skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
IIRC the "rib" thing is especially funny to take literally because it might be a translation error. The original Hebrew word did not necessarily refer to an actual rib.

I used to be strongly anti-theist and anti-religion in my teens but a few decades later now I've realized my opposition is more to the way religion is used to justify unjust hierarchies and oppression. There are absolutely scammers and quacks who will use religion to make health claims or sell woo but there is a lot of religious tradition that can exist alongside a scientific worldview and can be helpful to process reality at an emotional level rather than rationally (and after all, humans are foundationally irrational no matter how much we try to pretend otherwise).
Which is it? Are we worth billions or are we worthless?
Where are all free speech absolutists hiding? Those who were up in arms over the firing of James Damore. What's the difference here I wonder...
I am torn. On the one hand, this is basically pure racism and unlikely to end well. On the other, it does seem like a terrible strategy to funnel research into the Chinese military apparatus given that they are very culturally different from the Americas.

With hindsight the West might have made a lot of mistakes with how China was engaged. There should have been more serious negotiation to make liberalising their political system part of the package when they got all that investment back in the 90s. Doesn't even need to be any compromise on the Chinese part, just some consensus between the west and the PRC that it shouldn't be a tiny handful of people running the whole show and that this reality should be obvious to everyone. It was a mistake not to be more culturally assertive about making their decision making more transparent and their military governance more democratic. It has been unhelpful to make it all just business dealings.
How long realistically until we have a commercial robot maid that can do laundry and fold/put away clothes?
Or we could use the energy we used to create those hydrocarbons directly and get around an order of magnitude more bang for the buck.
> Or that he didn't mean that literally he is the best in the world?

Obviously not, but I think OP does sincerely think he's smart enough that he should stand out as exceptional to most of the people he meets - and I think he's probably wrong. Most educated professionals will know dozens of people as talented as him. The people OP is hanging around will know far more, assuming he's describing them accurately: in a room full of

> quantum physicists with multiple degrees from Harvard / Stanford / Yale

having a 1-in-100 intellect is less than table stakes. There are millions of people that smart in the US alone, and most of them do not share OP's difficulties.
> Although Youtube is debatable

It can definitely be an MPA. The only somewhat dynamic part it has is the comments.

And now it's so egregiously bad that it's the single source of bad scores in Google's own metrics: https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/1742669322487533801 and https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/1742670032113402049 (yes, it loads 47KB of CSS/2.7 MB on desktop among other things)
Paywalls for SMS Messages and Calls
'Simple rules can lead to interesting behavior, and here's a case study you might find applicable to life' seems worthy of a gander to me.
In my experience .NET core works great on Linux.

It has actually been fantastic for writing small jobs that run in Linux docker containers.
> useless if it can't directly quote its sources.

Why
No one is disagreeing with that.
Jarte: Free Word Processor Based on Microsoft's WordPad Engine
I, for one, agree with the original statement. I think the hallmark of enlightenment (for example, in the scientific method) is that we are able to externalize the expert knowledge, that is, experts are usually required to provide reasoning behind their claims, and not just judgements. This is because we learned that experts cannot be 100% trusted, only if we can verify what they say we can somewhat reach what is truth (although expertise still provides a convenient shortcut).

So not demanding this (and more) from an AI (an artificial expert) is a regression. AI should be capable of wholly explaining its reasoning, if we are to consider its statements to be taken seriously. It is understandable that humans have only limited capability to do that, since we didn't construct human brain. But we have control over what AI brains do, so we should be able to provide such an explanation.

It is somewhat ironic that you yourself do not provide any argument in favor of your disagreement.
Answering is optional, isn’t it?
Firefox already does some syncing. If they added rss, it's likely that they'd add it to the syncing (as optional).
We Built a UPS for Hardware Hackers! [video]
Does 'federated' section get decided for everyone on that server, or can people on that server choose which other servers to get items from?
Useless is probably not the right word but it's a good way of summing up a lot of the current problems. If the model can clearly identify when something is an exact quote and also know the source then its output could be trusted for the most part and much more easily verified. It would certainly elevate the output of the model from "random blog post or forum chat" to "academic paper or official report" levels of trustworthiness. Citing sources is hugely important for validation, cited text allows an immediate lookup and simple equality check for verification after which you can use it as context to validate the rest of the claims. Like I said, it's a standard we apply to humans who have an equal propensity for hallucination, mistakes, and deception because it's a tried and true method for the reader to check the claims being made.
> The point of COBRA is to continue your existing benefits, soaking the total cost yourself, so you do not have to find a new doctor.

Just a new source of income to pay the rent, or a free place to sleep since you can’t afford rent anymore, now that you’re paying for health insurance instead.
> The issue isn't what's "easy" to implement. Instead, users prefer a fluid and responsive UI.

Most SPAs can't give you that either.
This 4 stage model is insightful.
How do you setup and run C sharp these days. It’s a real headache. And forget all about gui.
I think it had the effect to make people buy new phones, you don’t?
Yes really, but this was a couple decades ago. I expect this has changed since.
Road to Removal: A blueprint for removing billions of tons of atmospheric CO2
As I'm reminded, ASTS is far ahead in this area.

https://twitter.com/AST_SpaceMobile/status/17434215614224303...
Things don't like bright for mozilla.social
>Chief product officer Steve Teixeira notes in the report the rapid growth of AI and social networks, although warns that Mozilla.social is unlikely to move beyond the experimentation phase in 2024.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/02/mozilla_in_2024_ai_pr...
That was the whole statement. It doesn't have qualifiers left out
So… mostly the original design of Obamacare ? That went over swimmingly.

There are enough “easy” solutions if the only goal is well-being of the citizen. That’s not always the priority for some obscure reason
Gotcha! I'm gonna dig more into this stack. Thanks for breaking it down for me.
It works on Linux. But you'll notice every now and then how it just doesn't quite want to fit in, especially the developer tooling around it. It's not that it doesn't work, you just stumble over minor annoyances that don't happen on Windows and VSCode (with the proprietary plugin). Quite a contrast to developing in Rust on Linux, for example.
There's the picture in picture stuff when you navigate away too. I recently did that with a MPA, and it was a not straightforward experience to get right.
That was not what it was about. The throttling existed to prevent the phones from shutting down needlesssly
Honestly I don’t think this is the fundamental question in this case.

It’s buried a bit by the lede but IMO the more fundamental question is whether AI models can be trained off of publicly available, copyrighted content without compensating the owner of said copyright. This is regardless of how the eventual work is presented and how “different” it is.

It’s where this falls on the “fair use” spectrum. This is uncharted territory for any sort of fair use doctrine as written.
I think the argument is generally that most applications' "complex interactions" are artificial contrivances and are unnecessary. I certainly think so.
> You're arguing for giving personhood to software right now

I'm not sure anyone in the thread is actually arguing that. I think what they are saying is that we should look at what behaviour is considered acceptable for humans in order to help us decide what behaviour is acceptable for the tools humans use.
Aren’t you doing here what you claim I was doing earlier? “That’s what it says” instead of, “that’s how I interpreted it”?
Quick google: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019/june/microfl...
People die in cars due to medical emergency all the time. I even know someone who had a heart attack and it caused him to hit a utility pole and die. We just don’t have any way of tracking it, whereas the FAA keeps very detailed statistics.

You’re leaving out the biggest risk: other people. Most deaths, in planes or cars, are caused by human error. In a car you’re dependent on everyone going down the road (and there may be thousands in one trip) not drifting across the median. You’re dependent on the person coming the other way at an intersection to stop. Etc.

Traffic deaths have been climbing again after decades of decline, probably due to distracted driving. Driving is much more dangerous.
Quoting isn't the problem here. There's already vast precedent for allowing it as fair use, even when generated by computer systems. The issue is that ChatGPT reproduces entire articles verbatim.
When we talk about the 'Uncanny Valley', we talk about things that are very humanoid, but not quite humanoid enough.

But the obvious target market for humanoid robots is retail and hospitality, where there's a high degree of human interaction. In that case, a lot of 'humanness' is needed to suggest to customers that 'yes, you can talk to the robot, and it will do things'. The design of this robot[0], on the other hand, is very un-human (poorly-drawn face aside), telling customers that it has a specific job that doesn't involve them.

[0] https://eftm.com/2020/09/woolworths-robot-for-checking-the-s...
Aaron Swartz, RIP <3
This x1000. My sense is that because of the historical development of how we talked about AI in constant comparison to human intelligence, along with sci-fi dreams, there's been a long-standing implicit value assumption that we necessarily want robots that emulate humans, but I'm highly skeptical this is actually desirable. It's quite plausible that robots that are just robots and don't waste effort on human emulation are actually far more beneficial societally speaking.
OpenAI is a corporation, which means it's a person under US law. So yes, it's relevant as to whether a person can remix copyrighted material or learn from copyrighted material, because the same laws that apply to people apply to corporations. Moreover, the AI the product of the collective action of _people_, it wasn't formed out of nothing.
I’m curious why apple didn’t just let folks turn this off if they were so upset. Their phones would have died and apple would get another sale. Make the turn off permanent- once opted out no going back. Off all the “gates” this one seemed a bit underwhelming
Many people don’t like equating human and AI learning (see sibling), but it’s interesting to pull more on that thread.

In all three of your transformation examples, you likely would’ve paid the NYT either indirectly via ads or directly via a subscription (contentious ad-blocking aside). And Mazda, GM, and VW surely generated far more value from the car designer in revenue than the designer got in salary and knowledge. Broadly, humans pay something (tuition, apprenticeship, etc) to learn knowledge and skills. Even schools and libraries are not free, though they may feel so at time of use. _Some_ free learning is beginning to emerge on the internet, but much of it is as upsell to paid learning.

OpenAI on the other hand has been purely extractive in its learning relationships. A single human contravening normal learning costs would go unnoticed but also would not scale their own downstream impact. But an organized large group doing so would certainly run into issues (10k interlopers couldn’t just sneak into a single college course, for instance). And I think a large group of aligned/associated people is more akin to AI than a single person is, given the differences in scalability.
A lot of employers advocate “bring your whole self to work”, which sadly carries an implicit “no, not that part of yourself”.
Yes, at the current state of tech.. I would say "does it look very humanoid" as a good litmus test for "not a real product".
You're effectively saying that current LLMs cannot be taken seriously as some expert, they are just some kind of weird text remixing engines. I would agree. But if the AI wants to be relied on, then it should be, at minimum, capable of taking a word like "democracy" and compare its own definition with the Wikipedia definition, and verify whether it's used correctly in its output.
There was another service that did this pretty well and much simpler. Unfortunately, suffers from the same “deliverability is now your own problem“ problem.

https://sendwithses.com
I am not the original commenter, but I think saying the jokes are “bigoted” shows a bias, and it was good to emphasize that by not addressing the other argument. We could have a discussion about whether getting fired for talking about conduct at your employer is right, but to link it with the idea that someone told “bigoted” jokes is to conflate two things.

To say those jokes are “bigoted” has a high bar, since comedy is about entertainment and not real. The jokes in the article don’t meet that bar, but one should be circumspect about drawing that conclusion because comedy isn’t real. To throw around that judgment offhand without supporting it is to lend support to a world based on censorship and conformity. It should not just be an assumption - “yeah of course these jokes are bigoted.” - that should be the substance of the discussion before we draw that conclusion.

So it’s proper to call out the bias of the commenter and not address their other argument.
Adventures in Building a Self-Certified and Decentralized Social Network
What definition of "race" are you using that makes this racism? Chinese students from Canada aren't banned from such research.
This. We are using it for 8 years without any problems.
> Imagine the word “democracy”, would you be able to tell me where you’ve first learned the definition of it and be able to provide a direct citation of it?

Worth noting that we mostly learn words by seeing them used, rather than by being given an explicit definition. Most of my vocabulary I learnt not from a dictionary and I expect the same is true of almost everyone. As such, there is no well defined point at which "the definition" is learnt, both because there's no such thing as the one true definition and because the meaning is gradually being changed and refined by each person as they see the word used more.
> I probably answered my own question by calling it “hype-based”.

No, I think you answered your question here:

> I get that our built environment is designed for humans

I don't want a purpose built robot that does one task extremely well, I want a general purpose robot that does a huge variety of tasks well-enough. Make me a coffee, then do laundry, then rake some leaves. Coffee served in the wrong mug? Clothes laid flat and not folded because it can't actually fold? Random leaves still on the ground? It's fine, it's good enough! It still saved me a bunch of time.

Remember, these are aimed at car-level prices. $30k for a machine that lasts 10 years means you're paying $10/day, you do not have to be very good to earn your keep at that price.
Seems like the in between of a managed service and raw AWS trying to take advantage of individual AWS accounts having a free tier.

So have the customer make the account, take advantage of the free 10k emails a month to claim a lower price.

I don’t see the point in it. I doubt there will be much customer service if problems happen. Maybe if you’re trying to launch a free newsletter or something but otherwise it’s worth paying for peace of mind and potential lost time. You don’t want to deal with emails not getting sent or issues with the service when you’re focused on growing your company.
There's nothing ironic about that. NYT likely wouldn't be suing if ChatGPT weren't useful.

They acknowledge its usefulness and are demanding to be compensated for the billions of dollars they spent producing articles that trained ChatGPT.
You don't need consent in this case, as clearly stated in 3.6 UI customization cookies

--- start quote ---

3.6 UI customization cookies

These customization functionalities are thus explicitly enabled by the user of an information society service (e.g. by clicking on button or ticking a box) although in the absence of additional information the intention of the user could not be interpreted as a preference to remember that choice for longer than a browser session (or no more than a few additional hours). As such only session (or short term) cookies storing such information are exempted under CRITERION B

--- end quote ---
Military is probably the most diverse employer you can find. Honestly besides C-suite / lobbyists / factory-work there's probably not a single private sector job that doesn't exist in the military. Plus the military will train you; good luck getting Boeing to shell out the money so you can get a pilot's license.

> Don't do negative works then. There's a lot of jobs that are not profitable, but still provide utility to society.

Not doing negative work isn't an option here. How will you handle people that nobody literally wants to work with? How will you handle people that literally cannot understand instruction? Wish I could find the blog posts people have done on Universal Jobs where they can outline people who cannot work.

What are the goal posts here? I'm going off the initial comment of providing literally every single person that wants it a job so that they're able to afford to live. There are no points for only getting to 99% as those remaining 1% will be the RV-ers living in the parking lot.

If we're ok with the goal posts being 99.9% than yeah sure things such as WPA [1] or CETA [2] are great. Probably even expand them to handle the national parks or develop more land into national parks would be neat.

> If you pay $50 for nothing, or pay $50 for $10 worth job, in second case it's actually only $40 paid so much better.

This isn't the option here. It's you have say $50 and can pay somebody (in need) $5 to do something and then pay somebody (not in need) $45 to fix up the mess. Or you could just give $5 to 10 people in need to do nothing. If your goal is to make sure everybody is housed then the second option is way cheaper.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_T...
It’s puzzling to me why some people take it as a given that if a person is legally able to do A, then software should too. The capabilities of software are so different than that of a person that it seems reasonable to consider how the laws apply to software separately. A group of individuals could not absorb the NYT’s content nearly as fast as software can.

Like, can we confidently say that laws around copyright and licensing would not have been written any differently had LLMs existed at the time? It’s not obvious to me that the answer is yes.
Citing basic definitions wasn't what I was talking about and it's not required for humans either for the reason you just gave, it's common knowledge. The problem the NYTimes seems to have is that ChatGPT can exactly reproduce large chunks of their articles. I'm saying that removing this ability would be bad. Finding a way for the model to identify when a large chunk of text is quoted verbatim and then clearly cite its source would be good. The output that is not a direct quote is not at issue here.
> Assuming this case is decided decisively in the NYT's favor, what would the effects be on the competitiveness of the US AI industry against other countries that aren't beholden to the ruling?

Probably none. They can just open a subsidiary there and siphon the same data to train their models.
I like this, want to brainstorm with me further?

I raised $372.03 for my FPGA chip on my profile and I've only sketched out a rough mock prototype of what I want the architecture to be.

So far, it works with any amount of silicon defects, can be up to the size of a silicon wafer, and the larger it is, the more it can reconfigure itself in parallel, which is directly proportional to its size growth.
News outlets are trying to make Google pay for snippets.
Migadu.com and Gmailify.com from the same founders? Isn't that a contradiction?
Today I found out, that at least one of the founders and people behind excellent Migadu.com Service also introduced Gmailify.com as a service.
Actually the service Gmailify.com sounds also really nice.

But what I don't understand is, that the people behind Migadu also create a service like Gmailify.
Migadu has a clear statement against Gmail and other big players in email-industry.
They do also publish a separate site showing the points against Google and Gmail: 'The Case Against Gmail': https://www.migadu.com/blog/gmail/

Is it only me, who doesn't understand how this can be the statements of the same people, or is it all about the money at all?

I like Migadu - I like their approach and statements and really like to be their customer (also because of these statements).

What is your opinion on this, or do you think i'm exaggerating and shouldn't be so petty?
> doesn’t change anything

Does it though? I remember once opening Notepad++ after an update, where the changelog itself never mentioned that its first start will behave like a virus, open a new tab, and start typing messages in solidarity with the victims of a french mass shooting.

That crap ain’t cool
I don't know if you've ever had to try to get that designation by SSA, but in my (second and third hand) experience it is extremely difficult to qualify. SSA regularly denies and then you have to get a lawyer and sue them for benefits and restitution. There are also asset and income tests that at this point are effectively punitive.

I don't know anything about Pennsylvania, maybe it's easier there.
Because by throttling the phone, they could blame all the new “powerful apps” instead of their defective batteries.
It cannot be construed as racism unless these judgements are applied on an ethnic basis, and the arguments put forth are unlikely to be repeated for Taiwanese citizens of similar ethnicity. It’s geopolitics.
There is one joystick in the photo. It’s even labeled "JOYSTICK". :)
My first reply was rebutting that kind of equivalence, then the reply to me was saying that there's no special difference between humans and software. The reply you've replied to is me saying that's crazy.