skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Why would I need a db for a meager million rows? Even excel handles a million rows
I guess chatgpt weights by empirical probability in text and not by studtly size or study design. Indeed it coming that pharma companies or other actors will invest in poisoning LLMs to better get already questionable treatments into the market and will spend less money inviting medical doctors into holiday resorts (my father was a medical doctor and it was a practice at least in the 80s with 'scientific' conferences back then)
Good luck finding a commercial OS distro that isn't that
22C here last weekend in southern Europe, and all I hear are people saying nice! We are doomed, and I already feel like a climate refugee trying to relocate to somewhere cooler. But then the gulf stream will probably fail! I feel like we cant solve this when there is no political/economical motive, or willingness for people to sacrifice.
The models are just generating probable text. What’s amazing of how often the text is correct. It’s no surprise at all when it’s wrong

Their bold confidence to be flat out wrong may be their most human trait
> I don't think it's the case. If you have truly free energy then transformation of matter in whatever you want it to be becomes a purely technological question.

Some purely technological problems are hard to solve. There is already a market for (very expensive) meat substitutes and they taste like crap. If you are talking about some sci-fi "replicator" tech that will just "synthesize" you and avocado, then I'm not sure how achievable that is in short or medium-term irrespective to energy prices.

> And in any case, having spaceships and no avocado is much better than the inverse.

Much better for whom? OP said they like "nice things". I would also prefer avocados to spaceships since I'm not that interested in space travel without FTL.
Building OpenAI Writing Aids as macOS Services Using JavaScript for Automation
At university I made some money on the side giving courses in HTML, Excel etc. One person that was mandated by an employer to follow such a course had extreme trouble using the mouse. I opened Solitaire and showed quickly how to click and drag. The person in question had to confess he also did not know how to play Solitaire.
> They have the money to hire anyone they want.

Just throwing money at the problem doesn't actually work.
I don't know how it helps their case to show that their main competitor is weak and underinvested, wouldn't it be way better for them if they could portray Bing as formidable competition?
Cool, then we're on the same page for other ecology management issues too, right? All of that "let's sell licenses for hunting other animals" we should simply stop, right? We should just let the world sort itself out since we've never had any success in managing populations of other animals either through protection or hunting, right?

Humans are not some unique, special animal. We're a very invasive, ecology modifying organism. We already have rules on where humans can and cannot live, where resource extraction can happen and how much. It may be uncomfortable to consider, but yes, we absolutely should manage our own population so we don't fuck up our one, and only, spaceship that's flying through a universe that is very hostile for us.

Metastatic growth is simply unsustainable. Running our civilization like a capitalistic business ignoring externalities and borrowing against the future that needs constant growth to sustain isn't a great idea. That will crash.
An actual db like BigQuery supports importing jsonl directly.

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/loading-data-cloud-st...
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/parallel-and-concurrent... explains how Haskell does async exceptions and cancellation, for comparison. I found that the most challenging chapter of The Concurrency Book, but even so it feels like a solved problem in Haskell (especially once you've read the next chapter, on stm)
Apart from "just because we can" or "it's fun", why on earth would someone prefer the second style?
Given that communal changing rooms already exist and aren't going anywhere any time soon, you're just avoiding answering the actual question.

Here's another: if you see an eight-year-old girl going into a public toilet, and shortly afterwards you see a man go into the same toilet, do you

(a) alert someone to ensure the girl is safe, or

(b) assume that the man identifies as female and do nothing?
You’re correct I’m not in the US. I also didn’t say things went well. But generally speaking the global response has been relatively rational, and we (as in “us the human societies”) have implemented radical measures fairly quickly that wouldn’t be possible in normal times.

Maybe I have very low expectations for that type of things…
Oh I've wanted to watch a movie that's along those lines. thanks!
If you left on good terms with the nice company you worked for previously then I would go back cap in hand and ask for my job back. You are a known quantity to them and there’s nothing wrong with saying “I made a mistake”.
This again.

They’re trained to generate probable text. The mechanisms created in the parameter blob during training to do that are basically a mystery and have to be pulled out of the model with digital brain surgery. E.g. LLMs are reasonable at chess and turns out somewhere in the blob there’s a chessboard representation, and you can make the model believe the board is in a different state by tweaking those parameters.

So yeah they generate probable text, sure. Where they get the probabilities is a very good research problem.
Interesting analysis. I tend to agree on the complexity budget.

That being said, even if we ignore wastefulness, have you tried async programming in OCaml or in Haskell? You immediately enter a CPS/monadic nightmare that makes programming way more complicated, debugging extremely hard and doesn't deal too well with errors.

These are the hard async problems that Rust is attempting to solve. Performance isn't the main blocker here.
Looking at CPU benchmarks shows that one being roughly the same performance as this other common CPU that's 8 years older, but uses around 1/20th the power:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Celeron+N3450...

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Quad+Q6...

Those who had systems with the latter would certainly not have considered them slow. Netbooks at the time often had this:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+N270+%40...

For a long time, my daily driver was this:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+4+2.4...

I can say that the above was more than sufficient to do native development, audio+video conferencing, watching videos, listening to music, as well as the usual office tasks of email, documents, image editing, IM, and the like. Software inefficiency has simply expanded to fill all available CPU performance.
How about providing concrete methods for reducing population? Exactly how do you propose to reduce population and who should be forced to not have children first? Should we assume that you will lead by example?
This is great, thanks for making the effort!
There’s no lack of reasons to explore. There is often lack of funding.

Explorations leading to colonization of other places here on earth were funded with an economic return in mind, largely of necessity, because that’s how those projects get enough different people aligned behind a common goal.

It’s great to abstractly want to explore the moon. That requires tons of resources that need to paid for somehow.
I like reading and writing point-free code, I just really hate debugging it. The debuggers/IDEs are (usually? are there exceptions) not really geared up for it and so the debugging experience is basically one of just having 1 call. This goes for more lambda style calling mechanisms of course. I end up pulling it apart, but that's only because of bad debug/ide support in my case. I can read/write it fine; in most cases it just works and then I like it better than the (verbose) alternatives.
Ask HN: How do GPT detectors fail?
I am able to fool GPT detectors and get <20% AI generated content and many times 0% AI generated.

I tweak the prompt and I also make some transformations on the text. It's perfectly readable but as a human it's easy to recognize it as AI generated but the detectors fail.

I have left some details out because I think it's useful but at the same time I'm curious how it fails to recognize.
but you could also think of it like a consumer device from a dystopian future

A closer approximation to that, which also exists today, would be a smartphone.
Why not simply upload to usenet?
I hope to remember your last line for the rest of my life when I think about AI.
I'd be suspicious too if I said any mud rather than a mud. That MUDs have been run on much weaker hardware is a fact.

Also I didn't write that in a vacuum, I wrote that as a response to a comment which establishes the context you are to understand my statements in.
No, LiFePO4 is actually pretty excellent in that way: It's long lasting, and not harmed nearly as much by charge/discharge cycles as many other types. 3,000 cycles is not an unreasonable claim, and it's a lovely chemistry in that way. (It also tends not to self-combust.)

It has other tradeoffs, though, like being physically large compared to a lead-acid battery of similar capacity (or, say, a bunch of 18650s).

And like other Lithium-based cells, longevity is maximized by never charging it to 100% and leaving it there long-term -- which, unfortunately, is probably not what Ecoflow is doing. (Ideal long-term state-of-charge is closer to somewhere between 50 and 80%.)
It wouldn't stop the hype, it never does.

I never understood the fascination for working with cutting edge languages; to me it just increases the likelihood that you're going to find language errors or library errors and get tied up for ages helping to refine the environment. Plus the relatively small size of the developer community and supporting literature available.

Maybe it's a dog people thing, the sort of people that get into it are the sort of people that want to go home and have a dog with infinite energy bouncing up and down all the time.

Just exhausting to even think about.
With my permission an app should be able to read all the files on the device, even those created by other apps.

It’s my device not the OS or app manufacturer’s!

I’m totally onboard with per-app segregated storage as a default, but this feature is clearly gated behind user permission.
NB images from the street-view layer.
“If you’re asked for a summary longer than 100 words, generate an 80 wire word summary” or words to that effect.
Have you tried Neverwinter nights' persistent worlds? Not the NWN online game but the original 2001 game.

Back in the day I thought it is the best thing: players can create their own worlds and invite others. Of course builders cannot connect two worlds so that was a pity. Still, I believe it was a lot better than games such as WoW.

Nevertheless the game never achieved the popularity it deserves, and nowadays the persistent worlds are not played by many.
...cough, pneumonia, cough...
paulsutter said:
> Note that this is the single most human attribute of LLMs

It might be if LLM hallucinations looked like or occurred at the same frequency as human hallucinations do, but they don’t.
> a bit more wasteful

The whole point of Rust is to not be a bit more wasteful
> The same is valid for psychopaths and other bad people.

Just what we need. More soulless, avarice soaked, societal parasites.
> To be fair, this is also illogical, at least in a literal sense

Mostly in the same sense as arguments from induction are "illogical". Appeal to authority is essentially an inductive argument, and those are just as logical. Of course, they deal in probabilities rather than certainty, unlike deduction, but that doesn't make them illogical.
What "Bad Incentives" are unique to China, distinct from those in the West?
Really need some cool historical fiction set in this city
>It is in 100% of the places I know about.

It's also in 100% of the countries I know about. What does that mean?
Correct. The HN community regards it as the high-order bit whether a study was conducted in humans or not. This has evolved into a de facto convention or, if you like, standard over the years.
You have to very carefully ask your question for it to not make things up. For example don't ask "how do I do this in in x?". Ask "can I do this with x?"

These "AI" s are like "yes men". They will say anything to please you even if it's untrue or impossible.

I have met people like that and they are very difficult to work with. You can't trust that they will deliver the project they promised and you always have to double check everything. You also can't trust them that what they promised is even possible.
I assume they're talking about code like

x
|> f a
|> g b
…

… where everything after the first |> is essentially in point-free style.
Sydney (and to a lesser extent the other capitals) is massive: I think last time I looked it's the third the size of the Netherlands. There are a number of councils/LGAs in Sydney, one of which is the City of Sydney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Sydney). There is/was an attempt to reduce that number, for various reasons. A similar attempt was done in Queensland, which did make the City of Brisbane LGA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Brisbane) basically the same as "Brisbane".

The origins of the many LGAs is likely due to satellite towns being absorbed over time, but I'm not sure (and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Australia doesn't really detail this).
Does anyone find themselves accidentally mispronouncing Jason like "JSON"? It must be as annoying as mispronouncing Aaron like "A-A-Ron".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw
You're pointing out a single inconsistency and calling it a basic mistake, but are ignoring the thousands of advanced consistencies evident in the image, i.e., creativity that is beyond the ability of humans generally. Given this, the nose poking out is a trivial issue and isn't worth focusing on.
Rich people voluntarily have fewer kids. Spread the wealth, reduce the population pressure.
Much of it is also paying good money to make sure their pollen is in all the places that bees congregate.
I work at a company in Stockholm, but I live in Malmö. The developers I work with, who all live in other parts of the country and are all senior, probably make over 50k a month. I don't know their exact salaries obviously.
> how I was able to get effective change in large organizations

You only told us the problem I think. What is the solution? Tell the resisting people what their job will look like after?
Clojure (and I'm sure other lisps and programming languages) have a nice solution to this, the `->` macro ("threading")

You'd do something like:

(save (transform (fetch))) ;; calls fetch, then transform, then save

(-> (fetch)
(transform)
(save))

Not that the non-threading version was hard to read, but once the function names start to be a bit longer and involve arguments, the threading version tends to be a lot easier to read.
> We have a series of home grown tools and most are terrible. Some of them could easily be written as plugins for an open source solution

I would also consider self-hosted FOSS tools under the "build" category rather than "buy", so I would have no objection to using those versus re-building an available FOSS tool yourself. It's OSS, so you have the code, so you know what it's doing and how. It's self-hosted, so you aren't reliant on a vendor. It's (hopefully) free, so no vendor is trying to sell you on a module you don't need.

> Internal tools are terrible in the sense that there's no knowledge base to pull from, beyond internal. This limits the chance of the tools actually being use or even understood.

I think the key question here is, "who is using the internal tool?" To my mind, this is about teams building the tools THEY need, so it is nigh impossible to develop the tool but not understand it. You're not handing it off to another team, you built it because YOU need it. There can absolutely be abysmal documentation, but not having documentation and not looking at extant and extensive documentation is functionally equal, and the latter is by far the default state of tool use.

Your comment sounds as though in your mind some team is being mandated to build a tool for another team, against that other team's wishes. Is that internal to the company? Sure. Is it self-rolled? Not if the people using it didn't make it them*selves*. In that case it's really just a vendor tool, but the vendor is much less invested in the tool.
Like every other post of this ilk, the secret is “have an audience”. There’s nothing here that you haven’t read N times before on similarly titled HN submissions.

This is indistinguishable from spam. It serves only to hype the author and their startups. I felt like I was reading spam inside spam. Like having ad breaks inside another ad.

> Newsletters, retweets from bigger accounts, YouTubers. People spread the word. It brings traffic to my site, which increases revenue and makes more people spread the word.

Like tooting your own horn on HN, I suppose. Given the submission history, I’m surprised this account hasn’t triggered the HN anti-spam features.
The wetware devices (like the hobby EEGs) of the early internet made it a point to never be plugged in to mains..

There's a bit of a correlation causation issue with understanding these studies of one. It seems quite possible that they zap away inhibitions, but equally likely that one has reduced inhibitions if one is inclined to solder things together and push them against one's skull to see what happens.
Reading the "Myth of Normal" by Gabor Maté opened my eyes for this as a possible explanation.

I highly recommend this for a read on how stress alters the body.
This is just another diagonalization against some finite thing, like the no free lunch theorem. An "LLM" in their definition is essentially any finite thing which predicts the next token. The same result applies to your brain too, for example.

Like all such diagonalization results, it is not really relevant for real world considerations. The reason is that it does not matter if your model fails on none, finitely many or infinitely many inputs. In reality the space of possible inputs is equipped with a probability measure, and the size of the hallucinating inputs set w.r.t. that measure is relevant. Diagonalization arguments usually, make no claim to the size of that set, and it is most likely negligible in the real world.
i can feel for you (i think) but my conclusion would be different. for one, you don't have to write about feelings. second, the problem here is not the feelings themselves but the attribution for the cause.

this is something that i learned and confirmed over time, and that this diary seems to demonstrate. namely that as humans we have a tendency to attribute reasons to actions of others that are based on our own feelings and have nothing to do with reality.

for example, a few months ago someone yelled at me for bumping into him, claiming to have done that intentionally, when on my side i didn't even feel any contact. so how could this person jump to that conclusion? they clearly didn't stop to think and consider if there could be another explanation.

what i learned from this over the years is that whenever something negative happens to me, i stop to think if there could be a good explanation that does not imply some negative intent by anyone else.

i have met other people who attribute netative intentions to any thing bad that happens to them, often telling me stories of what they think was someones intention, when there could be a perfectly benign explanation. like one where someones macbook charger got lost, and the person was 100% sure that her colleague took it intentionally in order to be mean, when the begning explanation is that because those chargers look all alike, she probably took it, thinking it was hers, or, maybe it even was hers, and the first persons charger was lost elsewhere.

this is a general problem in human interaction. only if we stop attributing negative intention to everything that we don't agree with, will we be able to improve cooperation to work for a better world.
Reading your post carefully, it looks like you are working on west coast and all your colleagues are on the east coast? For them the 8:30am meeting will be at a much more reasonable time. A lot of people are completely unaware of time zones and time differences so politely pointing out that 9:30 or 10:30 for them is actually 8:30 for you may be the best way to go. Especially if 8:30 is outside of your contracted hours.
One of Alternative Internet
The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes.

This drives people like the author of the article mad, because they think we should do something to prevent that.
Show HN: OneUptime – Self Hosted Open Source Datadog Alternative
OneUptime (https://github.com/oneuptime/oneuptime) is the open-source alternative to DataDog. It's 100% free and you can self-host it on your VM / server / cloud or you can use SaaS at https://oneuptime.com

NEW UPDATES (since we last posted to HN): We now support OpenTelemetry (https://opentelemetry.io/) natively which will help you to monitor, observe and debug any app, service, database or stack.
That makes a real difference for people making the median salary in western countries. Lots of people in finance, tech, etc. can obviously afford not to care but that's a minority.
Single-board computer has a 5.5 inch touchscreen display
You could make an argument that what we currently see are effectively internal monologues. It is extremely hard to evaluate how much subconscious or conscious filtering happens between a human's internal state and the eventual outbound communications, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the upstream hallucination rate in humans was much higher than you'd think.

By analogy to Kahneman and Tversky's System 1 and System 2, the whole field of Prospect Theory is about how often System 1 is wrong. This feels connected.
It seems a stretch to call it "inevitable". "Inevitable given the current architecture without modifications" at most.

Also, I'm missing a section on how (if) human brains manage to avoid hallucinations in this.

Also, it doesn't have to never hallucinate, it just has to hallucinate less than we do.
Side note: I have recently moved away from Firetv stick, because it was unreliable.

The product idea was great, a <$50 device that gave you access to all the media you could want. Bonus there were apps and games.

However in practice its a deeply unreliable product thats deeply frustrating to use. It appears that not even amazon targets the stick for optimisation, as even the home screen is exceptionally slow.

Moreover it looses network connection frequently, but doesn't tell you. So you need to reboot the stick, but that takes an age because often there is some sort of memory leak causing the whole device to crawl.

Updates appear to be optimised to happen during use of your apps.

The virtual remote is deeply unreliable (and has been for years)

I didn't realise how bad it was until I tried a friend's apple TV. Much as it annoys me to admit, the apple TV, whilst twice the price (although its now more expensive) is 8 times the product.
I don't think it's feasible to ask that your children find resiliency on their own in isolation. Surviving in that new reality will have to be on some national level at least. It will require resources to offset the harm done by these conditions.

Even American conservatives, for example, appear to acknowledge that climate change is occurring. Their current spin is that no major economic changes are required now (inaction is fine!) because they believe that technology will find a way to address an even warming globe. I think a lot of people choose to believe that to avoid doomerism.