skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The abstract thesis here is that if you have a near-monopoly in some domain, where the product's quality is dependent on someone else, for example,

* links and content on pages that Google search engine ranks

* reviews on the Amazon market

then everyone is going to use every trick in the book to come out on top, and that will just constantly degrade your product.

If there was competition in the domain, then the tricks used for one search engine might not work for other search engines. So the situation might be better in the long run.
I can't wait for higher-quality built-in proofreader on os x. I don't love real-time spell checkers, I'd prefer to just dump an email with no error highlighting, hit a keystroke and have it re-written proofed (with dyslexia often the only way I can find my own errors is by reading the text backwards). I built a GPT in the "built your own GPT" thinger ChatGPT has now, and I copy/paste stuff in, hit enter and it sends back a corrected version and underneath a list of the corrections it made. So far it's batting 1.000. I'm going to see if I can use this for that.
You don’t need (unencrypted) in this. RCS is not encrypted. It never has been.

Google has a proprietary extension that puts encrypted blobs into RCS messages, but that would be no different from apple shoving iMessage blobs into RCS and calling it RCS.
> Technically, we need 9.58 bits, but there is no good way to use that final fraction of a bit.

Huffman or arithmetic coding can pretty easily provide that “fraction” of a bit, at the cost of making decoding more expensive (and not random access).
Maybe there’s a selection bias: people willing to emigrate are less anxious.
I’ve also noticed a lot of places with fewer employees running the whole place. There are shops I’ve casually walked into and left immediately due to the line. My time is worth something, and I consider making me wait as an extra hidden tax.
It kind of did though. You’re talking about incremental cost, building on top of what’s already there. And what’s there was already quite formidable

Blanket ban is also not going to work on account of the West only representing 1/8th of the world’s population.
> I realize people have to work

Do they really, though? As a culture, we've invented so many BS jobs and so many silly corporate culture ways of filling at least 8 hours 5 days a week almost every week a year whether it is useful to us or not out of some puritan-based pseudo-religion that tells us that "work" is good for the "soul" and anyone who doesn't "work" is evil and undeserving of god's/society's love. The 40 hour work week was chosen because it is right near the cutoff of people's exhaustion level, not that it has anything real to do with productivity or usefulness to ourselves and our society.

If we are going to talk about elephants in the room: why can't we find more time to open room for hobbies and personal/family time? Why do we have to work so much? Why are we focused so much on corporate profit and greed? What good are we really doing for ourselves and our society with our current forced work culture?
Populism, it works!

EDIT: Generally when people are "true geniuses" their _peers_ identify them as such. That's not the case here.
i would expect something like this to severely stunt chatbot adoption

i think the only reason this should go through is if it didn't have a proper disclaimer at the beginning of the conversation
The concept of safety is pretty different in a kernel and in a programming language. The kernel can be attacked directly with malicious calls, while it's the program created by the rust compiler that can be attacked (unless you envision Rust as a sandboxing technology, what it is absolutely not).

The safety in a programming language is mostly protecting the programmer against itself. The probability for a programmer to write this kind of code by mistake is close to zero, as opposed to UB in C or C++ that are pretty common. To make a vulnerable program with this kind of issue, the programmer would have to make them on purpose, what is unlikely unless for this kind of joke repository.
> some or even most people need to do real hard work on themselves

Isn't this what people that go to therapy are doing?
So what about your mail client, team chat app, browser (with all your accounts logged in to your sites), terminal, and all your files and network mounts?

I would rather make this a feature of your desktop environment / window manager. Then you have this functionality for all apps, and the apps themselves don't have to make that functionality.

Edit: actually maybe what you're looking for is to have multiple accounts on one computer. Then every user has their own desktop environment with their own apps and data and apps are not shared among users.
> what is the motivation for making distributed VCS?

it depends on if you're asking about the motivations for distributed version control for linux kernel development in 2005 or the motivations for distributed version control today. git predates AWS and predates the state of the industry being that it's very easy and cost-effective for people to make central servers and web apps and things of that nature. My understanding is that "emailing a patch to a mailing list" was a more reasonable workflow then, since it piggy-backed off of people's email hosting providers (which, at that time, wasn't even "everyone using gmail", since back when git was created, gmail was invite-only; git predates gmail having open signups). Plus Subversion's branching model wasn't particularly great, so having different people work on things on different branches and giving them feedback and merging the branches when they were ready wasn't really a great experience.

The distributed nature of the version-control system facilitates branches, since a branch and a copy of the repo somewhere else are abstractly the same thing. Practically speaking, people don't push and pull code between their workstations and the network topologies are typically centralized in nature, but on a data level the distributed model is dual to the branching model, and the branching model is the thing that people actually care about. Although I _do_ think it's pretty neat that you can use a thumb drive or NAS as a remote instead of needing a server, it's probably not a core use-case for most people and most projects.
This sounds like a clause to cover themselves in case older versions have any serious issues
Are you sure about that? I'm guessing people are at least for 50% attracted towards the innate biological traits like body-scent, physical build, etc. Things you could get out of a DNA based classifier. And even if it does not provide 100% matches, it still makes the search easier.
Yes we’ve traditionally called it a Ponzi scheme or pyramid. We are in the part of the cycle where no one actually has to make money from AI. We’ve been here before with Uber and WeWork. All these free queries aren’t free and run on incredibly expensive hardware. The final endgame is a Dyson sphere around the sun so that we can ask ChatGPT-XX if it’s raining outside and the owners of the AI and chip companies blast off to their colony on Mars.
Shit or not, if new APIs require swift, it’s more of a practical question than an ideological one.
Jujutsu uses change IDs, which are an abstraction over commit IDs, that are stable over operations like rebasing.
What happens when AI-generated content organically becomes a large percentage of the user-generated corpus that is used for training, with no way to differentiate it from human-generated content?

We may look back on 2022/3 as the last time we had a training set that was clean. The fact that it was already polluted with SEO garbage will be a quaint problem.
This kind of defensive statements in ToS are usually due to obscure regulation or leading cases and model developers need a way to limit liability. There's no practical way to enforce this, but they can claim that when bad things happen it's purely on model users rather than model developers.
rails nowadays is fantastic and is hitting its second wind.
Totally understandable that most people would want to chat with a human agent (I sometimes share the same feeling). However, I do think that a major reason for that is voice bots were bad before and could not understand and get things done, and felt like waste of time. With advancements in voice AI and LLM, I'm confident that there would be more use cases where talking to a voice bot is not a bad experience.
So, laws for the rich assume good faith. Laws for the poor and middle-class - e.g. "go to jail if you have a flipper zero" - do not.
I also just wrote about leaving GitHub Pages for different reasons <https://pettazz.com/goodbye-gh-pages/>. Sticking with Jekyll for now though because I'm too lazy to rebuild my horribly cobbled together 10 year old theme
> Instead of discussing how car theft is fundamentally an unethical behavior,

Discuss it if you want to. Do you think you will find many who disagrees with you? What new outcome or insight do you hope from that discussion?

> we tend to assume they will behave in the worst way possible

We don't assume anything. We observe what is happening. People do steal cares. If you want to change that you have to change something.

> the "new method" results in a different kind of world

Is it a new method? We use locks and gates and etc since before history began. How is this suddenly a "new method"?
Is it a "language" model though, if you have a multimodal autoencoder that converts input into concept tokens, and you do sequence extension in concept space?
> And before that you just weren't able to restrict that at all

This is a really basic security feature though that every single platform should support. If Telegram didn't support messaging restrictions before, that doesn't mean they're not currently gating a basic privacy/safety feature behind a paywall. It just means they should be embarrassed that they used to be doing something even worse, ie not even offering a basic privacy/safety feature at all.

Correct that this would not technically count as removing a feature, but I feel like that's possibly a distinction without a difference. I'm not coming out of reading this explanation feeling more charitable about Telegram's security or willingness to gate off security features. It's a bad look for a company to put basic blocklists behind a paywall, that is not a company I trust not to start degrading security for free users.
It's the very definition of selling out. This seems to be a very common trend with the vast majority of all previously respected institutions (at least in the USA). They have all sold out (literally sold the company, in many cases) and have now abandoned all principles (or pretenses) of decency and provision of value to customers. Now they are just trading on past integrity that is no longer reality. They will coast on their dwindling reputations for as long as they can get away with it.

The attitude is "Fuck you, pay me." but wrapped in massive amounts of PR spin in an attempt to obfuscate the realty and deflect the blame.
For TTS, we are currently integrating with different providers like Elevenlabs, Openai TTS, etc. We do have plans down the road to train our own TTS model.
Sure, but if we're talking about terrorists that a documented history of being willing to blow themselves up, I don't see why they wouldn't do this too. To avoid the painful death, blow yourself up after absconding but before radiation poisoning really takes its toll.
The key term here is "apparent authority". You don't need to be granted authority for each and every thing you do, but if you start grossly doing things you were not supposed to do, that's mostly just fraud on your end.

The common example in textbooks is someone continuing to do business as an employee after having been fired. They can still make valid deals with other entities due to apparent authority if they're not clearly made out to be separated.
> We didn’t agree to a deal with Google!

We refuse to bring down governments who don't write the laws necessary to break up Google. So there is complicity there.
What have those other things got to do with parsing though? Granted, they rely on parsing having already happened, but I don't see how there's much feedback from those considerations to the way that parsers work, or are written, or - as the article discussed - can be combined?
At least in the US, I believe we've proven that anti-competition regulations don't work and that the government realized its easier to regulate the consumer than to deal with regulating massive corporations.

If you want to win reelection you're much better off taking massive piles of cash from big businesses and regulate consumers to help create the monopolies. Trying to protect consumers by breaking up monopolies and promoting healthy market competition will see you leaving office in a hurry.
Yes. You roll your own manual parser. It's not as difficult as people make it out to be.
A question I asked in yesterday's thread[0]

Didn't someone mention that gpt4 was brought up to December 2023?
Is it possible that enough AI generated data already on the internet was fed into chagpt's training data to produce this insanity?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39450669 ChatGPT has gone berserk (garymarcus.substack.com) 289 points by RafelMri 11 hours ago
What I find annoying about using parser generators is that it always feels messy integrating the resulting parser into your application. So you write a file that contains the grammar and generate a parser out of that. Now you build it into your app and call into it to parse some input file, but that ends up giving you some poorly typed AST that is cluttered/hard to work with.

Certain parser generators make life easier by supporting actions on parser/lexer rules. This is great and all, but it has the downside that the grammar you provide is no longer reusable. There's no way for others to import that grammar and provide custom actions for them.

I don't know. In my opinion parsing theory is already solved. Whether it's PEG, LL, LR, LALR, whatever. One of those is certainly good enough for the kind of data you're trying to parse. I think the biggest annoyance is the tooling.
Most of those have had practical deciders functions.

If you consider NP-complete as the intersection of NP, which is a decision problem, and NP-hard which a decider function isn't possible; look at the success of heuristics between those two sets.

Existential quantifiers on the second order terms in NP is the same thing.

Over Parameterization can be thought as less lossy compression and attention can be thought of as improved retrieval or as additional expressiveness by not missing out on as many outputs using binary output.

You can consider how LLMs tend to append, resulting in telescope reduction as one of those approximation reductions.

But this is due to the combinatorial optimization, which is far more difficult.

Another way to think about it is that PH is equal to the set of boolean queries on a concurent random acess machine using exponentially many processors and constant time.

If your datasets have the Markovian property and are close to ergotic there are options, but you probably wouldn't need to resort to attention and over parameterization in that case.

The word sense disambiguation problem is probably another lens. That is harder yet but may be a way to think about what I am trying to explain.
Why does compromising FB servers make compromising Cloudflare more likely?
Ah, the old pop-tart solid rocket booster. Sugar is a good propellant (though you’ll need an oxidiser if you’re going far up).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket#%22Can...
I've been compelled to RTO, 3 days a week, at a major pharma for about a year now. There is absolutely NO value in doing this, for me. Social interaction is minimal since our teams are internationally distributed, and parking has become a major pain (since everyone comes in on the same days). Personal offices were replaced by open spaces before covid which reduce productivity anyway due to interruptions and high ambient noise. IMO, RTO is lose-lose.
That's what caused the 2002 crash. 99% of the revenues for internet companies came from other internet companies. When the easy money started drying up, revenues collapsed.
> He just relentlessly names things after himself

Well "Wolfram" does sound like a pretty good name to name things after.
> Because subsidizing the top 25% of earners in the counttry (...)

I don't think your assertion adds up, or stands any scrutiny. Not all higher education degrees lead to high-paying careers, and definitely those who struggle to pay off their student loans after over a decade of payments will clearly not represent people who are well off.

Also, it sounds highly hypocritical to put up such a emotionally-based strawman for student loans when tax breaks and tax benefits for mega-corporations and and the very wealthy don't even come up as causes for concerns,in spite of eclipsing anything related to student loans. It's as if this student loan obsession is manufactured rage.

But that as much is clear, given your concern is that canceling student loans might convince some people to vote for a candidate,as if that's your actual problem.
This was said in jest but: I wouldn’t make this comment seriously. The difference here is that the authors of Java generics had to work with the hysterical raisins of pre-generics Java.
Let me call you clueless my friend and maybe even other names as you seem to like to.

Things are the way they are because of interests, some people are making money on it. "Crypto bros" aren't rediscovering anything and you seem clueless as to what they want and are repeating old ass tropes you probably learned from others.

I remember only a year or 2 ago when HN was very much against K8S, you probably don't, being of short memory and not learning from others. But, guess what, we are using k8s and crypto and you are stuck and soon will be making apologies for your lack of sense and will be tired of repeating others' lies here.

Sorry but not sorry.
Tell HN: OpenAI still has a moat, it's called function calling and its API
Gemini 1.0 Ultra and Gemini 1.5 Advanced are all the rage right now, but I wanted to say that in production, you're not going to use vanilla free-form text LLMs; you use LLMs that can reliably generate JSON. OpenAI knew this months ago and built this feature into their models (not as an afterthought like grammars in local models). I still haven't seen any other model get close to GPT-4-turbo's ability to call functions and return JSON output. If I'm building an app using LLMs, right now it's an obvious decision to choose GPT models, not Gemini or local models (I love local models and I'm a contributor to some OSS projects, but function calling is not there yet).

Another thing people often neglect is that OpenAI basically owns the API design right now. The fact that there are several drop-in replacements for their API shows how much apps depend on the specific structure of their API. For comparison, this is Gemini's REST API usage:

```
echo '{
"contents":[
{
"parts":[
{"text": "What is this picture?"},
{
"inline_data": {
"mime_type":"image/jpeg",
"data": "'$(base64 -w0 image.jpg)'"
}
}
]
}
]
}' > request.json

curl https://generativelanguage.googleapis.com/v1beta/models/gemini-pro-vision:generateContent?key=${API_KEY} \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d @request.json 2> /dev/null | grep "text"

```

And here's another one:

```
curl https://generativelanguage.googleapis.com/v1beta/models/gemini-pro:generateContent?key=$API_KEY \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-X POST \
-d '{
"contents": [{
"parts":[
{"text": "Write a story about a magic backpack."}
]
}],
"safetySettings": [
{
"category": "HARM_CATEGORY_DANGEROUS_CONTENT",
"threshold": "BLOCK_ONLY_HIGH"
}
],
"generationConfig": {
"stopSequences": [
"Title"
],
"temperature": 1.0,
"maxOutputTokens": 800,
"topP": 0.8,
"topK": 10
}
}' 2> /dev/null | grep "text"
```
I specifically called out the claims of openness and doublespeak being used.

Google is making claims that are untrue. Meta makes similar false claims. The fact that unspecified "other" people are ignoring the licenses isn't relevant. Good for them. Good luck making anything real or investing any important level of time or money under those misconceptions.

"They haven't sued yet" isn't some sort of validation. Anyone building an actual product that makes actual money that comes to the attention of Meta or Google will be sued into oblivion, their IP taken, and repurposed or buried. These tech companies have never behaved otherwise, and to think that they will is willfully oblivious.

They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, and should be called out for using deceitful language, making comparisons between their performative "openness" and actual, real, open source software. Mistral and other players have released actually open models and software. They're good faith actors, and if you're going to build a product requiring a custom model, the smart money is on Mistral.

FAANG are utilizing gotcha licenses and muddying the waters to their own benefit, not as a contribution to the public good. Building anything on the assumption that Meta or Google won't sue is beyond foolish. They're just as open as "Open"AI, which is to say not open at all.
LLMS are good at interpolating between existing things, not at inventing new things.
The source breaking differences between swift 4 and 5 are very few, and quite mechanical. Most of them should be adequately handled by the migration assistant, did you try that? If it’s open source, I’m happy to take a look.
Firefox Release 123.0
I just tried two searches in Kagi: "aapl" and "super bowl 2024". Both gave me inline "quick answer" things. Maybe it's new or inconsistent?
I wouldn't go that far, but we should certainly stop subsidizing them so heavily that we forget there are any other options, or that humans were capable of happy, prosperous lives for millennia before they existed.
This is also how I did it—also played nicely with ensuring MuiLink always get used on our MUI site.
I would assume the average salary of a customer support worker is dramatically lower than that. The point is still valid regardless.
> 27. Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives – including a chatbot. It does not explain why it believes that is the case. In effect, Air Canada suggests the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions. This is a remarkable submission. While a chatbot has an interactive component, it is still just a part of Air Canada’s website. It should be obvious to Air Canada that it is responsible for all the information on its website. It makes no difference whether the information comes from a static page or a chatbot.
> https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2024/2024bccrt149/202...

Real legal comedy. Since this was in small claims court maybe it was an amateur on Air Canada's side?
Researchers created a device with capacity of up to 1.6 petabits with a DVD area
Mozilla Firefox is below PG&E threshold for support