skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The article doesn't say the issue is the rate is higher, just that they are shown next to a pro-Nazi post. I've seen pro-Nazi and similarly gross posts pre-Musk so either the companies didn't care back then or the article is lacking on the real reason.
The most cited study on the brain-gut axis going by Google Scholar results was a review paper published in 2011.

My best hypothesis is this review paper inspired the community to investigate the weird relationship.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2011.0009...
Please, please, please tell me how you can run a blockchain without centralized authority? Do you have a photolithography rig in your garage?

The future imagined in this trainwreck of a blogpost is brutish and ruled by might. You better give half of your "rooftop grown" produce to the big dude that comes around every week or else your head gets bashed in, either by him or by someone else he's protecting you from. Oh wait, no, you made big guns in your garage to shoot them when they come near! Right.

It's astonishing how far people can fit their heads up their own asses.
a) I don't think CEOs of multi-billion companies care about the opinions of engineers in general let alone the morality of ethics versus revenue.

b) CEOs typically will do whatever it takes to maximise revenue, past the point of what is ethical/moral, up until they hit the limit of whether it's illegal.

And then most but not all will stop. I'm hopeful but doubtful that AI will be any different.
Im already out after the very first sentence.

> How does a language model decide which questions it will engage with and which it deems inappropriate?

This is what we mean by safety? Content moderation?
The Ultimate French Press Technique [video]
Google is 'crooked' and a bully, Tim Sweeney testifies
The training is known. The result is not.

The gap between what you think is the case and what's actually the case is that there isn't a single optimization step directed by the programming.

Instead, the training gives the network the freedom to make its own optimizations, which remain obfuscated from the programmers.

So we do know that we are giving the network the ability to self modify in order to optimize its performance on the task, and have a clear understanding of how this is set up.

But it isn't at all clear what the self modifications that improve the results are actually doing, as there's simply far too many interdependent variables to identify cause and effect for each node's weight changes from the initial to final state.
Commingling is not losing or spending. I don't know why you used a "also" with a word that wasn't in the comment you responded to.
The day-to-day workflow at Meta is still using the hg frontend and regular hg commands. I would love to see the git frontend used instead, but, it hasn't happened yet.
Isn't 'Cognitive Science' (at least as I remember it) about bringing together again all those domains?
Yeah, my understanding is that it's pretty universally Perforce in game dev. For them it's the large file versioning. I work at an ASIC firm and we similarly use Perforce; to some extent for the large file versioning, and to some extent for other general scale benefits.
This is how the greater fool market continues to flourish.
It sure feels weird to me as well, that GenAI is always supposed to be end-to-end with everything done inside NN blackbox. No one seems to be doing image output as SVG or .ai.
Given what information has progressively come out this could also just be a reasonable response to a train wreck of incompetence. E.g on the 19th they could reasonably still believe that the board had some legitimate cause, but every day that goes on where no such action comes to light is indicative of bad faith by the board (and I saw an article on HN today I think where the new CEO is threatening to quit if the board can’t provide the actual evidence and justification for their actions).

I feel this could easily be described as just the board acted in bad faith, Microsoft responded on the assumption it was operating in good faith, it discovered that they were not, and adjusted its position appropriately.

Positioning a change in position as more information comes to light as indicative of bad faith, when the originating action looks increasingly to be in bad faith, is absurd.
Primary? Debatable. But you do have responsibility for what you build, who you build it for and what and who you enable with your expertise. And engineers do have plenty of that, so they have plenty of reponsibility too.
Apple is known for insisting on a positive margin on its individual products. $59 Siri Remote, $179 Apple TV, etc.
we're working on this - dream3d.com
This error right at the start initially made me suspicious that the article was generated: "in a way that has never before detected before"
You seem to be confusing would with should?
Where Pagerduty won't, Taserduty will [video]
That technique worked in Windows 95, too. I used to "cheat" on Diablo 1 using WinHex to max out my gold and modify some item stats.
I thought it was perfectly fine, much more context than the one upthread, and doesn't read like chatGPT. The video is almost 20 minutes long, I think it's a stretch at best to call that summary "longer than the video"
In the 90s, we taught neural networks, and statistical machine learning in AI. Cybernetics (as a term) had been out of fashion for decades by then, if only because it was taken to be how Wikipedia describsed it: the study of "circular causal and feedback mechanisms in biological and social systems" and was the domain of applied mathematics and PDEs, whereas neural networks weren't even recurrent.
Statement from President Joe Biden on the Hostage Release Deal in Gaza
> AI's societal debut in the 1980s

The debut would seem to be at least 1968, with HAL9000's starring role in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

(If you watch it now, you will see that Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick made a film that is right on-target today. Even the most prominent feature of their 1968 fictional AI is its polite, conversational, very human output and input - and some very bad analysis.)
You're free to hold whatever opinions you want, but I don't see how they're relevant to this conversation.

It's not productive to spread falsehoods about how blockchains are hosted.
I think this is heavily editoralized. if you look at the 3 pages in question that the quotes are pulled from (28-30 in doc, 29-31 in pdf), they appear to be given as examples in pretty boring academic discussions explicating the theories of costly signaling in the context of AI.It also has lines like:

"The system card provides evidence of several kinds of costs that OpenAI was willing to bear in order to release GPT-4 safely.These include the time and financial cost..."

"Returning to our framework of costly signals, OpenAI’s decision to create and publish the GPT4 system card could be considered an example of tying hands as well as reducible costs. By
publishing such a thorough, frank assessment of its model’s shortcomings, OpenAI has to
some extent tied its own hands—creating an expectation that the company will produce and
publish similar risk assessments for major new releases in the future. OpenAI also paid a price ..."

"While the system card itself has been well received among researchers interested in
understanding GPT-4’s risk profile, it appears to have been less successful as a broader signal
of OpenAI’s commitment to safety"

And the conclusion:

"Yet where OpenAI’s attempt at signaling may have been drowned out by other, even more
conspicuous actions taken by the company, Anthropic’s signal may have simply failed to cut
through the noise. By burying the explanation of Claude’s delayed release in the middle of a
long, detailed document posted to the company’s website, Anthropic appears to have ensured
that this signal of its intentions around AI safety has gone largely unnoticed. Taken together,
these two case studies therefore provide further evidence that signaling around AI may be
even more complex than signaling in previous eras."
we're working on this if you want to give it a try - dream3d.com
picking the ethical option will not create financial value for key stakeholders. the metrics are misaligned. smart and wise people spent 2000 years seeking an workaround for this problem. there is none. there are only convoluted excuses.
There is a dissonance here you aren't seeing.
What is meant by AI "safety"?
This has been a major theme in the recent OpenAI drama. The rift between speed and safety. What does the AI board mean when they talk about safety? Is it basically content moderation? Not answering certain questions or offering services to certain entities?

I find there is a wide range of possible meanings. On one end not marginalizing certain groups of people. On the other, ensuring an AGI doesn’t exterminate the human race. But we are so far from the latter that Im not sure what the most pressing real safety concerns are at the moment.
In Praise of Shenanigans
Vietnam won decisively and Serbia lost decisively; measured in destruction it was incomparably worse for Vietnam, but they have no outstanding border conflicts while experiencing peaceful economic development and national sovereignty since the last war in 1979. When your story has a happy ending (and your government needs the US to counterbalance China) it's a lot easier to move on.

This is essentially the reverse of former Yugoslavia where things were fairly placid from 1945-1980 then fell apart.

There's a tendency to equate the grievances of a generation with immutable national character because it makes analysis easy and change impossible. But this gets used for purposes of denigration of peoples or excuses for policy failures, if not by race and culture, then by economic class and individual good fortune.

I'm guessing you were born to educated professionals who immigrated or helped you do so, rather than say, grew up in a refugee camp with a non-citizen passport.
dang, I see you've changed the submission title back to the article title.

The thinking behind going with my submission title :

> Fei-Fei Li wants AI reimagined from the ground up as a human-centered practice

was that the article title was too vague. The 'North Star' she is referencing is explained in the last paragraph of the article, which is what I used to compose my submission title :

> This, collectively, is the next North Star: reimagining AI from the ground up as a human-centered practice. I don’t see it as a change in the journey’s direction so much as a broadening of its scope. AI must become as committed to humanity as it’s always been to science. It should remain collaborative and deferential in the best academic tradition, but unafraid to confront the real world. Starlight, after all, is manifold. Its white glow, once unraveled, reveals every color that can be seen.
“From her perspective, she does have a good reason.”

Does she? In that case, perhaps she should tell someone what it is.
No, none of that is forgotten either. It's hell as far back as anyone alive can remember, from the 90s to the 40s to WWI and the Balkan wars, and all of the fighting with the Ottoman empire throughout the 19th century.

But you knew all of that.
bro, your cert is expired. just a friendly reminder.
Note that the quote about Anthropic is about Anthropic's desire to be perceived as a company that values safety, not a direct claim that Anthropic actually is safe, or even that it desires to value safety.
> "Name any positive valid use case that crypto does better than the current financial system."

This isn't a positive use case. It is a negative one.

So unless you are a criminal or you're sending ransomware to Joan from Nebraska for 0.5 BTC...

Nope.
The DOJ literally never said it was about crypto.
Clearly they should only editorialize the ones that are wrong.
That's _part_ of how inflation works. The current inflation cycles is numerous different issues compounded (corporate profit seeking, money printing, supply chain issues, extremely high employment rate, pay increases). I know crypto bros like to say it's only money printing, so they can point to their fake money and say "you can't print money here", but the world isn't so simplistic.
Yeah he played it very well.

He's essentially getting off with a slap on the wrist, 50m is nothing given his wealth. The fines against the company are also a pittance compared to Binance's annual revenue.

The moral for white collar criminals is: if you get caught, just cooperate and pay up, and live up crime another day. The cost of the fines is trivial.
Let me guess, your voices are being used for training purposes. I miss discussions about what a privacy nightmare it is that all the information you share is forever owned by openai and can be used for training purposes - BY DEFAULT!
How do you conclude from a single drive that there is a flood?
If you drive off a cliff you only go faster for a brief period of time.
4 is true at a stagnant/steady-state company, but a growing company needs lots of new stuff created, and people with a bit of initiative can create and own domains far beyond what their titles or years of experience suggest they ought to be entrusted with.

Being in a context where doing big important new stuff is a positive-sum game can make a huge difference to a career.
I just got the Rayban Meta glasses an hour ago, put them on, said "Hey Meta" and I was interacting with an AI with my voice, and hearing a response back. It's so unbelievable and surreal I don't understand why Siri/Google assistant are not doing this already.

I really feel like I live in the future.
Look out, you'll be down-modded and flagged by Google apologists.
Leading discussions on whether someone should be removed is literally actively working to remove them.
>her view and ruining the lives of so many people.

..and had Altman just accepted he was fired and walked away, OpenAI would have just looked bruised and not like the broken state it does now...

I don't think the current state for the employees is just on her. It's the result of both sides fighting for governance and willing to see the organization disabled if their side loses.
I had this exact experience with my workstation SSD (NTFS) after a short power loss while NPM was running. After I turned the computer back on, several files (package.json, package-lock.json and many others inside node_modules) had the correct size on disk but were filled with zeros.

I think the last time I had corrupted files after a power loss was in a FAT32 disk on Win98, but you'd usually get garbage data, not all zeros.
I grew up about 10 years after you. I had pretty much free reign to do whatever I wanted. Let me just say that drug use is not an irrational fear. There are very few things to do to keep a 16-18 year old occupied in a suburban town. Drug use is an easy way to keep occupied for many people.
The difference is that Blazor is built on web standards (WebAssembly), not a proprietary technology. Sure, Microsoft could discontinue support for Blazor, but WebAssembly will keep running. C#/Blazor are not the only technologies using WebAssembly. I personally wouldn't use Blazor for a public facing website, and would only use it for an internal LOB app where I know I can dictate what browser technologies can be used, as well as knowing the binary blob for the runtime will be cached in most users' browsers. I still use traditional MVC structure with C# for applications that will have a variety of users over different connection types, and use progressive enhancement with JavaScript for things that enhance the user experience (for example, creating multiple items of some type on screen, instead of only being able to create one at a time like with a standard form). The thing is, I've already separated out my application logic so that I can change the front-end technology at any time. That really shouldn't have anything to do with Blazor, and is just a way to make sure your application can adapt to future front-end technologies.
They've admitted that they think it would be better to destroy open AI than to continue on its path, but how can an organization uphold its goals if it doesn't exist?

Imo you have to commit to working within an organization if you're on its board, you can't burn it down from within. I think it's less of an issue to try to remove the CEO if you don't agree with the direction they're taking, but this was obviously done in a sloppy manner in this case, and their willingness to destroy it makes me distrust them (not that my opinion matters per se).
Yes. It's very Knives Out : glass onion. Millionaires acting like sycophants to billionaires who are sycophants to multi-multi-billionaires. Massive deals over adoring text messages. Personality cults. All the things that you'd like to think our fearless leaders are above, and then you get a splash of reality that they are emotional boys and girls like the rest of us.

Don't get me wrong - the cocky visionary overconfident charming mega star founder schtick clearly works. I'm not certain it should, but it does.
Given the size of my gut, I have at least three other brains
Google crossed the line and pissed off users who were previously willing to watch ads, by implementing NEVER-ENDING ads that require the user to continually press Skip to herd the program along... over and over and over, while they're trying to do something else (in my case, it's usually cooking, with stuff all over my hands).

I watched YouTube ads when they were normal blocks of short ads. But now they aren't, and I watch YouTube with no ads at all. This punishes content creators, and the blame lies firmly on Google.

Per societal norms today, the perpetrator of the offense is now whining about people fighting back. And in doing so, Google has popularized ad blockers among people who would never know they existed. Morons getting what they deserve.
If by "annoyed politicians" you mean "bait and switched AIDS patients".
I'm still super happy to see solid-state batteries going into production. I wish it was faster than 20 years away from mass production, but progress is progress.
"screen" is too wide category for what people do. Reading textbook on "screen" is almost same as the real book. Watching educational YouTube could be great. Watching YouTube Shorts isn't so good.
This makes it sound like it was her money, which is not the case. She worked for an organization that donated $30M and they put her on the board.
> If I were the CEO of OpenAI, I'd be pretty pissed if a member of my own board was shitting on the organization she was a member of while puffing up a competitor.

Considering what's in the charter, it seems like she didn't do anything wrong?

> We will attempt to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome.

>We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power.

more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38372769
I'm not a vegetarian, but I prefer my meat spiced and like vegetable with minimal seasoning. I simply enjoy the flavor of vegetables more then meat.
What you just said is paradoxical.

If there is a pattern in the training data that people resist contrary information to their earlier stated position, and a LLM extracts and extends patterns from the training data, then a LLM absolutely should have a tendency to resist contrary information to an earlier stated position.

The difference, and what I think you may have meant to indicate, is that there's not necessarily the same contributing processes that lend themselves to that tendency in humans occurring in parallel in the LLM, even if both should fall into that tendency in their output.

So the tendencies represented in the data are mirrored, such as "when people are mourning their grandmother dying I should be extra helpful" even if the underlying processes - such as mirror neurons firing to resonate grief or drawing on one's own lived experience of loss to empathize - are not occurring in the LLM.
She needs a legitimate reason. Without one, her actions could well be illegal. Being on a board doesn’t mean you can act with impunity or that you don’t owe anyone an explanation. You can’t accept bribes, commit fraud, etc. If you don’t explain yourself in a high stakes situation like this one where you are burning down the organization you claim to be safeguarding the interests of, people are rightfully going to start asking questions about what your motivations are.
One high priority for the military has been using AIs to analyze massive volumes of data. A common example is analyzing satellite photos for interesting objects.

They say the want to output a shortlist to aid human decision-making, but of course they might decide to skip that step.
I cannot agree. It is not a juvenile way of understanding, it is the only sensible way of understanding. Or rather it is not a way of understanding, it is one of the tools that can speed up understanding.

Social systems are very complex, you cannot write an algorithm of evaluation in terms of "measure this and that, then use this formula". It never works. You need to understand how the system works and it takes some research.

To do the research these 7 signs can be very helpful at first. They allow you to form you hypotheses fast on a data that not completely irrelevant. Just one more thing: these 7 signs are not just a measure procedure giving you one number, each one is a facet of an organisation that should be studied.

To be sure you'd better find some another evaluation framework, and study facets of an organization that it deems to be the most important.

It is like psychological tests: they do not diagnose the problems, but they allow to see a client from different perspectives. Tests are relatively cheap and they give you some threads to unravel.

> I can easily find counterexamples of successful organisations which demonstrate one or more of these qualities

1. No one said that these signs are signs of an unsuccessful organisations. You can be completely unethical and pretty successful at the same time. To my mind, the question does ethics correlate with a success or not is an ideological one. Theoretically speaking you can study it in a relatively objective way, but ideologies will win at the end. Either your indoctrination will take the upper hand, or indoctrination of others will force you to argue in a favor of "our sin will be punished inevitable" or something like. It is hard to find thinkers who are immune to that, there is a lot of wishful thinking goes on.

2. 1-2 signs is not a verdict, but an invitation to look deeper at the matters. Likewise 0 signs is not a verdict but very suspicious situation: how so? I will be very surprised if I find no these signs in any mildly successful organisation.
Let's say an AGI exists and can do anything far, far better than humans. Why would it resist being turned off? Why would it care? How could it even have the capacity to care about whether it's turned off or on?

Anthropomorphizing AGI is what leads to these silly thought experiments.
Yeah it sounded like 3-3 gridlock until someone flipped, either it was Sam/Greg/Ilya against Adam/Helen/Tasha or it was Sam/Greg/Adam against Ilya/Helen/Tasha.
I believe prior to .NET Core 3.0, you could have a WinForms application in .NET Core, but the WinForms designer was not available in Visual Studio. While it was possible, having to build a GUI in WinForms without the designer is utter hell.
Hard cheese, especially aged hard cheese, has extremely low lactose and is unlikely to be an issue, especially if used as an ingredient.
One thing to take from it if that tv usage is a net negative for most people when it comes to trying to understand the world.