skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I don't think anyone seriously believes this. It's very very clear to all humans that have ever played a game of any kind that they can be defeated in unexpected ways. I don't even think that anyone believes the claim "it's impossible for AGI to pose an existential risk to humanity".

Okay. So we agree that (A) powerful systems can best weaker systems in ways that are unexpected to the weaker system, and (B) it is possible that AGI poses an existential risk to humanity.

> The negation of the claim "AGI poses an existential risk to humanity" is "AGI doesn't necessarily pose an existential risk to humanity".

It seems to me that the negation of your first claim is just "AGI doesn't pose an existential risk to humanity". Is "necessarily" doing some important work in your second claim?

>> https://wiki.aiimpacts.org/doku.php?id=arguments_for_ai_risk...

> The argument here works just as much for single-minded humans, so it's quite moot.

I don't understand why the argument being applicable to humans would make it moot. Please explain.

>> https://aiadventures.net/summaries/agi-ruin-list-of-lethalit...

> This seems to agree with my previously stated positions. It does try to establish a canonical argument, as you say, but then it goes on to explain why they don't think it's persuasive.

Is there a particular premise or inferential step in the blog's argument that you believe to be mistaken? (I've copied the argument below.)

P1: The current trajectory of AI research will lead to superhuman AGI.
P2: Superhuman AGI will be capable of escaping any human efforts to control it.
P3: Superhuman AGI will be misaligned by default, i.e. it will likely adopt values and/or set long-term goals that will lead to extinction-level outcomes, meaning outcomes that are as bad as human extinction.
P4: We do not know how to align superhuman AGI, i.e. reliably imbue it with values or define long-term goals that will ensure it does not ultimately lead to an extinction-level outcome, without some amount of trial & error (how nearly all of scientific research works).

C1: P2 + P3 In the case of superhuman AGI, since it will be able to escape human control and misaligned by default, the only survivable path to alignment cannot involve trial & error because the first failed try will result in an extinction-level outcome.
C2: P4 + C1 This means we will not survive superhuman AGI, because our survival would require alignment, towards which we have no survivable path: the only path we know of involves trial & error, which is not survivable.
C3: P1 + C2 Therefore the current trajectory of AI research which will produce superhuman AGI leads to an outcome where we do not survive.
Hurricane Electric offers a whole rack for $400 a month. I'd suggest contacting them. They may have some deals on partial racks closer to your budget.
I know that a lot of the debate around this topic has to do with premarital cohabitation or number of past partners, but this study points out that there's another important factor in successful marriages: premarital preparation.

I'll admit, I'm biased about this. My own religion requires couples to participate in a formal marriage preparation program before getting married. My wife and I found that program so beneficial that we volunteered to become presenters after we got married. (Note that although this preparation program was required by my religion, the program itself wasn't primarily focused on the religious aspects of marriage, but on the practical stuff: communication strategies, finances, decisions about children, etc.)

To me, it's a no-brainer that couples who confront these topics before getting married are going to fare better, but I've been surprised at how many of my peers were not interested in any type of marriage prep program when they were planning their own weddings. Perhaps they see marriage as something that's so unique to the couple that outside counsel isn't helpful?
According to their published annual reports they make like $1.5m in profit from their publications ($2.8m rev - $1.3ish direct exp). That profit looks like it basically pays for their administration and 'governance' line items which total $900k.

https://www.asanet.org/about/governance-and-leadership/audit...
There's a serious problem with human beings. A very loud, emotionally charged warning used to work perfectly for us. "SABERTOOTH TIGER!" is obvious and it's useful for the warning to be delivered with such emotional force.

However, there's a problem when the severe danger is disguised by layers of abstraction and complexity and obscured by time. Even emotionally neutral warnings will trigger our psychological attack defenses in these cases.

Note, I'm not saying op did anything wrong. What I am saying, is that delivering negative feedback about anything complex is itself a complex operation!

A security membrane which needs this kind of feedback to work correctly should be viewed as having a serious design flaw.
>It's not incredible it is just a different view point...Neither viewpoint is wrong

Claiming that Apple is "stealing" their cut of commission is definitely wrong.
> If they decide to ban these kinds of messages, and only enforce link tracking, that would be directly in conflict with the ruling.

Which part of the judgments would that conflict with? Both the District Court’s ruling and the 9th Circuit’s decision that affirms it only speaks of anti-steering, without any qualifications on potential limitations on steering users away

They also both affirm that the commission would still be due and that Apple would have the right to audit to enforce payment of said commission.

Apple, since then, has implemented changes to its policy that allow steering, albeit under circumstances that will enable them to track users using the purchase link and claim commission over sales in the seven days that follow.

Any opposition to these requirements would be met with a “legitimate interest” counterargument, the legitimacy of the interest already being established by the courts by them stating that they still owe Apple a commission.

In layperson’s terms:

The courts have said that Apple can’t prohibit developers from steering users to an alternative purchase flow while simultaneously stating that developers will still owe Apple the commission.
Apple, in response, said: Fine, but we want to be able to track it when you do this and make sure you don’t make it look like the native IAP flow to trick users.

What’s the argument of the developers here? They’re allowed to steer users away to their purchase flow of choice; they just have to do it in a way that makes it easy for Apple to audit the owed commissions.

I can’t imagine the courts frowning upon this, especially when both courts have stated on multiple occasions in their judgment how arduous it would be for both Apple and the developers to ensure payment of commissions if alternative payment methods are utilized.
This alleviates some of those concerns.
Anti-virus in practice is more about protecting about broad-spectrum attacks which aren't targeted against anyone in particular. Drive-by trojans, ransomware, and the like. An attacker like that is not going to spend an hour per target. A more motivated, targeted attacker is going to be a lot more of a threat.
It looks like there's some interesting works to connect ML with symbolic reasoning (or searching). I'm closer to layman in this area but IIUC the latter is known to be rife with yet-to-be-understood heuristics to prune out the solution space and ML models are pretty good at this area.
I'm not in a position to suggest what needs to happen to further push the boundary, but in my impression it looks like the current significant blocker is that we don't really have a way to construct a self-feedback loop structure that consistently iterates and improves the model from its own output. If this can be done properly, we may see something incredible in a few years.
In my mind, what's more crucial here is code for downloading/scraping and labeling the data, not the model architecture nor training script.

As much as I appreciate Mis(x)tral, I would've loved it even more if they released code for gathering data.
This looks a lot like the default macOS calendar app, enough that I went back to Calendar.app and added back my calendars and now I'm using it again. Someone else mentioned no offline support which is a big thing for me, I like to clean up my calendar and other "productivity" related areas like Reminders, Notes, etc while I'm on long flights which often don't have internet access.
This is going to have some serious problems with that pesky first amendment. It will need to be very narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. Even if the claim was made that is defamation because it's passing off something that didn't happen as having had happened, there's a pretty easy work around. Just label it as not real and can fall in to satire which is protected.

That it's being done with the "for the kids" mantra should be the biggest red flag that it's a problematic piece of legislation.
I always gamble and scan any alcohol or age restricted items first. About half of the time, it throws an alert and flashes but lets me continue scanning, it just won’t let me complete and pay until someone has come over and approved.

For some reason though, some idiot designer who never actually thought about how these would be used in reality, decided to make it so that the other half of the time it immediately stops all scanning until someone comes to fix it.

In the first case, basically I waste no time. In the second, I lose however long it takes for the cashier to come.
This is the first time I've seen it suggested that Aurora is implemented on top of S3.

This overview doesn't mention S3: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide...
The hackintosh community has been troubleshooting iMessage activation issues for a decade.

Activation is tied to the Mac's serial number, so you either need to work with Apple Support to get your Mac's serial number off the blocklist, or you need to change your Mac's serial number to a unique and valid one that isn't blocked.

https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/an-idiots-guide-to-imessa...
Depending on the outcome of the NYT case, I.P. may in fact be the death of (profitable) AI.

One problem with AI (vs e.g. Google search) is that there is no mechanism for attribution. So it is impossible for rights holders to understand whether their works are being monetised (unlike, say, Spotify).

Should NYT win, then either AI services will have to pay into a (very large) common pot for rights holders, which likely will make AI uneconomic (even if it does turn out to have some business benefit), or (paid) AI services will simply be banned.
Apple will approve apps that prevent sign-up in the app. The problem is that they will deny you the ability to even tell the customers where to go to sign up. Notice that the message displayed in the Spotify app doesn't have a link, doesn't even mention that you can sign up on their website. The customer has to infer that that is what's going on -- good on Spotify for using "premium" as a trigger word because Apple rejects apps that contain the words "purchase" and "subscription" _anywhere_ in your app if you're not using IAP. We were rejected once because those words appeared in an error message sent from the server.
> Returning 4xx on a client error isn't hard and is usually handled largely by your framework of choice.

> Your argument is a strawman

That's....super not true. Malformed requests with gibberish (or, more likely, hacker/pentest- generated) headers will cause e.g. Django to return 5xx easily.

That's just the example I'm familiar with, but cursory searching indicates reports of similar failures emitted by core framework or standard middleware code for Rails, Next.js, and Spring.
Thanks, and great question:

Shadeup will try to fit it all into one command encoder but may need to split if the coder:
1. Manually flushes
2. Reads/downloads a buffer on the CPU

Most calls are lazily evaluated, and a small dep graph is built as you reference/draw things.

That being said, shadeup does make some perf sacrifices in the name of simplicity. I'd say it's well suited to prototyping and learning. Of course, once you have a working prototype of something porting it to native wgsl should be easy
I did, doesn't mean people don't make mistakes or sometimes use words incorrectly.
Apple can do what they want. I want them to be able to do what they want because I'm from America dammit and companies in non-critical segments of the economy like video games and phones should be able to do what works for them. Ain't called the land of the free for nothing.

Personally I don't like these practices -- it's all cuz of the walled garden, locked down aspect of it all. But luckily I'm also free to continue avoiding the heck out of Apple devices. They make nice hardware so that sucks that I miss out on that, but I'll take the trade off that I get to install whatever apps I want on this here Android phone of mine.
To answer my question for The Netherlands, it is my impression that cops are held to a higher standard and are punished equally—if not more harshly—than normal citizens when caught.
To be fair, you don't really control where the GrapheneOS Pixel sends traffic either.

I wish there was a firewall similar to Little Snitch for phones. The only options I've seen where flimsy workarounds using the VPN service to act as a DNS filter, but then, you've got no real VPN.
The difference is in trying to highlight the "policy" as being fundamentally just and fair, versus arbitrary and capricious. If I have a "policy" of beating up anybody who looks at me funny, that doesn't make it any less retaliatory. On the other hand, the justice system has a habit of avoiding the term "punishment" because they don't like the connotation.
You can disable the ticking of every second though.
> Everything after October 18 is a back-and-forth between CERT-In and me trying to determine if there would be a bug bounty reward. TTIBI never responded to the question, so I decided to close the case on December 22 and CERT-In sent me a nice appreciation letter.

If a "leading Insurance Broker across India" can't afford to hire competent developers the least they can do is throw a couple bucks at someone who took the time to identify the multiple severe problems that jeopardized their customers and who notified them responsibly.

The fact that they didn't and still haven't reset the password of the compromised email account blows my mind. Why would I ever trust a company that acts like this to do anything right? It seems like Toyota Tsusho Insurance Broker India should be avoided like the plague.
Thank you for the recommendation; I've wanted to start a private Notion for a while but had the same requirement for local data storage.
I wonder to what extent cruft builds up in systems built on 'regulations written in blood'-style approaches to safety? There is always a loud proponent for another safety procedure, more explicitness, more repetition, more features and doodads, but there is rarely a proponent for removing things, even though it cannot be the case that those additions were always right & never become wrong. If there were a reset to zero of the whole airplane ecosystem, how much would just never be recreated?
I have a bludgeon. A permanently open markdown file with my life stuff in it (chores, ideas, projects, backburner, vacation plans). I think the closest is probably this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38733968
I just checked on Linux Firefox and iOS Firefox and both loaded the background without issues.
When I was getting my teaching credential, one of the instructors was a VP of some school and a former police officer who changed careers as he realized he was getting jaded and "everyone was a suspect."

He would have friends and acquaintances hand him a ticket and ask if he could "take care of it." He would take the ticket, pay it, and send them the paid receipt. People stopped asking him after that.
"sweet, I got something done today"
Show HN: GitHub Actions Advisor – View security scores of GitHub Actions you use
Hi, this is Varun, co-founder of StepSecurity. StepSecurity helps secure CI/CD pipelines, specifically GitHub Actions.

Developers use numerous third-party GitHub Actions in their CI/CD pipelines, often facing challenges in assessing associated risks.

We recently launched GitHub Actions Advisor. It offers an automated security score for public GitHub Actions, aiding in informed decision-making based on your risk tolerance. This score incorporates both static analysis of Action code and repository settings, and dynamic analysis of networking behavior during runtime.

Try it out and let me know if you have any feedback!
Legacy — my iPhone is circa 2012 [from my pre-PiHole, fanboi days]. When it dies, I plan to get a Lightphone (or perhaps even simpler, a la early 2000's flip phone).

I have no lifelong plans for utilizing either Google or MSFT products.
> tinpot dictatorships and flailing states

> NYC

Seems about right.
I can only hope.

In the mean time, we have and even worse situation: "AI" models like LLMs are effectively allowed to launder IP. As long as companies like OpenAI are allowed to be ignorant of copyright, they get to monopolize that ignorance.

The result is that the rest of us are in an even worse position, because we have to respect DMCA, but can't benefit from it by monopolizing our own IP.
I agree, but the push for 'AI Safety' as a whole is driven by the x-risk crowd.

There are a few people genuinely concerned, however misguidedly, about the outputs of LLMs. The big money coming into the field from EAs and the sort of background fear is about fast takeoff, shoggoths, paperclip maximizers, etc.

The thought is that, if you can't reliably align an LLM to output what some authoritative source wants, then you can't reliably align the inevitable machine god that will destroy us.

In that context, user education doesn't do any good.
> We're still a few years away from having 1khz oled (or faster) displays

Fine. We can always go with 240 fps AR with 8K HDR 180-degree FoV instead.
I would argue that while technically correct, it is not what most people really care. What they care about are the following:

1. Can I download it?

2. Can I run it on my hardware?

3. Can I modify it?

4. Can I share my modifications with others?

If those questions are in the affirmative, then I think most people consider it open enough, and it is a huge step for freedom compared to the models such as OpenAI.
Why do you think AGI is desirable?
I wish the web page came out and said what Willow actually provides and what is up to the developer.

As far as I can tell, this is primarily a crypographic specification, like Noise (http://www.noiseprotocol.org) except for a stateful key-value store instead of stateless connections
That the world hasn't enjoyed peace at all. The West just relocated its wars somewhere else.
Sounds cool. Any write up on this? How did you approach the design? What was the motivation to use foundation db? How much did you/your team needed to learn while doing it?
That would be closing the circle. Back in the 1970's some video games were more or less purely implemented in hardware (e.g. I believe Pong was originally implemented with discrete TTL chips, and a later hone version was implemented in a single VLSI chip).
Self-hosting allows you to block trackers at the DNS level. =) Depending on your level of hands-on you can block rentable infrastructure that trackers use and whitelist the apps which coincidentally also rent compute in that space. You can also use resolution telemetry to synthesize PTR records so that reverse DNS works for assets in the the cloud.

In order to accomplish those things I rely on Response Policy Zones and Dnstap, features which I don't see listed for this server. Nonetheless it does have filtering capability and decent coverage of features important to the average internet user, based on their listed features.

[I give away the RPZ / Dnstap stuff on GitHub, and I use BIND.]
This is a softcore running a Quake port. Cool, but not quite what you want.
Part of your job is to keep kids on a schedule. Shit gets messed up and learning is disrupted for many students if you don't. It's also your ass on the line if you don't know where kids are, within reason, all day long.

Devices that don't necessarily, but do tend, to make keeping the schedule harder, exist and aren't needed for education.

("What does a CD player at lunch have to do with that?" if enough kids start listening to music at lunch I 100% guarantee you issues getting them to the next class on time increase in frequency a ton, and that's before you consider that every thing you add like that to a school environment increases the rate and severity of, ah, physical disputes)

So yeah, of course you ban their use.

"You could just only ban them for students for whom they're a problem."

Yeah, you could, but now you're dealing with even more angry parents up your ass because "you're not being fair, and you're singling out my kid". And you're burning more time you don't have dealing with these issues ad-hoc. No, it has to be a blanket ban.

Schools could be a lot less authoritarian if they didn't have to serve kids (or parents...) who can't handle a looser approach, and if they could simply kick out very disruptive kids, et c. But they can't, so they're a lot worse, in a lot of ways, than they hypothetically could be.
1. No negotiated rates.
2. No employer mandate.
3. No special tax treatment.
4. No individual mandate.

Crazy idea: Convert Medicare, Medicaid, and SSDI to universal medical loan insurance.
Microsoft's desktop strategy has been a disaster.

If I had to guess? A bad decision and then sunk cost. If for their cross platform story they'd gone the avalonia route and developed cross platform wpf they would have been miles ahead of wherever they are now with their three or four competing underfunded ideas. Then wasm as a target might eventually have even fallen into their laps.

They have good execution in general but their strategy in this space is closer to a "12 startups in 12 months" style approach.
I'd be very curious what project you have for which IPFS is a good solution.
These people are customers of both beeper and apple. Both beeper and apple made a set of decision that led to their own customers being hurt. Somehow the resolution is that beeper is uniquely responsible for course correcting. Maybe they should have put language in their ToS to the effect that if your device id is banned, they disclaim all responsibility. Surely that would have smoothed things over?
> was for the whole history of small-town, shop-owner, working sunup to sundown, what have manchilds todo with that?

Small-town shop owner working sunup to sundown isn't a manchild, they're a hard-working professional. To my impression, this doesn't describe incels. Take their personality a few centuries back and you have the decent-looking but insufferable child whose parents can't merely be somewhat wealthy to overcome his misgivings.

Part of the problem is "the 1960s," a cultural waypoint for America, "were an exceptional period with respect to marriage behavior" [1]. In fact, between 1870 and 1960, we were at much higher fractions of the 45 to 54 age bracket of men who had never been married. Selection pressure was higher a century ago, not lower.

[1] https://users.pop.umn.edu/~ruggl001/Articles/Fitch_and_Ruggl...
Yet, things could be worse. Back in the 80s & 90s it was possible to select a resolution/refresh frequency that would permanently damage (e.g. destroy) a CRT (cathode ray tube) monitor.
You can get iodised salt in Norway in basically any grocery store. Look for “salt med jod”.