skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it's worth noting that Adobe Firefly and iStock already have generators that use only licensed content.
This is quite the threat… if Elon is not handed tens of billions of dollars there may never be an option for your Tesla to recite the fourteen words when you honk the horn
Comically, when I google hackernews or even "Hacker News" I often get the other Hacker news first.

Finding my preferred UI https://hckrnews.com/ that's not even in the first page of results. Rajat's version https://hckrnws.com/... nowhere to be seen.

Google is becoming a mediocre phone book.
This is one of the things we've been thinking about for a long time. And review bombing is what we've been chatting about in the past few months. I think we have a few good options to identify and flag review bombers so that their reviews won't count at all.

Stars are important to quickly get some kind of idea about the overall quality of the book. But it's just one part of the whole review. We always tried prioritizing the actual written review, since that offers a more in-depth analysis and also tells you more about the reviewer. Right now we're also building discussions, which we're hoping will bring even more depth to what you can find out about a book before deciding to read it. Aand taking this chance to also mention the MatchScore, which is a % score that we calculate to tell you how likely it is you'd really like a book.
The solution was actually pretty recent, so I'm hoping the docs will be updated soon. If not, I'll submit a pull request.
I propose Human intellect is somewhere between Mandelbrot and Julia in this current exploitation of AI.
I'm puzzled by this read on the situation. For starters, vanishingly few programmers work in a pure functional context. Secondly, performance characteristics of functional programming are absolutely not dogshit. There are specific languages/VMs/etc that have inherent performance issues, but that's not a universal truth. To claim that would be like pointing at Ruby and saying that imperative programming is slow.

I think maybe a more measured take is that many modern environments remove the developer sufficiently from the actual execution of their code that performance optimization becomes much less obvious and straightforward.

Also, and this is just my personal experience, but I've basically never heard anyone actually claim that optimization is bad or unnecessary. I have never, ever heard anyone claim that profiling tools are bad.

What I have repeatedly heard is that there often isn't a compelling business case for performance optimization. Unfortunately that's probably correct a lot of the time.

I really think you're pointing at the wrong folks here. The hordes of JS devs out there who are deprioritizing perf aren't doing so because they think it's fundamentally a bad thing to optimize, that's just a self-apparently ridiculous notion, they are doing so because they work in a culture that values delivery of features massively more than optimization.
Don't even try to stop my grocery-store-sample-hoarding robot army, Wegmans! You're being unethical in your pathetic attempt to prevent your sampling disruption!
I'm a crab and I can type on computers.
Thanks! Very familiar with these.
The reverse could also be true.

Some people could be not able to figure out that the code GPT produced is not good because they lack the skill level to review it efficiently.
Amazing how everyone is an intellectual property zealot now.
They sent out real boxes. The full package being sold to box-buyers, the reason they bought the boxes in the first place, did not exist.
That sounds awesome! I'm going to look into that.
Same. NYC types will tell you to go fuck yourself on the street for walking on the wrong half of the sidewalk, and will give you the finger for basically any reason. But in private I found most of them to be warm, vibrant people. And, paradoxically, when I slipped on the street, random strangers were immediately jumping to my side to see if I'm okay and helping me up.

To paraphrase an old boss who was from NJ: we respect you enough to stab you in the front, and never in the back.

California, by comparison, was just as ruthless as Wall Street corpo raiders, but with a thick veneer of BS smattered all over it.
Some "disruptions" are unethical, some are not. It's about what they actually consist of. Labelling many things as "industry disruption" abstracts beyond usefulness.
Maybe the "rat fucks" just wanted to make cool images?
tl;dr GPU drivers made by various vendors do not sanitize compute unit hardware scratch memory between uses, so you can just freely read whatever the last user left laying around when they stopped.

Literally too incompetent to follow even basic security 101 practices. A time shared device must be sanitized between users to prevent state leakage. There is no reason to believe that a security culture that clueless when developing a universally shared, high criticality device can be believed if they claim to do better elsewhere. Their process is either so incompetent or so inconsistent that their claims can not be believed without external audits.

In this case: Apple, Qualcomm, AMD, Imagination.

Edit: Added Imagination as noted by reply.
If it took two minutes for a credit card form to open up that's clearly a site problem, and would likely have been just as broken even with an Apple Pay option.
Be gone! Your software sucks and you should feel bad for shilling it.
Your brother in law’s situation is quite common. It’s exactly why this is a reliable signal on a resume to avoid or at least not be in the dark on candidates with baggage. There are very few saintly bosses out there ready to rehabilitate someone’s work ego and professionalism. As a recruiter, it was my job to find the warts on an otherwise excellent candidate so that the hiring manager could at least make an informed decision. Missing something big with a candidate reflected poorly on my attention to detail.
Don't worry, it's quite common for people who are busy and important like you not to know this. In our experience that's because the people that work for them are simply not using modern working practices.

It is a problem though, because frankly, although you might think that moving to a more modern way of working is a simple fix, we have found that your employees are actually your enemies and are plotting to kill you and your family. You might think that you depend on them to get work done, but we can fix that for you and get our much more skilled and low paid workers to do the job instead.

You will find out that if you allow us to take the required steps to prevent your family from rape and murder your shareholders will get a bump as well! And of course you will as well, you can expect your bonus to at least triple, and you are worth it for sure.

We have already set up the culling stations filled with whirling blades to deal with the scum downstairs, if you say nothing at all we will act and slaughter them instantly. There is no guilt, only reward.

We love you.
Web AI Model Testing: WebGPU, WebGL, and Headless Chrome
> Goop? Someone named a "modern lifestyle brand" company Goop? And people are actually buying their shit?

An actress, in particular, Gwyneth Paltrow.

It also had a Netflix show in 2020.
3 days of winter storm energy prices visualized
It must have yeah? It is not exactly the ice wall in Westeros. But it must have acted as a major speed bump for any invading army.

Getting across animals and heavy equipment is not easy.

Cause enough delay to send some more soldiers to deter them some more?
Not just CEOs, all people in leadership positions tend to express dark triad traits more strongly, including politicians and the president.
What do you expect them to say, "we're cool with making less money and making it harder to make money?"
But again, we’ve seen these models spit out verbatim text and images that are copyrighted (many examples throughout this thread). That doesn’t strike me as “transformative work.”
If you ask MidJourney to mix the style of a few artists, what should the attribution be? I find the ChatGPT Dall.e solution better: if you name a style from an artist, ChatGPT will attempt to describe the style rather than using the artist name.
It does. See app stores and the endless copy-cat games and apps, right down to the art style.
https://archive.ph/6JL5u
Ya that worked out real well for Genius.
Yes, that is true. I 100% agree. It is needed without a doubt.

For one moment, let's think it this way. You are a 20-year experienced engineer who is making whatever money you are making. Suddenly, your skills are invalidated because of a new disruption. And you have another friend in, the same situation.

Fortunately for you, luck played out and you could transition! You found a way into life, meaning and value. Your joy and your everyday life continued as it is.

But the other friend enjoyed the process, and liked doing what they were doing and there was no suitable transition for them. Humans are adaptable, but to them, nothing mattered because the whole existence didn't offer any value. The sole act of doing was robbed WITHOUT ANY ALTERNATIVE. The experience and value of a person rendered worthless.

Can you relate to that feeling? If yes, thank you.

If no, your words are empty and hold no value.

Artist went through the similar phase during the invention of photography. Now, it is rather soul-crushing because anything an artist make can easily be replicated, making the whole artistic journey a moot.
Is that a statutory restriction (or an NYSE/NASDAQ rule?), or just the practical impossibility of getting a charter amendment?
Where are you getting equipment operators for 20? I live in very cheap area and an unlicensed joker with a tiny Kubota backhoe charges 80 an hour. A licensed contractor, double.

I rented my own to excavate my house, rental charges with full delivery and maintenance only 40/hr which leaves a good 120 for labor overhead.
Based on the comment you replied to, it seems they are indeed producing verbatim copies.
That's kind of the point of Windows' Fast Boot option. The base OS pretty much just hibernates at a normal shutdown. No point in re-initializing and restarting all the base services.
Why would anyone play chess? Also, why did we all assume that art of all things was the pinnacle of human achievement?
I think the analogy holds. Printing presses can't produce hand-drawn calligraphy just like Midjourney can't produce art outside some boundary on it's training set. Both are limited in capability compared to humans, both have inhuman capabilities. Both required humans to initially produce value. Neither requires humans to continue to produce value.
Enough resources for real time order and consumption, maybe.

But the thought process that compels people (both consumers and businesses) to desire more than real time order and consumption , or even just upgrade to products that are more intensive as far as raw materials are concerned, is psychological and contagious.

It's not like everybody suddenly arrived independently at the same conclusion
Cybersecurity Supply/Demand Heat Map
I could use some tips on talking with IT about this as it cripples work performance
I wish there were more details about how you measure "quality".
Doesn't matter. You pay the artist for their style of rendering things. Consider XKCD, PHD Comics, Userfriendly, etc. At least 50% of the charm is the style, remaining 50% is the characters and the story arc.

You can't copyright style of a Rolex, but people pay a fortune to get the real deal. Same thing.

> My word, the lawsuits that would arise between artists...

Artists imitate/copy artists as a compliment, at least in illustration and comics world. Unless you do it in bad faith, I don't think artists gonna do that. Artists have a sense of humor to begin with, because art is making fun of this world, in a sense.
I'm curious how they evaluated model quality. The only information I could find is "Quality: Index based on several quality benchmarks".
Much in the same way I've "given" my wallet to a thief by leaving it my unlocked car.
I think it makes a difference, because it shifts the burden of proof. If fair use is a kind of infringement, then it’s up to the “infringer” to prove fair use. I think that’s ethically and legally backwards: the copyright holder should have to prove that the use was not fair.
> ...reason enough to consider it unethical.

But unethical =/= illegal, unfortunately.
Before you can reload some previous known state, you need to initialize the hardware, load the firmwares and probe the devices (USB, SATA, PCI), discover the storage volumes and the partition tables. All these steps take time.
Fdroid already blocked possible updates for the original apps.
What would be the benefits of this?Hundreds of man hours+maintenance, for what purpose exactly?
It's working perfectly as it is.

Adding a shortcut to your homepage is really easy if you're that addicted to HN:
https://lifehacker.com/how-to-add-a-website-shortcut-to-your...
Jackery with a solar panel is easy enough to store in the garage
Applicant Tracking System. Manages your job adverts, parses resumes, keep track of who got through each phase of the process.

Taleo, Lever, Workday, Google Hire, etc.
I ran the numbers the other day. For just compute with my particular load, my numbers say AWS costs 73928x more for lambda over my on-prem. Like for like is 1250x more. This is presuming the savings levels for being a big spender that I've heard about.

That's a lot of room to work with for some inconvenience.
No, copyright law prohibits that. The best example so far is Google's image search being considered a fair use, notably there, its not commercial in as far as they do not sell the derivative work, though they might sell ads on the image search results. OpenAI sells their service which is the result of the copies, i.e. the a derivative work. It's also probably true that the AI weights themselves are derivatives of the works they are based from.
If you remove all the copyrighted, permission-less content from a human's training, what value does the human have, in connection with work?

When is AI good enough that the contents it contains can be comparable to human brain content, copyright wise?

And conversely, now that we can read signals from neurons in a human brain, and create images from dreams and audio from thoughts, would not that also break the copyright of the content?
Games are lightyears ahead of 'common use software' when it comes to usability.
Sure, there are bad, poorly optimized or simply unplayable games out there.
But still, even the lowest of them are still insanely complex when compared to the software we are complaining here, ie. text communicators.
They might be a for-profit company, but I don't believe they have made a profit. I wasn't even thinking of the murkey non-profit status.
The biggest question I see with this study is it doesn't seem like subjects had access to tools outside of the AI. Were the subjects without AI able to do google searches? If not, then what is the performance gain of the AI users over people who can google stuff?
Schrödinger’s cat. It’s not illegal till the court looks at your situation and says it is. Companies do plausibly illegal things all day long.
Very cool. I've actually been trying to learn about this area recently. I know this was aside from the main thrust of the article, but this but made me think:

Page Cache Disabled (PCD) – pages descendant of this PGD entry should not enter the CPU’s cache hierarchy, sometimes also called the ‘Uncacheable’ (UC) bit.

I guess this is some optimisation where it's decided the page isn't worth taking up valuble CPU cache state. And now I'm wondering what this algorithm is that decides it..
A: model is influenced by artist's work, output of model influences human work.

B: human influenced/inspired by artist's work

In both scenarios (A) and (B), the activity may or may not be commercial.

Why are we so much more worried about (A), when (B) is considered totally fine, even desirable?

Please note neither A nor B involve verbatim copying.
The drama of geese: AI uncovers their hidden talent for facial recognition
I like to look at API specs to clear questions like this, e.g.

https://wicg.github.io/shape-detection-api/#barcode-detectio... BarcodeDetector#detect returns a sequence of detected barcodes, so depending on the implementation and input quality it should able to extract multiple barcodes.

https://wicg.github.io/shape-detection-api/#dictdef-detected... each DetectedBarcode has boundingBox/cornerPoints.
I feel like nobody really cares about optimization anymore.

Until customers care about performance/optimization, most businesses won't care. Eventually there will come a day where hardware will stagnate sufficiently to incentivize software efficiency.
Sorry, but these arguments by analogy are patently ridiculous.

We are not talking about the eons old human practice of creative artistic endeavor, which yes, is clearly derivative in some fashion, but which we have well established practices around.

We are discussing a new phenomenon of mass replication or derivation by machine at a scale impossible for a single individual to achieve by manual effort.

Further, artists tend to either explicitly or implicitly acknowledge their priors in secondary or even primary material, much like one cites work in an academic context.

Also, the claim:

>But if I take your work and compare it to millions of other people's work...

Is ridiculous. A. you haven't, nor will you ever actual do this. B. This is never how the system of artistic practice up to this point has worked precisely because this sort of activity is beyond the scale of human effort.

In addition, plagiarism exists and is bad. There's no reason that concept can be extended and expanded to include stochastic reproduction at scale.

If you feel artists shouldn't have a say and a future in which capital concentrates even further into the hands of a few technological elite who make their money off of flouting existing laws and the labor of thousands, by all means. But this argument that somehow by analogy to human behavior companies should not be responsible for the vast use of material without permission is absolutely preposterous. These are machines owned by companies. They are not human beings and they do not participate in the social systems of human beings the way human beings do. You may want to consider a distinction in the rules that adequately reflects this distinction in participatory status in a social system.
You need to disclose those affiliate links

> It should be placed near any affiliate link or product review in a location that customers will notice easily. They shouldn't have to hunt for it.

Additionally

> the Operating Agreement requires that the following statement clearly and conspicuously appears on your Site: "As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases."
The Forked Elephant in the Room
Biological males are not better at basketball and tennis. Being exceptional at basketball seems to require being tall, and being exceptional at tennis seems to require a strong upper body, and having a greater representation of a gender will increase the likelihood that their outliers are in the set - and highly competitive sports are solely for outliers.

Being a male does not make you tall, it makes you somewhat more likely to be tall. But being a male doesn't change that I'd get sore neck talking up to female basketball players like Margo Dydek (218cm) and be absolutely destroyed in a match, or the fact the worlds tallest woman at 247cm would have made the average male look like a child.

Being male does not make you strong, but it gives you a slight advantage in growing strong (possibly including higher chance of experiencing a childhood that was more conductive to early muscle and bone growth). But being a male doesn't change that athletic and muscular sportswomen would consider my otherwise decent rather pathetic, and that no amount of dedicating my life to the cause would ever get me near the levels of a peak sportswoman.

Greater chance to have been born an outlier, not a benefit to the majority that weren't. Averages are misleading.
That's not enough to say that, all companies are benefiting of what has been made before, nothing exists in a vaccum. AI adds into the current landscape.
Will AI tools help this or make it worse?
i'm not saying anything about the content of infowars but I can't believe how much money people will spend on "supplements", and pills and artificial products. and yet, somehow don't have any money for fruits, vegetables and beans. i can only imagine, there's something broken in how people are being raised.
That's the problem. On Fdroid, the repository maintainers block any further updates but on Play Store if the Google team behind it can and would do such a thing.
Dutch people still jokingly invite newbies in the country to pronounce the name of the town 'Scheveningen'; this is kind of hard for native English speakers and very difficult for native German speakers, so it was used as a filter by the Dutch resistance during WW2.
Did you see this on reddit? Pretty cool story though.
Yup, something is strange there. There are 14in x86 laptops that consume 7W or 8W in idle (with the screen turned on but on minimal brightness).
Until my check from OpenAI shows up, they're not.
Pydantic 2.x is much faster than Pydantic 1.x. Polars is a much faster replacement for Pandas. Tauri seems to be getting some traction as a much more lightweight replacement for Electron. Python's got significantly faster in recent releases, and is planning to (optionally) drop the GIL which will improve things further.

From where I sit this doesn't right now seem particularly true. Developers are focusing on efficiency, not bloat.

On the other hand my first computer ran at 3.5MHz so I can't deny the historical truth of it.
People that consume copyrighted content are also copying some of it into their brain.
"abusing those rights" is a subjective phrase. What about it is "abuse"? If I learned how to draw cartoon characters from copying Family Guy and released a cartoon where the characters are drawn in a similar style, would that be abuse (assuming my show takes some of Family Guy's viewership)? Is your ethical hangup with the fact it's wrong to use the data of others to influence one's work (which could potentially be an algorithm) or that people are losing opportunities based on the influenced work?

If it's the latter how do we find the line between what's acceptable and what's not? For example, most people wouldn't be against the creation and release of a cure for cancer developed in this way. It would lead to the loss of opportunities for cancer researchers but I believe most people would deem that an acceptable tradeoff. A grayer area would be an AI art generator used to generate the designs for a cancer research donation page. If it could potentially lead to a 10% increase in donations, does that make it worth it?
It's not simple since you can't ban it everywhere. China, India, et al.

You can't ban it for open source either.
> Today's denial of petitions for certiorari means that Apple has mostly run out of legal options to prevent changes to its App Store policies now that multiple courts have found its "anti-steering" language anticompetitive.

So the courts agree that Apple uses anticompetitive practices.
From what I understand, ruling is saying: Apple can't block developers from displaying notification that the app can be bought cheaper elsewhere.
There are many areas of research, technological advancement, and construction which would proceed much more quickly than their current pace if we didn't force them do things in the way that society has decided is correct and just.
> Why should we hold AI to a higher standard than we hold human artists to?

Why hold it to human standards at all? It cannot be argued with, jailed, or shot. The only vaguely human thing it can do is draw kinda good.