skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Introducing HomeDesignsAI, an innovative AI home design tool that revolutionizes the creative process for home interiors, exteriors, and gardens. With its cutting-edge technology, users can effortlessly generate limitless design ideas in a matter of seconds.
Offering a vast selection of over 40 unique design styles, along with the ability to customize rooms, alter colors, and rearrange furniture, this tool empowers individuals to reimagine any space with ease. Whether you're an aspiring decorator seeking your preferred style or a professional looking to showcase your work and save time, HomeDesignsAI caters to all. This versatile tool benefits homeowners, interior designers, architects, real estate agencies, and landscapers by providing a platform to visualize and experiment with diverse design concepts, attract more clients, expedite property sales, and optimize both time and budget. Discover the next level of creativity with HomeDesignsAI, the ultimate AI home design tool.
Radio waves don't stop when they leave the moon. Those regulations most definitely apply on Earth.
Nowhere did I imply I want to take stuff from people. You could have read my comment charitably and without the unnecessary snark.

Check my other sibling comment where I reply to the OP's author.
I could see this contributing to it, but as the article mentions, a lot of women are also no longer interested in sex. For example, a younger female friend of mine just doesn’t have a very high libido. Sex is a chore for her, she told me she often just lays there and disassociates while it happens.

The environment is the most likely reason. There are microplastics and endocrine disruptors. My own libido returned to normal once my testosterone level returned to the normal reference range.
Naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater is the major source. Lots of parts of the US have pretty high concentrations.

https://publicintegrity.org/environment/arsenic-levels-in-gr...
They define an LLM as "a probabilistic model of a string that
conditions the output at time t based on all the tokens that come before it in the string".

I think that definition is wide enough to include human intelligence, so their finding should be equally valid for humans.
Interface density is configurable
The model will just hallucinate scores, they don't have the ability to self reflect with words like that, there is no function for it to associate the word 90 with its own mental score 90% so anything it will say about those scores is just a hallucination.
> With my permission […]

And as we've seen in the PC space, this will absolutely destroy security as the general population will simply hit "Ok" or "Allow" on any (security) prompt so they can get to their desired goal.
Zero Trust with Zero Data
> we can get LLMs to answer 'I don't know' more often

Have any nets been trained specifically to be able to go to an 'i don't know' state, I wonder?

It may be the humans' fault.
In a situation where a land owner has more land than solar, and the land is already hooked up to the grid, and permissions etc are relatively cheap, and the limiting factor is the cash to install new panels, then yes, it makes sense to build a second new farm rather than replace the old.

Most situations aren't like that though.

If you have limited land, it makes sense to make it more productive, if you need to spend significant amounts to set up a new farm over and above the raw panels, it makes sense to reuse what you already have.
But not a typical Github open source maintainer which is the problem we're complaining about!
You and ChrisMarshallNY might be referring to different types of quality.

You might be referring to longevity and ease of maintenance quality, and ChrisMarshallNY might be referring to 0 to 60 or some other nebulous driving performance/style/fit and finish related quality.

Price/status signaling/size/speed/longevity/etc, lots of different parameters to optimize for and lots of tradeoffs and lots of customers who optimize for different qualities.
> You're supposed to publish results that can be reproduced as you describe.

You are supposed to try. Whether you succeed is necessarily subject to any measurement issues.

> And it wasn't an outlier.

You said it was.
I've seen a lot of these articles, and they mention that both singles and people in relationships are having less sex, but I have to wonder if fewer romantic relationships are being formed as well? The desire for intimacy doesn't seem any less, but is it being fulfilled in other ways, like AI spouses or romantic literature and movies?
The same impact on the velocity of circulation can (and is) accomplished by steady inflation - hence the targeting inflation rates. Demurage (Worgl case) works like inflation… or am I missing something.
What if the moon collides into the earth?
Maybe it needs some memory retrieval step that can measure the confidence - whether there's anything related to the prompt. No idea how to train a LLM to do that.
Although a good initiative, it has been the trend in the Netherlands by project an city planners to build new neighborhoods without a front lawn, directly next to the small walking street, followed by a parking spot and then street. There are no longer trees, grass, greenery or shrubberies being planted by the city council, like they did in the 80s.

And the trend recently is also 'verdichting', which basically transforms existing city greenery and open spaces into more housing, because that is more profitable for the city council.
It's so important to check when one is parking one's time machine.
In France that’s a pretty normal salary for an engineering graduate with a Masters and no experience outside of internships.
LLMs don't have any concepts period.
This sounds similar to my own story in the blockchain sector.

I joined a major crypto project which was under-delivering on their promises to investors. In my own time, I built a prototype which would have allowed them to meet their promises and would have appeased regulators whom I presumed were breathing down their necks.

Win-win right? Perfect plan! What a genius move it was to use my skills in the most optimal way possible to wedge myself between this very cash-rich company and a large group of dissatisfied investors... with the backing of regulators of one of the wealthiest, most trusted nations on earth to add even more pressure! Surely, the company would be overjoyed, adopt my project, offer me a salary increase and a bonus package...

WRONG. They tried to cancel the project. I had to quit my job in order to pursue the project outside of the company... Then they spent years gaslighting their own employees and community to keep everyone away from my project to ruin my prospects... The tech worked perfectly; that was several years ago and it's still running. Never encountered any bug or hack which is very unusual for this kind of tech. That company I used to work for essentially ended up abandoning their own project (after spending many years wasting millions of dollars on like 30 engineers). With 15x the engineering capacity, they couldn't deliver in 3 years what I and a friend built in 1 year.

Now I'm demoralized from the entire tech industry and basically gave up on my career (until there is a complete political system change?). If this epic plan which was executed almost perfectly didn't work and there is no legal recourse for me due to institutional corruption, then what chance do I have in the future in such system? I will never get such opportunity again... And even if I do and it's executed perfectly, it's not going to work out in my favor because bad actors can essentially get away with everything.
Well your a trained scientist (as am I) so you actually have an understanding of biological systems that other people don't.

I agree that the EPA or FDA cutoffs give a false sense of risk. If an acceptable limit is set at 50 ppm, then 49 ppm will pass and 51 ppm will fail. The actual biological impact between the two? Impossible to measure. Hell, the instruments and sampling technique used in testing likely have an accuracy of +/- several ppm.
In the context of the system where the currency was used, financial investments were not safe. It was the Great Depression, the inflationary nature of currency at the time made the only long term non superficial things structures, land, and goods.

In the end, the things people do and build are what money is for. It’s a medium of exchange and a store of value. If it fails at these things, the making grain to feed people or housing them still has intrinsic value. You just need a working medium of exchange to avoid having to use barter for everything. If people trusted the town’s scrip more than the national currency, then they would use that.

Investment in such a system would be in real objects and the means to produce them. Assuming people still cooperate and will accept your weird scheduled devaluation currency, then industrial society could continue to function and may even thrive, given people are incentivized to spend money which is the definition of economic activity.

Also, other financial instruments might not be affected. Shares of stock, for example, would be worth what people would pay for them. It’s just big piles of literal dollars that you should get rid of expeditiously.
Sure, but you stifle a lot of avenues to start a conversation when you look at your phone.

And you raise the bar for conversations to be worthwhile. Which becomes a problem when a lot of high-quality conversations start from mindless small talk.
All my 3xpl0its are written using best practices, TDD and hexagonal architecture.
There's a specific issue with doctors in China that doesn't exist elsewhere, namely that even for practicing doctors they are required to publish research to get promoted. But that's hard, because they're busy healing people. Cue lots of bought papers that describe medical cases or research that never happened.

I wrote about this in 2021:

https://blog.plan99.net/fake-science-part-i-7e9764571422

One Chinese doctor who was rumbled pleaded with the (anonymous) guy who spotted the bad papers:

“Hello teacher, yesterday you disclosed that there were some doctors having fraudulent pictures in their papers. This has raised attention. As one of these doctors, I kindly ask you to please leave us alone as soon as possible.

Being as low as grains of dust of the world, countless junior doctors, including those younger me, look down upon the act of faking papers. But the system in China is just like that, you can’t really fight against it. Without papers, you don’t get promotion; without a promotion, you can hardly feed your family. I also want to have some time to do scientific research, but it’s impossible. During the day, I have outpatient surgeries; after work, I have to take care of my kids. I have only a little bit time to myself after 10 pm, but this is far from being enough because scientific research demands big trunks of time. The current environment in China is like that.

You expose us but there are thousands of other people doing the same. As long as the system remains the same and the rules of the game remain the same, similar acts of faking data are for sure to go on. This time you exposed us, probably costing us our job. For the sake of Chinese doctors as a whole, especially for us young doctors, please be considerate. We really have no choice, please!”
> work is a huge scam at large corporations.

I think it might depend to some degree on what the corporation does. Engineering companies that produce actually necessary hardware (transformers, generators, transmission lines, large machines, etc.) seem to me to be less susceptible to quite this sort of boondoggle in their core operations.

No less susceptible to bribery and corruption though and their ancillary operations like IT do seem to suffer as you describe.
Dang personally wrote me an email telling me to stop claiming to be an LLM, or rather, asking if I was and telling me to stop if so.

Back then I saw it as some kind of private art project to write controversial comments that looked like LLM output. Discussions under my comments regularly devolved into fights over whether I am one. Some would call it trolling I guess. I got a kick out of it. To be honest, I would love to continue!

But just to be clear: All the drivel I ever commented on here was organically produced by my average, contrarian and unhinged brain.

I guess part of the thinking I wanted to provoke was about the fact that nowadays you just can not know anymore if you are talking to an LLM or not and how the perception of whether you are changes how you communicate. About how your communication changes, based on a single boolean of metainformation (isHuman/isAI/isLlm).
Yes, humans wont lie to you about it, they will research and come up with sources. Current LLM doesn't do that when asked for sources (unless they invoke a tool), they come back to you with hallucinated links that looks like links it was trained on.
There is no technical reason, it's all about incentives. What Kagi and Marginalia do is fundamentally incompatible with Google's business model.

The reason Google shows you search results is to serve you ads, but the presence and volume of ads is an inherently negative quality of those search results. So Google is incentivized to show you lower quality search results, as long as those results don't become so bad that you stop using the service.

Endless terribly formatted clones of Stack Overflow or GitHub issues don't provide any value to the world, but they do show Google's ads, so they weren't banned from all results after the first person at Google noticed them.

Empty results pages don't lead you to ads, but ad spam that doesn't answer your query does, so over the years the "no results" page has more and more been replaced with useless results. Some of us spend some mental energy looking at the SRP to determine they're useless, many more probably click the first result and are served ads.

Google's founders knew this, wrote it into their paper, then ignored it and made it their business model anyway.
Your physicist friend solving the "technical research-level problem" should have evaluated whether it was a real problem, or a problem the company artificially created for themselves. If it was a real problem, and the company ignored his solution, then take the solution to market and become a competitor. If it was an artificial problem only found at that one company, then be very stingy about any effort you put into solving it. Give no free thought to the problem outside of work. Find some real problems to work on instead.
I've had some success with 'Ask follow up questions where additional clarity is required'. My best experiences start with a much more freeform conversation about what we are going to attempt to do, doing a Q&A first to make sure that both I and the AI are thinking about the same domain and sharing associated nomenclature seems to help.
Consider the extremely common Amazon product question section, where you see Q: Will this product fit my Frobnitz 123? A: I don't know, I ended up buying something else. Q: Does it come with batteries? A: IDK I RETURN IT
The last few months we've seen the fall- or acquisitions of services such as internal.io, dynaboard.com, Uiflow, AWS honeycode, Disha, Skuid, spreadsheet.com[], and some low-code BaaS I don't recall the name of.

Where do you see yourselves compared to these services? I think businesses and devs grow ever-more considerate of the non-(F)OSS services they use.

[]not the same, but they have no-code as one of their main selling points
no no, miscellanous/garbage-input
Silk silk silk silk silk silk silk.

What do cows drink?
Do you have any statistics to claim that Google does not serve good results? That’s not my experience.
Engineers 3D print soft magnetic-cored solenoids
Indeed. The best solution would be to market it as intelligent ;)
Rule #2 is "illegal". JSON is actually "JavaScript OBJECT Notation", and raw integers are not "Objects". For compatibilities sake, I'd strongly encourage that NLD-JSON (New-Line Delimited JSON) contains valid JSON OBJECTS.

Some discussion here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17224536/why-is-one-numb...

...I am by no means the harbinger of all things JSON, but it's worth pointing out that this "spec" without addressing the issues that can arise from encouraging "bare" values (not wrapped in []/{}) is highly suspect.
Gotta get that sweet, sweet YouTube monetization, apparently. We grit our teeth and take it on YouTube, but we (rightly, but also with consequences) have higher standards for text.
I think that is fair.

I don't know if it is "rational" (for some sense of that word): kids will excel if they are, simply, loved. Sure, going to great schools is nice. But having a supportive home is way more important than those expensive things.
A World Full of Innovation: Exploring the Wonders of Modern Technology
Our world is transforming at an unprecedented pace, driven by a relentless wave of awe-inspiring technological advancements. From the smartphones we carry in our pockets to the sophisticated robots reshaping industries, technology has become an integral part of every aspect of our lives. In this article, we embark on a journey to explore the wonders of modern technology, uncovering its impact on various sectors, and looking ahead to a future brimming with innovations beyond our wildest imaginations.
I can't speak to incentives in China, but India had national publication requirements for post grads. These requirements drove an industry of predatory pay-for-publish journals, 'cause you aren't getting your degree without it.

In the US marginal students can take a degree and leave academia without churning out fake garbage.
If biodiversity is good (and I say it is, but it’s a human judgement), then human civilization is also good, and for the same reason: it represents life, complexity, activity, and progress.
> You have to jump at a billion functions definitions before you can hope to understand what a program is doing

On the contrary, if you assume that your functions are good abstractions then you shouldn’t need to know their implementation details in order to compose them. You can tell what it does by looking at just what you have in front of you.

If that’s not the case, then you’re not looking at a good example of this concept. And we all know we can find bad examples of any idea or paradigm— what is useful is the good examples.
Before is was physically possible for humans to change the climate most of the northern hemisphere was covered in a 4km thick sheet of ice. Then it melted and now there are forests. This melting also happened completely naturally and wasn’t because the cave men were putting out too much CO2.

This was done by the natural processes of the Earth, so recently even humans were alive during the Ice Age. Some scientists even say that we are due for another ice age, that we may be otherwise avoiding due to climate change.
Also quite hilarious that your example exemplifies my point that a scientific discipline like computer science has its peak when its still in the domain of a few elite contributors. Which for computer science was at its very start, compare that to how it is today when when we invent ever more byzantine ways to create CRUD applications since the masses have been attracted to "computer science" to make money.
From my (limited) understanding, scientific progress roughly derives from human-years put in.

Some scientific / technological advance takes X human-years to achieve. Low-hanging fruit like Newton's laws or the printing press took a few human years. Nuclear fusion or landing a rover on Mars, takes many more.

Note this is a drastic simplified view of how science progresses in real life.

Large population: yes, advances can be quicker. But it still takes time to run experiments, have discoveries filter down in scientific community, and new tech to get built, tested & deployed at scale. In the meanwhile, people will live (and thus, consume resources) like they're used to.

Small population: roughly same # of human-years required to achieve a similar state of science & technology. But with population consuming resources at a lower rate, there's more time for new tech to be applied.

This reminds me of the behaviour of an electronic amplifier circuit: with fast-enough responding circuit (or slow-enough changing input), output signal closely tracks the input (the "small population" case).

With too-slow responding circuit (too long delay, damping not appropriate etc), output does NOT track input well and makes wild swings: over- and undershoot (the "large population" case).

Humanity's case looks much like the latter.

So: yes, I understand author's argument. But all in all, I doubt the "large population" is a net benefit long-term. Aren't we seeing various types of planet-wide over- and undershoot right now?
They optimize for overall revenue and do not cater to (revenue-wise) largely irrelevant niche audiences like HN users or tech-savvy and privacy-obsessed hackers. Perceived quality is an aspect of user retention but I'd wager that 99 % of their users don't think that Google or Bing results are getting worse for them. Google is on track to make $1BN in revenue per day, Kagi and Marginalia are literally at one millionth of that, so while Google might have them on their radar I have a hard time believing they actually care about what they do. If any incumbent manages to capture more than 1 % of the search market they might start to adapt their strategy.

Kagi and Marginalia are growing within their respective niches so they can care about these "weird" users as they are at a scale where it makes a difference for them. At some point they would need to start catering to mainstream users as well though in order to keep growing.
Listen to Aella’s podcast with Steve Hsu.

Her research indicates that it’s actually women who are more interested in violent sex, and men consistently underestimate the chances.

It’s something like 60% vs 40% IIRC.
> I think that definition is wide enough to include human intelligence, so their finding should be equally valid for humans.

Which is definitely true. Human memory and the ability to correctly recall things we though we remembered is affected by a whole bunch of things and at times very unreliable.

However, human intelligence, unlike LLMs, is not limited to recalling information we once learned. We are also able to do logical reasoning, which seems to improve in LLMs, but is far from being perfect.

Another problem is how different we treat the reliability of information depending on the source, especially based on personal bias. I think that is a huge factor, because in my experience, LLMs tend to quickly fall over and change their opinion based on user input.
I think this mostly plays out for residential or other consumer level generation setups. It is doubtful this makes sense at the commercial level and recyling/reusing does make sense.
What about the details about lack of sex life?

Perhaps the gp meant that today there is less stigma associated with not having sex so people don't exaggerate how much sex they have and more willing to share that they don't have it at all.