skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I think we actually have, we are just not serious enough about deploying them.

Renewables are growing like crazy, that's true. They are just totally based on fossil fuels (check the total energy that was used in order to produce and bring your photovoltaic panel on your roof) and completely marginal. We have never deployed renewables at the scale of fossil fuels in history, I don't get how nobody seems to believe it may be hard. I believe it just doesn't scale at all.

And we actually have good examples: look at Germany in the last decade. They removed their nuclear plants and spent a ton on renewables. And they had to re-open coal mines because... well because when there is no sun and no wind, you need something else. Not even talking about LNG imports.

Nuclear reactors are nice, but for some reason people don't want them (Germany spent a decade removing them, Spain is apparently considering doing the same). Still they won't replace fossil fuels, but I do believe that we will need nuclear reactors (on top of our reduction in energy consumption).
This argument might hold more water when generative models are more than fancy compression algorithms/text completion engines.

A more practical way of looking at this is: who is making money off of these models? How did they get their training data?

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. Thusfar, LLMs are becoming another method to concentrate wealth to whoever has the resources to train and sell these models at scale.
Show HN: I built Pamadoro – A Pomodoro Timer with some unique features
I have developed Pamadoro out of a simple need: To gain valuable insights into the time spent working on my tasks.

Pamadoro is not just a Pomodoro Timer. It also tracks the time you've spent working on each task and day. Based on your goals, Pamadoro also provides recommendations on how much you need to spend every day to complete your tasks.

I can't wait for you to experience Pamadoro and to hear your valuable feedback!
So naive lol. How many independent, unconnected rich artists were born pre and post YouTube for instance?
In a publish or perish environment, for some, the purpose is to not perish.
Stop trying to gaslight yourself into thinking what you are doing isn't morally wrong.

If you do not agree with their business model, don't get involved with their business, at all. Your disagreement doesn't give you the right to exploit flaws in their methods to protect their business. Just like the fact you don't want to pay for something doesn't grant you the right to exploit the fact that the laws of physics allow you to just grab something you didn't pay for with your hand and run away with it.
"In the beginning was the Word," everything else is plagiarism. Humans are not original--even our mythological creatures are amalgamations--because we can't create without a frame-of-reference which exists prior (creation) to us and is collectively shaped (society, culture, education, mentors, etc.)

Humans, not capable of true originality, are either innovative or derivative. For all the talk of these tech billionaires as geniuses I only see derivatives with tons of money behind it.

They lack both a healthy, wise, and deep-rooted frame-of-reference and the ability to imaginatively innovate within it.
Is there a way to measure outsourcing in the tech industry??

I've been in tech a decade and noticed over the years more and more jobs being outsourced or replaced by immigrants to USA. Like many the job postings on adobe's website are for Bangalore for example which wasnt the case 10 years ago. LinkedIn is making a huge push towards Bangalore workforce as well.

Is there a way to quantify the transition away from American labor to foreign labor??
I don't see how that changes anything I've said. And I don't see how anything I've said is in conflict with that. Moreover, not all critiques of Carlin are limited to specific sections where Carlin fastidiously points out he might be wrong.

Carlin does of course remind everyone that he isn't a historian quite regularly. And that's a good thing and a good reminder. But that doesn't mean his content cannot be critiqued for accuracy.

You may consider reading my comments on this thread again. I was defending Carlin.
Jonathan Haidt would argue that their coping mechanisms are not as well developed due to less unstructured play time (conflict resolution without appealing to an adult).
Disclaimer: ibid

> It can't just crawl Wikipedia because Fair Use in Wikipedia doesn't constitute Fair use for a commercial AI model.

Why not? The lawyers I've discussed this with socially think that questions like this are unresolved. There are certainly competing legal theories, but we're in uncharted territory. No one knows what the outcome will be until rulings come down or Congress acts.

I find the NYT's argument a little hokey. Where are the damages? No one is using ChatGPT to read NYT articles and the residual value of day old news stories is close to zero.
Latent Dictionary: 3D map of Oxford3000+search words via DistilBert embeddings
On the long run I believe it's a good thing.

I just hope the take on it will be to understand the watcher is also suffering a lot, and the people you hate as well.

Life is full of of suffering, for every body.

Yes, even the person you are thinking about right now.

And sure, we can always rank suffering by taking examples and saying a raped tortured 6 years old suffers more than your average tech billionaire.

But the main point is, suffering is universal. It's a common ground we all share. It's goes beyond context and morality, because we all agree we don't want to suffer, and we do anyway. That's one of the rare things we all get to experience again and again, and that shapes your life.

I really wish people looking at the internet window will get this as the message, as a way to get closer to the other humans, instead of classify suffering and divide us in categories. Maybe develop a deeper understanding of suffering, which is not just pain or other obvious manifestations.

And also be more kind, tolerant, wish others, and oneself.
I mean, people already talk about this.

What it seems to me from the milieu of everything I've read and heard (that is: I can't cite examples, this is an aggregate developed from hundreds of articles and podcasts etc.) is that there is already an "AI" arms race underway, but that it has more to do with specialized ML systems than with consumer LLMs.

But I'm not really in the loop, and maybe OpenAI really is more important to the US DoD than Disney (as a stand-in for big copyright-based businesses generally) is to the politicians they donate to. But I dunno! That's why I asked the question :)

I would be more intrigued by the national security angle of this if copyright holders were going after, say, Palantir. But I just don't know how important they see these language models as being, or how interested they are in OpenAI's mission to discover AGI.
Performance Benchmarks of Cloud Virtual Machines
> Something that is purely speculative, undefined, and has been promised in the near future for 50+ years.

"Undefined", although not literally, in practice definitely: each letter of that initialism means a different thing to different people. To that extent, I'll even grant "speculative" despite many of those meanings being demonstrably met by us humans.

But as someone who (unfortunately) has just turned 40: who was it that was promising AGI "in the near future" for more than my entire lifetime? Including the second AI winter? Because even the biggest timeline-optimists I can remember (Kurzweil and Yudkowsky), who very few cared to listen to, put things more than 20 years ahead of when they were writing. (And yes, Yudkowsky was definitely wrong about a singularity in 2021, though as you say AGI is undefined I think if someone in 1996 had seen ChatGPT they'd have said "yes, this is AGI" despite its flaws).

Now the crowdsourced guess for AGI is 7 about years: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/5121/date-of-artificial-...

> I don't see copyright holders lying down for one else's benefit and I don't see governments gutting copyright, contract law, and several other avenues of protection that copyright holders can deploy in the name of something that doesn't exist and may not exist.

I tend to agree. Although I don't accept that contract law has much of anything to do with this discussion, to the extent that it does have implications, it isn't going anywhere.

But at the same time, Google exists by reading the entire public internet, indexing it, and presenting clips of it to its users. This has in fact resulted in copyright disputes, and I was surprised how long it took for that to happen. Likewise, while copyright holders must fight for their survival, mere LLMs even as they exist right now are economically relevant, so this isn't going to be a one-sided fight by just copyright holders.
If the child / author then regurgitates entire paragraphs or sections verbatim in his own works and someone notices, you bet there will be a plagiarism lawsuit coming his way.
That's not as true as it used to be, and there are still plenty of useful open journals/open science publications, though proper attribution would often be important.

[edit] you could pretty much say that on principle, any significant development should have a publication in the open.
The claim that art’s core purpose is societal impact seems to be a common refrain in today’s media, and I completely disagree. Its principal purpose is provoking emotion in the individual. This idea of art teaching you a lesson is likely why there’s so much ham-fisted “activist” fiction anowadays.
Bombed the most important interview of my career.

With a lot of introspection I realized I purposely sabotaged the interview.

Took me 8 months to realize this and I’m now working to get a second chance. Looking forward to 2024
But none of the images in the article are for commercial use, they're for private use. So it would be akin to copyright laws saying "If you hire a guitar teacher, they can't play or teach you to play any copyrighted songs. All songs must either be their own original creation or in the public domain."
You know that how exactly?
The original post's point goes beyond mere recognition of authorship. Copyright effectively grants creators control over their work's reproduction, distribution, and adaptation. However, the idea of someone falsely claiming authorship of works like "Romeo and Juliet" or "Harry Potter," even without copyright laws, historical evidence and publishing records would easily prove authorship. But this isn't the point of the original discussion.
Seen iRobot once... tries to make self-driving cars and underground tunnels :o)

I still want to see what is on the other end of the galaxy though. Requires more lifespan and faster than light/instantaneous data transmission. So some entangled particles stored in space relay expansions?
I never understood what is meant by “data lake” in the first place, other than “heterogenous collection of large-ish data files”.
Part of what's interesting here is that generative AI makes it very easy to unknowingly and unintentionally get on the wrong side of copyright law, which is something that wasn't really possible before.

That's something which, IMHO, should be acknowledged by the law.
> But does this actually matter if the people are only generating images for their own use?

Arguably that might actually be a very small issue, but what happens when it happens on a larger scale? Disney might not care, they can easily fight you in court if your DALL-E generated comics looks like Mickey Mouse and Nintendo will make sure that your video game about a electrician named Marvin from the Bronx, but who looks a lot like Mario is never going to get featured on Steam. The issue is the smaller artists that might not have the resources to fight AI content in court.

There's also the issue with using LLMs to "white-wash" articles and books. There will be people who will just run articles through ChatGPT and claim that it's AI generated content that was in no way stolen from The Barents Observer. The absolute massive volume, lose in revenue and cost to fight this in court could make running an investigating newspaper impossible and leave us without any actual reporting.

Not thinking ahead and having a plan for copyrighted material was an oversight by the current AI companies, but they are arrogant and just assumed that it would be a detail and anyway "disruption" so screw it. There has been zero consideration to the fact that their product is useless without the previous work of millions of people. My concern is that AI takes over content generation to the point where we actually run out of human generated content to train future AIs on. We need to be incredibly careful about implementing AI and ensure that we do not pollute future training data, but people don't care, because they want profit now.
Yup - I feel this.

They were warnings - but tech bros with no imagination and lots of money think it was a prediction.
If you had put just half as much effort into articulating exactly what you did and didn't understand as you have in bashing me, then there might have been a discussion. Rather than lecturing me on how to participate in the community, you should perhaps reflect on how you yourself come across.
> also makes little sense to me that M3 machines have fewer sub-20s builds than M2 machines.

M3s have a smaller memory bandwidth, they are effectively a downgrade for some use cases.
Yes, but to enforce those decisions in other cases there would still have to be other lawsuits. And I just don't see that happening on a large enough scale to change the industry

Maybe I'm wrong though
I think the confusion is because "something new" isn't necessarily a completely new, disconnected product. It could be something like adding multi-lingual support to an existing product. In that case, you often do need to coordinate across many teams to get the new feature implemented, which can be a huge pain in a micro-service architecture.
Why should art be subject to these rules and not everything else?
That is true and would break the prediction... here's hoping!
> Nobody is forcing them

Well, yes, the peer pressure and possibly the deep rooted insecurity you are talking about, and FOMO / the fear of isolation / being excluded. That's actually a big part of the issue.

(as someone who has always resisted social networks except HN for various reasons, pretty sure it's a net positive, but I've known since the beginning that interactions happened there and I was excluded from these)

I know I cut your sentence mid way, but I believe that reacting to stuff you see when you are there is probably only natural.
> First, copyright is not "ownership of information"

This is historically a very good point. Although I'm not versed in the specifics of legal jargon, it's hard to ignore that the practical enforcement of copyright laws in the U.S. seems to have skewed dangerously close to proprietary rights. Consequently, you've pointed us toward the real question: What would a world where copyright had a different meaning look like?

One must look at the history of copyright (or around the world) to appreciate how convoluted the evolution of its (subtle) meaning has been over the centuries.
I use three monitors for my multimedia development work, and I can't imagine using fewer. I would get a fourth one if I could.

#1: My main 4k monitor, where I do the bulk of my work. I need the whole screen for this.

#2: My second 4k monitor, which I use for looking through documentation, taking notes, and working with the file system. (I have it split into quarters using PowerToys, but it's still very busy with many overlapping windows that I have to flip between frequently, which is why I wish I had a fourth monitor.)

#3: My old Cintiq, which I use when I need to hand draw something. In the meantime, it is dedicated to monitoring communication with colleagues (it's too low res for much else).
Making it harder to fire makes it harder to hire.
I think there's a small chance that LLMs will actually increase understanding in media (for a while at least). The press release copypaste and verbatim lobbyist statement printing is at least in part just due to hurry and the journalists not understanding the subject matter very well.

With LLMs you could get even some background or context to the stories with perhaps even a hint of critical "thinking".

Although more probably the press releases will be more and more just passed through LLMs to match the paper's "style".

Most publishing is not in the business of increasing understanding. It is difficult to get a business to understand, when its revenue depends on it not understanding.
What people do to denigrate this technology is and continues to be disgusting.

Lying about "generational radiation damage", for example.

Citing sources that in no way support those claims.

Where does this unconstrained hatred come from?
> US fossil fuel consumption has gone down since about 2006, GDP has not followed.

Do you account for the fossil fuel consumption of everything that the US imports? Or does your own fantasy cosplay make you feel superior by thinking that the fossil fuel consumption of everything you import from China does not warm your climate?
ChatGPT is not an intelligent entity? What’s been comprehending and rewriting all my crappy code for several months? An auto-complete? There’s obviously emergent behavior there that is actually defined by the maker and most users as “intelligence.”

Edit: typo
Good question, my thoughts: 1) to apply an LP or MILP to a practical problem that a business cares about requires a rare mix: one or a small number of people to have domain knowledge, knowledge about LPs/MILPs, and a good fit to the problem at hand. 2) the types of problem where LPs/MILPs reduce business expense is (currently) different from the spaces where ML has found success. This could change, but LPs have been applied extensively to strategic/logistics/planning applications, which aren't as approachable as applications of chatGPT, xgboost, etc. 3) LPs - since they are convex and provide global solutions - don't naturally support a kaggle-type competition that pits individuals and teams against each other. 4) there exist good open source solvers and very nice APIs (scipy, cvxpy, cvxopt, etc for example) but also high-cost and high-performance commercial solvers that businesses do pay for (Gurobi, CPLEX, etc).
If I understand the pricing table correctly, Starter is $16/user, Pro is the equivalent of $27/user ($10k divided by 12 months and 30 free responders), and $23 for every user after that.

30 responders probably covers a company of 100+ people (viewers are free after all). If you are smaller but want things like an API or webhooks, the minimum payment for the Pro plan is a huge cliff. And it doesn't even give you audit logs or an SLA.
You’re more likely to get cut with a dull knife. It can cause it to slip.

Technology is fine. It’s this artificial cookie-cutter society we’re forcing on everyone. We have a mental health and education problem.

The tech isn’t the issue, it’s the people who feel the need to use it for negative purposes.

Limiting tech is just a bandaid.
But I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about what we should make the law to be. Just imagine memory implants become commonplace, shouldn't they be allowed to store copyrighted media you have consumed? If not how do you separate between your natural memory and the artificial one? How is it going to work?
Lamenting that artists are going soft because of air conditioning and digital tools?

Having tweened every joint in hundreds of frames of model animation, I think he's just high on nostalgia. Suffering can inspire people, but I don't think grinding to express ideas adds as much as he thinks.
"He doesn't owe society"

Whether one owes or has an obligation to society or not is the big philosophical divide in society these days. No doubt education and upbringing aren't completely free but formal training is only a small aspect of a citizen's socialization and training, the rest comes from his/her interaction with society—which is free.

"...(and let's be real, in this specific topic we're really talking about megacorps with literally trillions of dollars in their coffers..."

I agree, but this is a separate issue and I should have made a distinction between what one 'owes' society and what megacorps are leeching from society for free.

Then there's the question of how much prior art one has learned (no one creates in a vacuum, one always builds on the works of others, so there's a philosophical argument about how much original content one has actually created).

Look at it this way: megacorps are not only leeching information from society for free (through AI and other means) but also they're 'stealing' once-open stuff from the public domain and making it proprietary on the flimsiest of grounds through questionable patents and trivial copyright—all of which is legal.

Most megacorps are public companies and thus are owned by shareholders who, in turn, are citizens in society. If hef19898 wants AI megacorps etc. to stop stealing his content then he will have to get cooperation from his fellow citizens—many of whom are shareholders in said companies.

Fact is, in the great scheme of things the pecuniary interest of these shareholding citizens holds much greater sway in society than do the moral rights of hef19898 and his ilk.

If this were not so then said megacorps wouldn't be able to 'rape' the defenseless as they have been doing for decades. As I've mentioned, hef19898 and ilk simply don't have the numbers to change things.

It's obvious, there are no masses with placards blocking Pennsylvania Avenue or throngs protesting around the Capitol to bring the megacorps to heel. Until then hef19898 will just have to accept that his content will be stolen.
Copyright might seem absurd until you create something and see other take it and benefit from it while you cannot do anything to prevent it and get nothing.
Parquet has been the lakehouse file format of choice for nearly half a decade. But we are starting to see other contenders that are optimized more for lower latency like lance https://github.com/lancedb/lance
Open drug deals are happening near elementary schools and you're saying crossing guards make it safe?
How to Get Support from Facebook to Correct a Misspelt Page Name
I have a page where I made a spelling misstate when I did the last name change.

The page is: https://www.facebook.com/dhammadharanii

The current name is: "Leaning Buddhism with Dhammadharani". The word "Leaning" should read as "Learning".

I wanted for the 60 days and tried renaming it to "Learning Buddhism in English with Dhammadharani" but there is no approval of rejection of the rename.

What are my option is trying to get this corrected?
That's amazing Sir!
This is not about copyright. Think about it. Would you ever actually use generative AI to pirate something when you could just torrent it? While there may be an argument that generative AI is infringing copyright, it is not really a very good tool for it. And there is a worldwide piracy industry already causing much more financial damage due to infringement.

This is really about replacement. The copyright holders in the content industry aren't really afraid of LLMs infringing on past copyright, but are terrified of it replacing them on future work, and there is absolutely no legal protection from this. The lawsuit might officially be about copyright, but that's just because it is their only available legal angle of attack.
Tides!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide-predicting_machine
I understand that. The build environment I used had type-checking for CDI annotations, obviously outside of the Java language, if I recall correctly. If the types did not line up, the build would fail. This was part of some JEE training I took out of curiosity, maybe real-world JEE is different?