skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Was confused as well, and thought what an interesting idea, to do advanced research in he middle of nowhere like that. New Brunswick Canada doesn’t figure in the popular imagination at all other than as the family fief of an industrial fortune, like if the Waltons operated Arkansas as a kingdom. Why not build an Arcadian research campus that far from everywhere?

Take some equity in the results to fund it, do some skunkworks projects, keep it out of the press and politics and away from bureaucracy. Sounds ideal.
And their bombs have a kill rate of less than 1, a testament to them being as specific as possible.
In addition to what I told the other poster, I think it's important to note that someone on an internet forum trying to justify this isn't someone making a military decision. It's someone who genuinely just doesn't give a fuck about someone else's grandmother, cousins, etc. dying in horrid ways. There are Palestinian Americans over here who live normal lives, who are losing family members over there to Israeli bombs. Yet there are people here who, if those people try to speak out about that, would try to brand them as anti-Semites and "Hamas supporters".

I have not met anyone who supports Hamas, or even read that on this forum (though I have seen a couple eyebrow-raising comments here and there), yet there are so many people only justifying the actions of the IDF and try to convince the rest of us that what it has been doing to the Palestinians is ok. Think about that.

(Which is not to say that partisans on the Palestinian side of this are somehow angels or anything--if anything, I think it's disappointing there aren't more Muslim or Arab groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, etc.)

Anyways, if I continue arguing like this, I am part of the problem, even if I am right. I don't want to pass up the opportunity in another one of these threads to try to plug these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGZlR_h96ek
I am addicted to a fault to Mentour Pilot's studies of flight incidents. Again, here, he goes into greater depth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSMe1wAdMdg
I have the same issue. But I know the cause—-snap.
As late as 1899, taking out a living person's heart couldn't be anything besides a gruesome execution. There wasn't the understanding to allow it to be survivable, and even the anaesthesia at the time was not really good enough for anything like that.

Now? Though still rare, it's just another thing you can have transplanted if you need it.
Is ArcaOS a DOS gaming mecca? Warpstock 2023 [video]
It's more like proofing / sampling: maybe I want to pay your company to print my magazine, but first I want to see if your printing process gives good results. So you print me a copy for free; if I like it, I'll pay for the real thing.

Or when you're at a stall and they give you a bit of cheese to try, or some bit of cake. They know that, if you like it and you can afford it, you'll buy more. The costs to them are small, and the return is worth it. This is just trading-101.

Free labor abused on a systemic scale is completely different. It's like I asked you for a cheese sample as big as what I need to serve a party of 50 people I'm paid to organise.
This smells like ego to me. He said "you can't have X without Y, it's impossible" and then we got something that kind of has X without Y. Rather than consider that his ideas may be flawed, he's doubling down. And his new statements will almost certainly be proven false when ML research progresses in another five years and machines can learn at a rate that matches or exceeds human children. I'm not the smartest guy, but I know enough to never bet against future technological progress.

Is there any empirical evidence that Chomsky's ideas are correct? Or is he setting himself up for embarrassment?
What I have heard was Afreeca makes use of distributed computing so that resources are shared directly between users rather than everything getting downloaded from their servers. This apparently cuts down on the amount of traffic load.
Interesting, that never occurred to me. Niche are a UK company, the grinders are designed in the UK, but as I understand, made in China.
The second layer is the downside, it makes it annoying to log into stuff. Even using SSH keys is awful. The UX of being able to log into things from wherever on whatever device because you remember your password is unparalleled. Yeah you have to worry about being keylogged which like, sure, it's a worry, but I've spent a lot more of my life being annoyed that I couldn't log into something because I didn't have the SSH key on that machine or trying to find my stupid yubikey etc than I have dealing with the afermath of having something hacked.

(which to my knowledge only happened once when I set the root password on my VPS to 'toor' before i knew about internet background hacking radiation, and sure maybe i'm compromised right now, but it's absolutely not affecting my day to day life so i'm not gonna worry about it)
Seems weird to me that they actually physically follow people around in this age of CCTV, though. Firstly you’re going to be annoying / intimidating / insulting a lot of legitimate customers, who will shop elsewhere if they don’t feel welcome. And secondly because it must waste a lot of staff time?

In busy UK supermarkets (and malls) there will usually be security guard(s) near the exit. Sometimes they have a little security station where they can monitor the cctv themselves, or otherwise a radio in their ear connected to a back office.

If something suspicious is seen they’ll stop people as they leave and ask to have a look in bags etc.
This is a relevant explanation from the perspective of cloudflare

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828702
Maybe I'm the crazy one here, but I can't remember last time firefox speed was an issue.

You want your software to be really snappy, we all agree on that. But past some point, it's physically impossible for a human to tell the difference. I believe a human can't detect if a tab takes 10ms or 1ms to open.

Firefox has been past the point where "fast" matters for a very long time (and that's a great thing!)
Six years ago, I had my computer compromised by a remote access trojan. The hacker accessed my machine while I was asleep, used Chrome password manager extraction tools to get my Facebook password, then credential-stuffed it into Amazon[0] to buy as many PSN cards as they could before Chase's fraud detection tripped and started texting me for verification, which woke me up.

You would think that fixing this would be simple: revoke the PSN cards and reverse the credit card transactions. Turns out, they don't do that. At all. Amazon insisted that they wouldn't do shit without a bank chargeback. I of course had already started that process with Chase. About a month later, I get a call from Chase saying they need to "move the transactions to the new account"[1], which sounds like a stupid technical thing, so sure, whatever. A few weeks later I get a letter in the mail saying the dispute was closed because "it was a dispute with the merchant" - no explanation what that means. They give a phone number to call that goes to voicemail - I called at least five times and never got a call back, and all $400 worth of fraudulent transactions were right back on my statement.

I gave up trying to fight shit because I don't want to sue my bank, nor do I want to fight Dread Pirate Bezos. I'm not suicidal[2]. However, it did teach me two things that have stuck with me:

- Amazon has a blanket opt-out with the credit card companies and issuing banks. I don't know how, it could be as simple as "don't waste time investigating likely false accusations of fraud", but they are able to win[3] chargebacks with credit card companies using explanations that look like someone just picked the first option on the form that denies the dispute.

- PlayStation Network cards are apparently as immutable and uncensorable as Bitcoin[4]. If you want to do crimes, do them with PlayStation.

[0] Yes, I was reusing passwords. Yes, I did change every password I had over the next few days. Yes, I completely wiped the machine and reinstalled everything. No, I don't think I should have been liable for fraud because of any of this.

[1] They had sent me a new card and card number at this point.

[2] I'm pretty sure the "slow and horrible" option in the suicide booths involves burying yourself in legal fees.

[3] Keep in mind that not-monopolistic merchants almost never win chargebacks or disputes.

[4] For an extra layer of irony, a few days prior, I'd written a long screed at a Bitcoin fanatic on Reddit about how credit card chargebacks are a feature, not a bug, and that immutable transactions are a design defect.
To avoid the fixed cycle problem, for each shuffle, choose a seed, then sort by hash(artist + seed) + hash(album + seed) instead of just artist + album before you start jumping through the list using fibonacci hashing. Album tracks and artists still end up colocated, but their position in the list is randomized.
Just curious. And how far/detailed is modern scientific understanding of human cognition?

I have an impression that, generally speaking, unlike how we know how an LLM operates, we barely have any clues on how humans form thoughts - or am I wrong here? Just some overall ideas that it's "probably somewhere out there, where fMRI shows the activity" but nothing concrete?
You can teach systematic debugging: https://www.debuggingbook.org/
Chomsky himself never said that, he said that it wouldn't produce anything useful for understanding how language works in humans.
The Turing test is necessary but not sufficient for AGI.

That said, I have yet to see a modern AI that actually passes the Turing test either:

> an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent, chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.

LLMs can answer some questions fine, but within five minutes you're likely to find breakage even without consciously trying.
They’re doodles right? I wrote my amazing thoughts while on psychedelics and to my dissapointment they were just meaningless doodles when I was sober. Not to discredit the expetience at all which was positive and fruitful.
So did he pass his check flight? ;)
and you can add: are any dumb and lazy children successful in life? only if they have rich parents. so while working hard doesn't guarantee success. not working at all pretty much guarantees failure.
The system can produce both and the paper makes this clear for those who bothered to read it.
> For instance, lighter roasts have more internal moisture than darker roasts, and the latter is more prone to clumping

I suspect you might have it backwards regarding the issue being limited to non-traditional light roasts.
there's no material stuff enough. it'd basically go logarithmic, eventually parallel to rotation.
First, FF is less secure than Chromium-based browsers so not sure what you meant there. Just have a look at the results of the various browser hacking competitions. This has been a consistent result for decades. FF security out of the box has also been inferior to Chrome’s. In some cases it’s been more readily exploited than Safari, which is saying something.

And as for customisation, that’s actually been eroded over the past 3-5 years in FF compared to, say, 10 or 15 years ago. For example, I can remember a time when the interface itself had the option (a checkbox) that miniaturised the icons of the entire search bar UI - this has been gone for years and there is now no way to change that without installing an entire theme. Now every user is stuck with the same general interface/UI spacing.

I’ve used FF since maybe 2008 and in my experience it’s never been worse than it is now in terms of performance, its interface customisability, and its benefits vs its largest competitor. If I end up using it as my primary browser it will be because of Google’s insanity with adblockers, not because FF itself is a good alternative (indeed it’s just that FF is the ONLY alternative).
Agreed -- however many people still remember Firefox from the days they switched to Chrome and have this perception that Firefox is slow. This blog post is probably for them, to let them know "hey we're not slow!".
For his time, it must have seemed like such an unfathomable amount of storage. He had no frame of reference for how much data that really is. Today, we see the size of every file on our devices and have an intuition for how big things are (or can be). Only in the last thirty years did we really develop this sense.
It is utterly fascinating to me that technically walking is just as safe as a car on a journey by journey basis. I definitely didn't need to know the danger per journey for flights though. I liked the lie I had before
They finally fixed the spacing issue with the default San Francisco font, which was left completely broken and disgusting looking for over two years. But it still renders differently than Safari and Chrome, which you'll notice if you open a Github page for example and quickly flip between the two windows.

For whatever reason Firefox likes to make everything a little bolder and more spaced out, and on top of that doesn't seem to support the most widely used anti-aliasing CSS properties.

I resorted to injecting -moz-osx-font-smoothing in userContent.css on websites I visit frequently that look particularly bad.
Just randomly change the weight of your switches on your custom mechanical keyboard every 10000 keystrokes to keep the AI guessing.
> but a handful of examples is not really particularly convincing

CogitoCogito asked for "specific examples of the universities in question acting in contradiction to these statements". When you are providing specific examples, a handful are enough.
A 16 years old with a gun is a kid, according to hamas.
On average, what comes out of the grinder is electrically neutral, so there is no more point in grounding the grinder more than for any other electrical device.

The problem is at the particle (coffee grind) level, some are positively charged, others are negatively charged. The result is that if two particles of the same charge come close together, both will shoot out in opposite direction, and that direction is not necessarily where your basket is, and it will make a mess. If however, two particles of opposite charge come close together, they will stick together and neutralize, but by doing so, they will form a clump that may cause uneven extraction.

The idea with spraying the beans with water is to prevent static buildup before particles have a chance to form clumps or make a mess.
> but perhaps had other negative side-effects that a study like this wouldn't measure (e.g. do you friends think you're acting kinda weird now?).

I have a couple friends who got in early on the microdosing and psychedelics-for-depression trend. One of them has become progressively more detached from reality over the years. Previously a rational person, he started picking up various pseudo-religious ideas over time.

At one point he believed he was capable of a type of telepathic communication, for example.

Every time I tell this story people try to discount it, downplay it, or explain it away as an underlying medical condition, but the changes were clearly triggered and worsened by psychedelics.

I don’t think it should be all that surprising, anyway. The history of psychedelic research is full of stories of people who started out with a curiosity and then descended into psychedelic-induced irrationality as their lives went on. Maybe the effects are negligible for someone taking a single or couple trips under the guidance of a therapist, but I think the internet psychedelic fans have taken these isolated studies as a license to ignore some of the risks of extended use or accumulating a lot of trips over a lifetime.
The one thing which sticks out to me is the ECAM system including a baked corrective message of "open fuel transfer valves" due to the imbalance.

That seems like an odd message to include in an emergency action system, which by definition is only active in unexpected situations. Is there really no system to confirm if a fuel leak is happening?
Minor nitpick, just for clarity: Vectors aren't really the "ultimate" format, they're just a different format for storing a different kind of information.

Vectors are good for things that can be mathematically described/simplified without significant loss of information (such as curves, shapes, some gradients, etc., and compositions of those) Many logos and fonts fall into this category, for example, and some clip-art do as well. For the appropriate graphics, vectors can give you higher quality and smaller file sizes. But it's not necessarily the right choice for everything. Real pixels do hold data, and vectorizing them will typically cause some data loss. You COULD vectorize photos and illustrations (vectormagic.com is a good one for that). But you just end up with a poorer approximation of the original raster data, ending up with a bunch of pixel-like polygons, because there's not really a better approximation of that high-resolution pixel data that can be easily described in shapes and lines.

Rasters are still superior not only for photographs, but for other uses outside of basic image redistribution, such as GIS data layers (where sensor data IS what's important), bump maps and terrain maps for games, 3D voxel images for medical imaging, live-action movies (which can interpolate complex scenes between raster frames), astronomy, etc. Even if you could vectorize the sensor data in those situations, you often wouldn't/shouldn't.
I came to this thread WITHOUT reading the article because I figured they were going to try classify "people with disabilities" as singular.
... is this an admission you did not read the actual article you're commenting on?
> then LLMs simply lack training data to observe those limitations.

How would training data add an introspective step to the LLM? At best you can add a lot of common LLM fitted strategies developed by humans to the training set and thus make the LLM solve a few more problems well, but that will always be hampered by the need for humans to develop those. It is basically just programming the LLM.

My view is that LLM is results in natural language programming. Which is great, but it isn't any more intelligence than normal programming. Its just that we already have a lot of cool programs already written in natural languages, and now we get to run those for the first time.
No, it still matters at the margins. When you get into extreme situations like having too many tabs open or a website with really inefficient JavaScript, it’s really nice to have a fast browser that can deal with that. Sure, there are always ways to design software better in order to preserve responsiveness in extreme situations, but better performance never hurts!
No, but the one that does take away your will to live is the one you most want to treat.
I have friends who work in the ER who have plenty of stories about people taking mushrooms at home and ending up in very, very distressed mental states. It’s not a simple drug that cures depression for everyone.
The OS provided memory allocators - HeapAlloc, its wrappers GlobalAlloc and LocalAlloc (remainders of 16bit era), VirtualAlloc (page granularity, can be compared to MAP_ANONYMOUS with mmap(), and CoTaskMemAlloc which can be shared across COM processes + their respective "free" functions. malloc() is explicitly called out in documentation as "runtime dependant".

Similarly other OSes used to have memory allocation services that weren't linked in any way to a language runtime - VMS has several calls, all language independent, ranging from low-level equivalents of mmap() to malloc-alternative.

And yes, a big chunk of Windows portability is that various APIs use those language-independent calls internally, and so can developer in order to avoid creating issues - and documentation promotes those language independent methods.

At no point you get into situation with Windows API that you call free() on memory allocated by malloc() from a different libc.

In comparison, the available language-independent APIs without using any special libraries on Linux, are to directly call mmap() and sbrk() through inline assembly (beware the glibc wrappers!).
> It's another to knowingly accept malicious errors, either unpredictable or even intentional, but without proper responsibility?

Is this law making the users of software responsible (e.g. law enforcement, government departments) ? It seems to me to make authors of software responsible, absolving the users. Not the other way around.

They keep the law secret, of course, so anyone can claim what they want, but the article talks directly about the accountability of OpenAI. It seems to focus on rules on authors of AI software, presumably to mostly absolve governments and users of that software. "Rules around generative AI", "transparency requirements for any developer of a large language model" ... nothing that would make governments responsible for abusing AI software. Which is strange, because that's the concern the last paragraph of the article focuses on.

I must say ... this "complete ban" voted by the EU parliament last spring, doesn't seem to have stopped governments from using live facial recognition [1].

[1] https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/21/new-french-facial-r...
He’s not mistaken, he’s just writing for the advancement of linguistics and cognitive science. If you’re interested in robots that’s different.
All I'm saying is that's not an excuse for deregulation, it's literally a reason to do more regulation. Open source and distributed social media exists, that doesn't mean we should let meta do whatever it wants.

E: A lot of the libertarian rhetoric here falls apart when you examine other monopolistic situations like water or electricity. You need massive datacenters to run these applications. That gives the corporations who can operate that capital advantages that lead to them owning spheres of computing like AI. The only way to address that monopoly power is government action, unless you like the negative market externalities created by those monopolies (maybe you own equity in a technology company). Frankly, even if the EU gets it wrong the first time, I am much happier with their approach of trying something than I am with the United States approach of "we need to innovate at all costs! What if china catches up?!". I've had enough hysterics from free market people who think gigantic tech interests can do no wrong, or who are under the naive impression that the open source community can create these models without the backing of big capital.
I think a lot of the confusion on whether LLMs can think stems from the fact that LLMs are purely models of language and solve intelligence as a kind of accidental side-effect.

The real problem that an LLM is trying to solve is to create a model that can enumerate all meaningful sequences of words. This is just an insane way of approaching the problem of intelligence on the face of it. There's a huge difference between a model of language and an intelligent agent that uses language to communicate.

What LLMs show is that the hardest problem - of how to get emergent capabilities at scale from huge quantities of data - is solved. To get more human-like thinking, all that is needed is to find the right pre-training task that more closely aligns with agentic behavior. This is still a huge problem but it's an engineering problem and not one of linguistic theory or philosophy.
Hoffman is a big proponent of using one, so I'd assume that he did.
This is a really cool idea. I love interface disconnected from APIs. We have so many annoyances these days because applications can't be programmatically controlled. Honestly, I'd like to see legislation saying all application functionality needs to have APIs.
There's plenty broken with both .is and .ph even if Cloudflare is not in the picture.
Completely agree, even guilting it into doing more of the coding isn't working well any more.

I have absolutely noticed the difference. It was right around gpt4 turbo introduction.