skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I know this article is explicitly about the tech industry, but the title of the submission isn't. To put things into a wider perspective, here is about 20 years of seasonally adjusted "total nonfarm layoffs and discharges": https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDL. The level through 2023 has been at or a bit below the monthly average level of ~2 million layoffs per month.

And here it is for the "Information" subsector: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTU5100LDL. It's much more volatile, but there's a fairly consistent "normal range" between about 20k and 40k, with fairly frequent spikes down to 10k and up to 60k. You can see that the January spike was indeed pretty big (61k), but the rest of the year has been around that "normal range".

But there were spikes nearly as big in January 2018 and July 2019 and I don't recall those being particularly notable or commented upon, and they certainly weren't due to AI!

My impression is that even within this "Information" subsector, there is a much smaller subsector of "famous tech companies" (or maybe "silicon valley adjacent tech companies") where the layoffs this year really have been notably far above a baseline that has been very close to zero for a very long time. But this is just an impression, as far as I can tell there is no definition for this subsector of the Information subsector, and thus no data tracking it.

But I think it is useful to put this in perspective as a phenomenon in a subsector of a subsector of the economy, rather than a trend in the economy as a whole. I think if the story here were really "economic downturn and the influence of AI are claiming numerous jobs", it would be showing up much more broadly than this.
I think AI and quantum computing are really the same thing, the difference being the same as girltalk in contrast with boytalk.

what I'm saying is that there's no quantum computing; but I actually mean to say I simply do not understand whatever 'quantum' means in the context of computing given my own opinions of what computing really is (I have a philosophical opinion).

in my view (as distorted and twisted as it is), what quantum computing devices really do is sensing or measuring. computing is classical in nature and no amount of hand waving will change this.

whatever happens to logic in a qubit? if both A and B are anything between 0 and 1, what's the negation of such a thing?
They will. They began drafting current laws years ago before the explosion of generative AI.
There are billion of people in China. If you grant only 0.1% of 1.4118 billion can speak and read English, that's 1,411,800 individuals.

However, if we take Wikipedia's claim at face value, it's actually ten million.[1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...
The company, however, was destroyed. Along with any possibility for a similar company to exist (for very long).
Something called onnx (all iirc) requires Python 3.8-3.9 but not 3.10+ in which it doesn’t work. So for my various AI needs I have three versions of Python 3 installed through different channels. And of course they all have their own multi-gigabyte caches of base libraries and models.

I know it may be more complex or trivial than I think, or tied to very few specific packages, but that’s the point – I have to figure it out where I shouldn’t need to. In contrast, I’m sure that no matter which latest version of Node I have, it will work.

I mean I was, up until Node 19/20, where they broke the loader, so ts-node doesn’t work anymore and the suggestion is to re-learn something called tsx. F that nonsense.
Hexagonal Architecture is not a buzzword. It was published in 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagonal_architecture_(softwa...
Wiretapping vast amounts of data on the internet is quite cool, but actually sifting through all that data is the really difficult part. Right now intelligence services are probably looking at lots of false positives and lots of dots they can't connect because the evidence is just too dispersed for a human or a current-generation system to make sense. LLMs could enable them to make the analysis more targeted and effective.

But for all we know intelligence services could be using LLMs for years now, since they are usually a few years ahead of everybody else in many regards :-)
This is what it is: a massive force multiplier. It speeds things up like nothing before it. Cookie cutter code that you would have to otherwise write can be offloaded to AI flawlessly. Boring stuff like writing unit tests is easily AI’s domain.

Among small startups and entrepreneurs, it can also increase speed of execution. Instead of handing off instructions to a designer (IF you have one already - otherwise you have to find one) and waiting for the results, you can tinker around with prompts and get what you want within hours. More than the cost, it eliminates another source of friction.
Copyright is not a universal axiom. Corporations lobbies for highly unreasonable copyright extensions to bolster their profits. Most of that stuff should have long entered the public domain.
"Under a specific set of circumstances related to the ‘Thumbs Up/Down Table Reaction’ feature, which involves decompilation of our Windows game client, interception of network traffic, and alterations of our game packets, Moneytaker69 was able to customize his own game client."

I'm wondering if someone with a web security background can chime in.. but allowing this seems like a rookie mistake if you're running a large poker site to me.
The costs are probably much lower than you think.
Fake Trees: Using Indents for Simpler UIs
How do you feel about antibiotics? How do you feel about medical advances that reduced infant mortality from more than 20% in the 19th century to less than 1%? How about the elimination of smallpox or how fertilizer and other agricultural technologies have eliminated most famines. Now how about possible cures for cancer or alzheimer’s? You need a much more nuanced answer than “we should not have such easy access to knowledge.”
So, whats the plan?

Content creators/artists compete globally. The only thing harsh regulations will do is create an unlevel playing field where artists from noncaring countries will have big advantages over artists from the west, which will be driven into illegality to compete.

In the end products will have to be classified anyway if they are infringing on copyright and/or were being built by an LLM. Most likely automated by another LLM.
Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen accidentally cited fake court cases from Bard
> they're not even close to being AGI

Only because all three letters of the initialism mean different things to different people.

Existing LLMs won't do everything, but bluntly: good, we're not ready for a world where there is an AI that can do everything for $1-60/million words[0], and we need to get ready for that world before we find ourselves living in it.

ChatGPT-3.5 has a lot of weaknesses, but it can still do a better job of coding than a few of my coworkers demonstrated over the last 20 years. I'm listening to a German language learning podcast, and the hosts mentioned using it to help summarise a long email from one of their listeners. My sister has work anecdotes about it helping, and she's not in tech. Influencers, teachers, lawyers, Hollywood writers… well, "moral panic" doesn't tell you much… the game Doom was 30 years ago, and that had a moral panic that looks quaint given how much FPS games' graphics improved with each subsequent release, and I suspect ChatGPT-3.5 was to conversational AI what Doom was to 3D realtime gaming: the point at which people take note, followed by a decade of every new release being (wrongly) called "photorealistic".

[0] current pricing for gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 ($0.0010 / 1K tokens) and gpt-4-32k ($0.06 / 1K tokens) pricing: https://openai.com/pricing
Xi Goes Full Stalin with Purge
But telling my friend about it is the production and transfer of a copy to a third party, just with a certain amount of information loss.
But transformative use is an exception to copyright. And I think it's going to be pretty hard to argue that the matrix of parameters inside an LLM is not sufficiently transformative from the input image.
I think it's pretty well understood that few things happen in a vacuum and while you're probably right that it's rare for people to sit down and say to each other "alright, let's make star trek" people certainly gravitate to things that interest them and I imagine that certain genres of fiction have embedded themselves deep within the psyche of a lot of people in tech.

Related tangent, the first time I met a meme IRL was when I first sat down with the CTO of a pretty well funded "startup" in the valley and as he was trying sell me on working there, regaling me with the story of him and his cofounders (good 30 years my senior) hustle and grind in the Stanford library before they started while I looked at his model of the Enterprise on his desk...
Your scenario already exists, but for currency. Photoshop will refuse to work if it thinks you might be counterfeiting currency.
It only does it if you have a paid account, which is clearly not what the original commenter was referring to.

It’s your prerogative to not block ads and to spoon feed all your watch data to Google for easy monetisation and tracking, but it’s clear the original comment wasn’t talking about that route. YouTube is clearly not “the perfect app” in that person’s view when it requires an extra paid service and a higher loss of privacy.

Frankly, from your other replies it seems like you realise this. Which makes this exchange a massive waste of time for everyone. Please don’t purposely fuel disagreements.
What is this a psi-op? This has been deeply frustrating to parse. You don't make sense.
in the 1980s at super-competitive UC Berkeley, where non-native English speakers have high stakes outcomes, many organized groups passed pre-written material, essay answers, multiple-choice answers etc among each other in multi-year organized cheating. Then, with prestigious and difficult degree in hand, proceeded to financially succeed. At the same time, UC Berkeley is a great research university with specialists in hundreds of fields doing post-doc expansion of human knowledge - on a competitive basis.

Both of these true at the same time, integrated via finance. Fanciful ideas of pure education with its motives and methods are almost like fairy tales in this environment.
Chris Rackauckas, SciML lead developer, explains how NonlinearSolve.jl is a general system for solving non-linear equations and demonstrates its ability to effectively handle such problems with high stability and performance.
Has anyone quantified the financial impact on Canadian news outlets of Google and Meta’s blocking of news content due to Bill C-18?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-canada-online-news-1...
The only thing that I would say is "clear" is that LLMs are big collections of statistical data on how we use language. That does not cross my threshold for "intelligence".
F500 companies didn't integrate Napster into their software and data stacks left and right.
Wouldn't the ones in the West with presumably stronger copyright laws be in a better position, since the trillion dollar megacorporations using their works have to actually pay them, whereas in places where copyright is ignored those creators just get all their shit stolen without credit even being given?
People will always use technology for negative purposes as long as it can help them get ahead in the short term and they aren't held accountable for the long-term consequences.

Technology is not fine. Not all of it is bad, but to say all of it is fine makes no sense. Yes, we have a mental and health education problem, but it's reasonable to have rules for all societies. Limiting technology that makes getting ahead too easy makes sense because even in the most utopian and good societies, if gaining something is TOO EASY, then it WILL be taken.

It's much too simplistic to frame technology as fine. If all technology is fine, perhaps every corner store should sell automatic weapons? Can you imagine a society, ANY society, in which this makes sense?
The question is which rows would be updated by a single execution of a UPDATE...LIMIT query. The order of result rows of a SELECT query is undefined in Postgres unless you add an ORDER BY clause. It is natural to assume that an UPDATE...LIMIT would be similarly affected.
If you start using locking, you'll encounter many more serialization failures. Similarly for higher isolation levels. This means that you need to retry transactions, and doing that can be quite hard. Many years ago, I wrote some helper code to retry transactions on transient failures for PostgreSQL (which was unnecessarily hard at the time because the error codes that are eligible for transaction retry were not documented clearly). But even with that taken care of, you still had to think carefully about non-transactional side effects (such as sending mail) when writing application logic. A neat side effect was that you could restart the PostgreSQL server without impacting running applications (and today, you could probably even kexec a new kernel before the application timeout kicks in).

I suspect with the current preferences to avoid exceptions, writing for automated retry becomes quite a bit harder. And I couldn't really get automated transaction retry to work for SQLite while still caching statement handles, treating them as prepared statements.
>whatever happens to logic in a qubit? if both A and B are anything between 0 and 1, what's the negation of such a thing?

The problem is the pop sci explanation where qbits are everything between 0 and 1 at the same time is super wrong and misleading.

Your qbits are in states that have "amplitudes". You do things that change the amplitudes, and that happens to do computation. From the amplitudes of your qbits, you can figure out what the probabilities of observing different outcomes is.

It's not that the qbit is anything between 0 and 1. It's in a precise state, that results in percentage probabilities for different outcomes.

The negation of true 80% of the time is false 80% of the time.
That doesn’t work well in all scenarios.
Same. I wasted a month or so of off time trying to get that old stack to work well enough to let me just insert data, left unhappy. Had Databend up and running in an hour, figured it will get easier to do it right in the future once there's a Rust impl (for portability vs Java/Hive)
It’s more interesting to me how these entities that operate the models start making money from them. They are a money pit and there’s not enough $20/month subscribers on earth to support them.

Enterprises that make content with this also don’t want to infringe on copyright. The AI companies don’t have a good story here. The value has not become evident after years.
Great project! One small thing that has worked well for me with led contrast is to cover the whole display in black leg stocking material.
Wouldn’t this be well handled by suing the person that prompted and distributed the results?
I've implemented Delta support from scratch for a component of Microsoft Fabric, and my feeling is that the "spec" is fairly inadequate without additional experimentation on the Spark implementation. It also requires you to be able to support Spark SQL expressions if you want to make use of features like computed columns and check constraints, and those are even more-poorly documented.
Even if this is right, its a shitty consolation. These llms aren't ever going to be an agent of greater democratic, every-man content creation or whatever, its just going to be the transfer of capital from one type of huge company to another. Not much of a future, even if it feels cool for a bit.
The manner in which this is designed is irresponsible. This is an excellent example of how to commit fraud using surveillance.
I heard a lot of different opinion about AlphaFolding, how it's not revolutionary or not revolutionary, or something like that.
> You still can't deny: the church was wrong, directly referring to the effing "Holy Scripture" to support its claim.

It was the pope that asked Galileo to write a book in the first place. The Church was so against the idea that… its leader asked a prominent natural philosopher to write about. The book had two imprimatur approvals.

> The Earth was never the center around which the Sun rotated. Not in 1AD, not in 1600AD, not now.

And there was no evidence to support this assertion until 1728 and Bradley with γ-Draconis, and with the first parallax report in 1806 and Calandrelli (a priest) with α-Lyrae/Vega (the actual value he calculated was wrong). It was not a new idea when Copernicus published his book in 1543, nor when Kepler defended it in 1596, nor when Galileo published his Dialgoue in 1623: Aristotle most famously considered it in ~300 BC and rejected it for lack of evidence. Anaxagoras (400s BC) and Aristarchus of Samos put forward heliocentrism.
Upgrades and extras, yeah. No third-party ads.
OP said art and publishing, which would include anything from software, music, books and so on.
It doesn't, maybe you mean something like Dagster or Airflow managing insertion time dependcies? Although iceberg does provide transactions across tables I believe.
The problem isn't imagining and building the future, it's the particular political narrative out of which the tech class is trying to build the future.

The problem is the future is being created by sociopathic, crony capitalist neo-reactionary cultists who want to rule over a broken world as its brutal philosopher kings, and consign everyone else into the mouth of Moloch. These are the people for whom the meme "Please don't create the Torment Nexus" was made. These people are the reason Ted Kaczynski is so popular amongst the tech underclass.

I don't know what the alternative is, but we should be concerned.
It would be interesting if that was at all a confounding variable , one thing for sure is its impact has been under reported
Same. Heck, I went to SO just to find an obscure piece of info that help me solve my issue and saved me 1 or 2 days of asking chatGPT the "right" question. ChatGPT is good but you need a "Jarvis" type AI to be Tony Stark and even then Tony must point it in the right direction.
You can tunnel any protocol over any other protocol as long as the encapsulating protocol allows some kind of data payload.
> I’m not a fan of copyright in general, but we have serious outstanding issues with companies and organizations stealing or plastering work without compensating the original creators of said works.

Would you mind unpacking this one a bit? It sounds like you denigrate copyright (some "general" grievance) but then immediately execute an about-face and begin to extoll its virtues. Is copyright not the thing that allows us to share works without fear they'll be stolen?
“The qubit is a dead end!”

“The quantum domain shall work as an analog sieve!”
Aeron maybe, also Java-friendly.
I encourage everyone to take a look at Jonathan Haidt’s blog https://www.afterbabel.com/archive?sort=top . It’s phones.
Unsure, but Google paid.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-online-news-act-1.70...
> This is a shame. CBC should trim the fat elsewhere.

In what world is a New Year's Eve broadcast "meat" when CBC is cutting news staff?

What "fat" do you think is remaining in the CBC budget?
Simple solution, when gpt-5 comes out, just rename it Claudine, and the NYT will drop their suit
Yes... This really is a problem. Coupled with the fact that big social networks are designed to maximize engagement, they work in a way that depending on how you interact with it you get fed only the worst most horrifying news articles. I see that with my parents. Talking to them and seeing their feeds it looks like the world is ending before we had time to prepare for dinner today.
> All that amazing capability of generative AI? That got old fast. It was groundbreaking for one instant. Now it's just an app that generates images. Just another piece of software. Nothing special about it.

Speak for yourself, personally I find it still groundbreaking and while the magic won't last forever, it is and will remain groundbreaking especially considering that technological progress and development will continue way beyond what we have today.
> How do you feel about antibiotics? How do you feel about medical advances that reduced infant mortality from more than 20% in the 19th century to less than 1%? How about the elimination of smallpox or how fertilizer and other agricultural technologies have eliminated most famines. Now how about possible cures for cancer or alzheimer’s?

Like everything else, it's only good up to a point!

- I believe in basic medical care, but medical technology that permits immortality is bad.

- Likewise, is reducing mortality always good? Now we have extreme overpopulation. In short, reducing OUR mortality has also INCREASED the mortality of non-human animals, which I believe have just as much right to live as us.

- Fertilizer and agriculture? Most industrial fertilizer poisons the land and agriculture has eliminated millions of acres of wild forest and destroyed a lot of ecosystem. Agriculture is also responsible for the huge population growth that is causing global warming.

- Cure for cancer? Maybe good, maybe bad IF that cure results in significantly extended lifetimes due to how it works.

I do have MANY more nuanced answers. That is why I believe in looking at each of your points AND others individually. My answer was specifically directed at AI, which I believe to be universally bad.

Most of the technologies you listed have significant negative consequences, and it's not clear to me that those are outweighed by the positives, especially if our modern society results in the destruction of the phytoplankton of the ocean producing half our oxygen.

I suspect in the long term, it would be better to have more mortality, smaller populations, and less technology than our current world. It's not a popular view because people are emotional about such things, but it's hard to imagine how a world with 8+billion and mass eco-destruction to be better IN THE LONG TERM.
> This is a shame. CBC should trim the fat elsewhere.

I wonder what their new strategy is. Looking at the linked articles, at least two or three are hit pieces, swipes intended to sway opinion. For example "The hidden costs of EV batteries" article linked is a hit piece on the EV market, a common target and thus likely to generate clicks. There's a political hit piece in there was well.
> free of commercials

This is literally what they said. If they wanted to say something else they should say something else, because cable was not free of commercials. This is not a straw man.

And once again, cable had interruptive ads since the first cable was connected to the first subscriber. Cable's original point was by no means "freedom from ads."

stop it.
I kept on waiting for the article to discuss what the authors consider to be an economic downturn... but they never do.
Counting down to dekhn appearance in 3…
why the addition to clarify your use of fag?
I should have explained that those bits are all there is.

You are right, how am I to know that is an image from a movie or passage from the NYT?

Ask George Harrison about "My Sweet Lord" which cost him $587,000 for his unconcious infringement.

Another example would be the 2013 hit "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. It was found to have copied the "feel" and "sound" of Marvin Gaye's 1977 song "Got to Give It Up." The court awarded Gaye's estate $7.4 million in damages, later reduced to $5.3 million.
that's literally the only scenario where it exists.