrous results full of nonsense of (**2) kind. The earlier posted response of ChatGPT-3.5 is also prime with these as well.

Re

> By the way, as soon as these systems are able to check their reasoning (i don't think it'll be a huge leap) it's enough to solve reasoning problems with probability >0.1% for example. Because you can just have it do rollouts in its head until it's correct [2]

Mistakes of type (**2) don't seem to be fitting the target of the cyclic refinement you are proposing, as far as I can understand it. These errors aren't getting the logic wrong, but completely butcher the basic relationships of actors, like what it means to be alone, or spatial relationships between the actors and their environment.

[1] https://blogs.bing.com/search/march_2023/Confirmed-the-new-B...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38389222
Exclused? That doesn’t appear to be a word in the English language.
Is there a time period in the past you would have preferred to live instead and why?
But, isn't AlphaGo a solution to kind of specific mathematical problem? And that it has passed with flying colors?

What I mean is, yes, neural networks are stochastic and that seems to be why they're bad at logic; on the other hand it' not exactly hallucinating a game of Go, and that seems different to how neural networks are prone to hallucination and confabulation on natural language or X-ray imaging.
And that just begs the question of why... if we are talking about the incredibly-contemptible cop-out of "the average consumer" than this 100 megapixels is literally for the marketing bulletpoint. 25 megapixels is more than enough for those clowns.

Again, we can figure out better optics and processing without having to computationally invent details that didn't exist.

We are seeing the same thing happen with DLSS, new games are coming out with frankly unacceptable performance and the cop-out is "just use DLSS"
Are you saying an LLM can't come to the right conclusion and give an explanation for "what is the absolute value of 2i + 2"?