skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It seems ironic that the research paper that started it all [0] deals with "costly signals":

> Costly signals are statements or actions for which the sender will pay a price —political, reputational, or monetary—if they back down or fail to make good on their initial promise or threat

Firing Sam Altman and hiring him back two days later was a perfect example of a costly signal, as it cost all involved their board positions.

There's an element of farce in all of this, that would make for an outstanding Silicon Valley episode; but the fact that Sam Altman can now enjoy unchecked power as leader of OpenAI is worrying and no laughing matter.

[0] https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/decoding-intentions/
Well, if it aligned with their goals, sure I think.

Let's make the situation a little different. Could MSF pay a private surgery with investors to perform reconstruction for someone?

Could they pay the surgery to perform some amount of work they deem aligns with their charter?

Could they invest in the surgery under the condition that they have some control over the practices there? (Edit - e.g. perform Y surgeries, only perform from a set of reconstructive ones, patients need to be approved as in need by a board, etc)

Raising private investment allows a non profit to shift cost and risk to other entities.

The problem really only comes when the structure doesn't align with the intended goals - which is something distinct to the structure, just something non profits can do.
Excellent but not FANAANG astronomical.
> Google has a system in place to gate that file with an ad view(s). You are circumventing that system.

No, Google has a system in place to serve the video with ads. Google does not, and cannot, control what I do on my computer. Google could control what I can download, e.g. through authorization mechanisms for enforcing subscription, but they don't. They run a web server which serves content for free, and they would like me to play ads on my computer before playing the content. But what they would like is completely irrelevant to the discussion - their wishes aren't moral laws.

> Please, you cannot be this dense.

Right back at you.
If you say you can use fancy maths to make tanks roll faster off the assembly lines, or guide an ICBM towards Moscow/Washington, then the regime will happily support you. But if you get in your head that you can apply the same fancy math to run the economy, the regime will object - obviously - and label you as too communist/not communist enough, and persecute you/ship you off to a gulag.
You’ll be prosperous if you find phosphorous phosphorus in the Bosporus.
Nukes and meteorites have very few components that are hard to predict. One goes bang almost entirely on command and the other follows Newton's laws of motion. Neither actively tries to effect any change in the world, so the risk is only "can we spot a meteorite early enough". Once we do, it doesn't try to evade us or take another shot at goal. A better example might be covid, which was very mildly more unpredictable than a meteor, and changed its code very slowly in a purely random fashion, and we had many historical examples of how to combat.
No surprise that Musk co-founded OpenAI then.

Seems to be pretty much his MO across the board.
For what it's worth Cybernetics did try to have a second life here in Eastern Europe going into the '70s and even past that, but the US/Silicon Valley pull was too powerful and by the '90s all of that had been left in the past (the communist governments here falling at the end of the '80s didn't help, of course).

I'm from Bucharest myself, and I live just a couple of blocks away from an institution called the Faculty of Cybernetics, meaning the computer-focused faculty of the local school/university of economics.

If I'm not mistaken, and I hope that I'm not, it had been set up sometime in the early '70s when many of the technocracy higher-ups in here were really into Cybernetics and into Wiener's works (some of which had been translated before Ceausescu fell, so when the communists were still in power). Most, if not all, of those technocrats were not engineers and also not "classical" computer-science people, afaik the majority of them were economists.

But, as a I said, when the '90s came the "classical" computer-science paradigm (and especially the engineering-focused part) took off for good, so that all that "side-quest" about Cybernetics was left in the past (apart from the some entities still being attached to it only by name).

The same can be said about the concept of linear programming as applied to economics and to economic forecasting, that is a quite cool concept that had been almost completely forgotten starting with the '90s but which now is having a small resurgence (I've "re-discovered" it myself by first reading about it in Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis and then by going through a Soviet dictionary of economics published sometime in the '70s).
If gender of people influence your decisions in any way you are sexist and a discriminator, period.
Litterbox – Analysis of Scratch Projects
Well he is certainly financially literate. He's just often wrong and incapable of admitting it, as is normal behavior for important economists.
Do you have more energy later in the day - when many of the people who woke early and were energetic in the morning do not?

People differ. And they usually change over time. I recall energetic early mornings as a small child. And being barely awake at 9am in my mid-teens. And shifting back somewhat in my early 20's, and ...
It is not about different set of information, but different stakes/interests. They act firstmost as investors rather than as employees on this.
The other plausible explanation is that Helen Toner doesn’t care as much about safety as about her personal power and clinging to the seat which gives her importance. Saying it’s for safety is very easy and the obviously popular choice if you want to hide your motives. The remark she made strikes me as borderline narcissistic in retrospective.
> The whole point of AI safety is keeping it away from those parts of the world.

No, it's to ensure it doesn't kill you and everyone you love.
when I got into the office I tried it again and I got more info -

This site was blocked due to the following categories: Newly Seen Domains

pretty weird.

opening up the description of the site says Host: malware.opendns.com

malware.opendns.com is also blocked, which in my experience here they will block for silly reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if they blocked anything not whitelisted that had the word malware in the url.
There's a good reason why food safety standards of today require things to be reheated last minute and served hot.
I think those changes (and this shakeup) are the start of the industry grounding its expectations for this technology. I think a lot of product and finance people, and many but not all researchers, are seeing the current batch of generative AI ideas as ripe to make do things and see the pseudo-religious safety/ethics communities as not directly relevant to that work.

So you let your product teams figure out how the brand needs to be protected and the workflow needs to be shaped, like always, and you don't defer to some outside department full of beatniks in berets or whatever.
> Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace.

The existing board is just a seat-warming body until Altman and Microsoft can stack it with favorables to their (and the U.S. Government’s) interests. The naïveté from the NPO faction was believing they’d be able to develop these capacities outside the strict control of the military industrial complex when AI has been established as part of the new Cold War with China.
What are these people talking about? What's the difference between "stacked diffs" and just adding commits to a branch? Who cares if the branch is called "master" or not? You could also force push updated commits (e.g. after fixup and rebase etc) and tools like Gitlab and GitHub can show you the diff between versions (or "changesets", as they call them). Gitlab at least makes it pretty clear when a change has been made and the order things were done in. Pretty sure GitHub does too.
It is not groupthink it is comradery.

For me, the whole thing is just human struggle. It is about fighting for people they love and care, against some people they dislike or indifferent to.
But The Apple.
I agree and none of the other passages people are quoting from the paper (which I admittedly haven't read yet) seem at all controversial. She's saying OpenAI's messaging about AI safety is not landing because it's simultaneously launching products that are taking the spotlight, and Anthropic is doing a better job at signaling their commitment to safety. That's true, obvious, and entirely in line with the charter she's supposed to uphold.
It's not safe.
You are forgetting about the end of the Moore's law. The costs for running a large scale AI won't drop dramatically. Any optimizations will require non-trivial expensive PhD Bell Labs level research. Running intelligent LLMs will be financially accessible only to a few mega corps in the US and China (and perhaps to the European government). The AI "safety" teams will control the public discourse. Traditional search engines that blacklist websites with dissenting opinions will be viewed as the benevolent free speech dinosaurs of the past.
I think it actually isn't that easy. Compared to your example, the difference is that OpenAI's for-profit is getting outside money from Microsoft, not money from non-profit OpenAI. Non-profit OpenAI is basically dealing with for-profit OpenAI as a external partner that happens to be aligned with their interests, paying the expensive bills and compute, while the non-profit can hold on to the IP.

You might be able to imagine a world where there was an external company that did the same thing as for-profit OpenAI, and OpenAI nonprofit partnered with them in order to get their AI ideas implemented (for free). OpenAI nonprofit is basically getting a good deal.

MSF could similarly create an external for-profit hospital, funded by external investors. The important thing is that the nonprofit (donated, tax-free) money doesn't flow into the forprofit section.

Of course, there's a lot of sketchiness in practice, which we can see in this situation with Microsoft influencing the direction of nonprofit OpenAI even though it shouldn't be. I think there would have been real legal issues if the Microsoft deal had continued.
Except that view point fell even earlier when they refused to release their models after GPT-2.
Of the players at the table on this one - who really wants a cure?
There is a material difference between:

Sam and Greg will be joining Microsoft.

And:

Sam and Greg have in principle agreed to join Microsoft but not signed anything.

If Microsoft has (now) agreed to release either of them (or anyone else) from contractual obligations, then the first one was true.

If not, then the first was was a lie, and the second one was true.

This whole drama has been punctuated by a great deal of speculation, pivots, changes and, bluntly, lies.

Why do we need to sugar coat it?

Where the fuck is this new magical Microsoft research lab?

Microsoft preparing a new office for openAI employees? Really? Is that also true?

Is Sam actually going to be on the board now, or is this another twist in this farcical drama when they blow it off again?

I see no reason to, at least point, give anyone involved the benefit of the doubt.

Once the board actually changes, or Microsoft actually does something, I’m happy to change my tune, but I’m calling what I see.

Sam did not join Microsoft at any point.
Steve Jobs got fired from Apple, but was rehired 11 years later.
Scale that to 10 people each putting 10$ in and then each taking 10$ out. Now when police comes they tell they got money from the jar...
I'm not sure how this is a rabbit hole. If your model specializes to a specific resizing algorithm then there is your opportunity to generalize the model over resizing algorithms. In fact, simply duplicating your data set by using multiple resizing algorithms should improve performance even if you only end up using a single one.
To the last point no you can’t.

I’m sure I could have figured it out eventually but once their proprietary id scanner rejected my passport I gave up and closed my account.
Personally, I _do_ editorialize by posting a “summary” of what a post discusses, if there’s no real title. I try not to make it pass as my own opinion; sometimes it happened that mods reverted it to the original, less relevant title.
The safety aspect of AI ethics is much more pressing so. We see how devicive social media can be, imagine that turbo charged by AI, and we as a society haven't even figured out social media yet...

ChatGPT turning into Skynet and nuking us all is a much more remote problem.
Run has plugins. I use https://github.com/lin-ycv/EverythingPowerToys to add Everything.
Very interesting tables 5.8 through 5.10. They show substantially increased mortality in the younger age groups in Q3 2021.

This is a surprise to me. Not so much in the fact of an increase itself, but that there is no corresponding increase in older group mortality.
Airlines, for one.

And that's all the history homework I'm going to do.
>We need to clearly distinguish between where there is a proven mechanism for doom vs where there is not.

How do you prove a mechanism for doom without it already having occurred? The existential risk is completely orthogonal to whether it has already happened, and generally action can only be taken to prevent or mitigate before it happens. Having the foresight to mitigate future problems is a good thing and should be encouraged.

>Expected value and probability have no place in these discussions.

I disagree. Expected value and probability is a framework for decision making in uncertain environments. They certainly have a place in these discussions.
List of 5 years old YC companies with less then 10 people
I take 3 grams in juice on an empty stomach and have never had any problems. Maybe the juice is key.
1. The primary source of bias will still be the person writing the prompt. The 'most probable completion' for the podcast will depend a lot on the setup.
2. I'm not sure it's going to vary more than a human day to day is it?
You could double it and double it again, and essentially all EVs for sale today still have minimum of double that range.

EV range is not a problem for the very vast majority of drivers, we just keep being told it is by the companies that are making a lot of money from the status quo and want it to continue
Eichmann wasn't extradited (because Israel knew Argentina probably wouldn't agree based on previous history, they didn't even try not to tip him off), he was kidnapped by Mossad operatives and smuggled out of Argentina while drugged.
> What's going to happen to your career when you were one of the 200 who held out initially?

Anthropic formed from people who split from OpenAI, and xAI in response to either the company or ChatGPT, so people would have plenty of options.

If the staff had as little to go on as the rest of us, then the board did something that looked wild and unpredictable, which is an acute employment threat all by itself.
I like this idea.

Would that impact performance negatively?
Larry Summers hurt the US economy by making the recovery from 2008 much too slow. If they'd done stimulus better, we could've had 2019's economic growth years earlier. That would've been great for Microsoft.
Being financially literate means being able to understand how the financial system works. Larry Summers thinks operate as intermediaries lending out deposits. This is very wrong. He is not financially literate. He is an economist.
Feynman quoted a Mr. Young for admirable rigorousness in maze-running experiments.

“Finding Mr Young”[1] identifies him as:
“Mr Young was probably Quin Fischer Curtis, in his theses published in 1931/1936, as part of John F. Shepard’s multi-decade research programme at the University of Michigan into ‘floor cues’, going well beyond just putting sand on the floor.”

1: https://gwern.net/maze
No, I didn't say that. They formed the Superalignment team with Ilya as a co-lead (and Sam's approval) for that.

https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment

I presume the current alignment approach is sufficient for the AI they make available to others and, in any event, GPT-n is within OpenAI's control.
There is a fundamental disconnect between industry and academia here.
Maybe add `flex: 1` to the second column?
But HAL didn't act "on a whim"! The reason it killed the crew is not because it went rogue, but rather because it was following its instructions to keep the true purpose of the mission secret. If the crew is dead, it can't find out the truth.

In light of the current debate around AI safety, I think "unintended consequences" is a much more plausible risk then "spontaneously develops free will and decides humans are unnecessary".
Theres a big difference between allowing a project to run at a loss over the short term (the article says first few months of this year), and using a different business vertical to allow an unprofitable venture to proceed.
Agreed. Perhaps a reason for public AI [1], which advocates for a publicly funded option where a player like MSFT can't push around something like OpenAI so forcefully.

[1]: https://lu.ma/zo0vnony
> Honestly, I myself can't take the threat seriously. But, I do want to understand it more deeply than before.

I believe this position reflects the thoughts of the majority of AI researchers, including myself. It is concerning that we do not fully understand something as promising and potentially dangerous as AI. I'm actually on Ilya's side; labeling his attempt to uphold the original OpenAI principles as an act of "coup" is what is happening now.
Well, it appears that it was relevant. Sam Altman is CEO again.
This has been a common misinterpretation since very early in OpenAI's history (and a somewhat convenient one for OpenAI).

From a 2016 New Yorker article:

> Dario Amodei said, "[People in the field] are saying that the goal of OpenAI is to build a friendly A.I. and then release its source code into the world.”

> “We don’t plan to release all of our source code,” Altman said. “But let’s please not try to correct that. That usually only makes it worse.”

source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...
> so proper course of action would be to loop in NSA/White House

Eh? That would be an awful idea. They have no expertise on this and government institutions like thus are misaligned with the rest of humanity by design. E.g. NSA recruits patriots and has many systems, procedures and cultural aspects in place to ensure it keeps up its mission of spying on everyone.
For what its worth I think Linux can work great, and obviously you definitely do not need to switch to Wayland. However, what I really mean to say is, it's in a rough position for anyone looking to switch. While you may say "ah, just use X11" and I'd even totally agree, the problem is that many users genuinely need things that only Wayland does well, like again, for laptops mixed DPI is a damn-near must-have and it just isn't a very good experience on X no matter what you do.

Also, what distro to recommend? Honestly, I find Arch to be one of the best mixes of stable and reliable, which is odd. Somehow I find Pop!_OS and Ubuntu installs with fucked up dpkg issues that I can't even figure out, and sometimes I wind up just manually grabbing packages with apt download and forcing things into a correct state. I'd expect Arch with an inexperienced user to be worse, but multiple datapoints strongly disagree so far; the biggest issue with Arch has just been installs. If Arch were friendlier to install and had smoother updates, it would be hands-down the way to go for noobs. Archinstall is certainly a step forward from browsing the wiki on lynx, so there is that.

Feels, though, like there should be some immutable "just works" distro, that gives users a good mix of things. Like... give users an immutable base with image based deployment. Flatpak apps. Maybe ChromeOS crostini-style chroots to use a "traditional" distro? SteamOS is somewhere close here.

I like Linux, and I use only Linux on my own hardware aside from VMs (and practically only NixOS at that) but is it in a position to seriously eat at Windows? I think not in the desktop and laptop market. Hopefully some day, though.
This has nothing to do with Summers being an economist and everything to do with the fact that he used to run the parent agency of the IRS. Summers is the least sensible board pick imaginable unless one takes this fact and the coming regulatory catastrophe into account.
In one of the tweets he says another drive with the same controller passed so it's not just the controller
Cheap drives don't include large dram caches, lack fast SLC areas, and leave off super-capacitors that allow chips to drain buffers during a power-failure.

"Buy cheap, buy twice" as they say... =)
This. I think problem is that the LLMs really struggle with 3d scene understanding, so what you would need to do is generate code that generates code.

But also I suspect there just isn't that much openscad code in the training data, and the semantics are different enough to python or any of the other languages that are well-represented that it struggles.
Do you have a source for either of these things? The only thing I heard about Saudi investors was related to the (presumably separate) chip startup.
> OpenAI is in fact not open

This meme was already dead before the recent events. Whatever the company was doing, you could say it wasn’t open enough.

> a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now

Why pretend OpenAI hasn’t just disrupted our way of life with GPTs in the last two years? It has been the most high profile tech innovator recently.

> OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win

This is so vague. What does it not have in its… fundamentals? And what is to “win”? This statement seems like just generic unhappiness without stating anything clearly. By most measures, they are winning. They have the best commercial LLM and continue to innovate, they have partnered with Microsoft heavily, and they have so far received very good funding.
https://keypirinha.com/

there is no update for a long time but this one works perfectly for me
Nebula – A Network Agnostic DHT Crawler (IPFS, Ethereum, Polkadot, and More))
According to this tweet thread[1], they negotiated hard for Sam to be off the board and Adam to stay on. That indicates, at least if we're being optimistic, that the current board is not in Sam's pocket (otherwise they wouldn't have bothered)

[1]:(https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727216818648134101)
Developers never have a problem selling as they know that people will always buy apartments in cities, it's the inside that counts.

Adding fluff to the outside costs money, and in England these days, it's a race to the bottom to maximise profit and minimise cost. Council planners have little power to demand things on buildings outside of that which meets legislation requirements. Hence we're getting some pretty awful buildings, not just apartments, in existing suburbs that don't blend in at all.
I think you’re either someone who has suffered abuse and haven’t yet unlearned the effects of it, or you haven’t suffered abuse from a child and doesn’t have firsthand experience on how much it damages you.

Is the world often stressful and scary? Yes. But the lessons that trauma teaches a child do not help the adult manage fear nor stress. For example: a child who has to care for their alcoholic parent can risk growing into an adult that doesn’t know when they’re being taken advantage because they were literally taken advantage of since childhood. A child who was severely beaten at the slightest infraction risks growing up into an adult that cannot handle even minor conflict because they associate being disagreed with to broken bones.