skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
More than pretraining data, I think the advantage was ChatGPT and how quickly it grew. Remember it was 3.5, and within a month or two, it generated so many actual q&a pairs with rating, feedback, and production level data of how a model will be used by actual users. Those queries and subsequent RLHF + generating better answers for the questions meant the model would have been improved a lot at the SFT stage. Think this is the reason why Anthropic, Google, and Mistral, all three launched their own chatbots, all providing it to users for free and getting realtime q&a data for them to finetune the models on. Google did it with bard too, but it was so bad that not many used it.
I also hate when projects take BSD/Apache licensed code and change it to GPL.

While it seems technically permissible, to me it also muddies the original code’s licensing as well, especially if not well known.

It is also bizarre that someone could take BSD code, make trivial modifications, and now such cannot be sent upstream or used under the original license.

I happily call out a surprisingly under-appreciated case of this…

We only have KVM virtualization on x86 today because Citrix meticulously developed an x86 instruction emulator (many thousand lines of dense code).

The Linux kernel took that BSD code and relicensed it as GPL. Sure, at some point one might argue that later modifications by the Linux developers are significant contribution that makes are unique… If I observe a good change Linux made, it is perhaps now questionable that as a 3rd party I create a PR to push the same change upstream… This is an accidentally evil side of GPL that isn’t talked about.

But at least in the early days, it also means one cannot freely use Linux’s copy but can do so from Xen —- even though it is the exact same code!!

Licensing also invites a trap where careless developers relicense GPL as BSD, and then a conscientious party unknowingly uses the BSD implementation in a closed source product.

The only saving grace is most code is horrible for reuse purposes and it is often easier to either reimplement it (from scratch) or use a well known BSD-licensed gem.
I do remember Steve Jobs wanted "to go thermonuclear" on Android (mostly Samsung and Google), saying "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product."

Other motives, same behavior.
Not mentioned: Apple pays more than double the royalties of Spotify.
That may be true, but those suckers (the open source maintainers) chose to give their work away for free, so they deserve what they get (nothing). Apple won't be making the same mistake!

(sorry for the sarcasm)
AFAIK there's no strict EU ban but no EU country is listed here:

https://www.anthropic.com/claude-ai-locations

Perhaps you meant Europe the continent or using a VPN?

edit: They seem to have updated that list after I posted my comment, the outdated list I based my comment on: https://web.archive.org/web/20240225034138/https://www.anthr...

edit2: I was confused. There is another list for API regions, which has all EU countries. The frontend is still not updated.
I think the answer's in the original question: the provider has to pay for extra storage to cache the model state at the prompt you're asking to snapshot. But it's not necessarily a net increase in costs for the provider, because in exchange for doing so they (as well as you) are getting to avoid many expensive inference rounds.
Interesting concept, I haven't seen that before. Whether it would work here (I live in the Sierras) though, my guess would be probably not for two reasons. One is temperature, as you mention. Our higher mountain lakes do freeze over, but I'd expect you need colder temperatures than what we see on average for something like that. Running water typically doesn't freeze here, even during the coldest part of the Winter. The second reason is scale. Only a portion of the water that falls on the Sierras lands up high, and much of that is captured in snowpack , which is a pretty key piece of the water storage puzzle already.
MS was a bigger chunk of the market, and it was, well, a lot more _blatant_. And already had a history of dubious behaviour by the late 90s (eg see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code). As someone else mentioned, MS in the 90s to early noughties was probably the most egregious case of tech misbehaviour ever (though some of Intel's stuff also wasn't great), so you're kind of grading on a curve here.
> The time otherwise spent learning to code should instead be invested in expertise in industries such as farming, biology, manufacturing and education

i.e. absolutely brutal physical labor jobs where labor is de facto expendable and wealth inequality runs rampant.

He might as well have said "If you can't become a doctor or lawyer or don't have a PhD in CS or Math and can't work for me, prepare to work the fields and make me richer."

i'm not sure if he meant that but that's what i took from this statement. and i can absolutely see that happening as AI "eats the world", as it were.
That's quite expensive indeed. At full context of 200K, that would be at least $3 per use. I would hate it if I receive a refusal as answer at that rate.
I don't disagree with your take (though I don't know which part of mine you disagree with...)

The idea of derivative work is clear, the confusion is how the FSF kept pushing their interpretations of it.

Programmers are usually not lawyers, and taking legal "advice" (or rather trying to learn legal concepts) from the FSF is not exactly the wisest thing to do.

There's been a lot of confusion why linking GPL libraries would be a "derivative work", and apparently the FSF's stance is... well unless it doesn't use inline functions and macros ( https://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.... )... but let's just tell everyone you can't use GPL libraries in proprietary code.

So we have a bunch of rumors about linking mechanisms, speculations that the GPL cares about static vs dynamic linking, kernel interface calls, classpath exceptions, etc.... which shouldn't be a part of the conversation at all, at least not without considering the broader context of how the proprietary software relates to the GPL software.
People don't use GPT-4 because it was created 3 years ago, or because it's pink, or because it has a 4 in the name.

They use it because it's better than any other publicly available model for most people.

If this is better, and people can access it, they'll use it instead of GPT-4.

People would already be using gemini ultra instead if they could access it, but google fucked the rollout out by telling everyone about it and then saying no one could play with it.

> Opus and Sonnet are available to use today in our API, which is now generally available, enabling developers to sign up and start using these models immediately.

Sounds pretty good.

If OpenAI want to stay in the game, they need something more than offering 'GPT-TEAM, all the features you already had!' or 'We made this 3 years ago'.

Sora was really fantastic. No one has access.

> Opus and Sonnet are available to use today in our API, which is now generally available, enabling developers to sign up and start using these models immediately.

Tell me this doesn't sound a littllllle bit more exciting than anything OpenAI has been releasing recently?

I look forward to their response... but I agree with sentiment that they better not sit around twiddling their thumbs; the world is moving fast.
Hard Is Not Defensible
Aren't the issues of monopoly and water usage separate? More water would equal more economic activity which is good. But all the profits would accrue to one place because there's a monopoly, which is bad.

It seems like California is mismanaging on two fronts, one it should build more water storage to stimulate more economic growth, two it should break its monopolies so the benefits of that growth are more widely spread.
My worry is actually that we're building cars that won't be on the road at all in 10 or 15 years.

The cost of all the connected features, automatic braking systems, etc add up fast. Insurance costs have increased so much in the last decade partly because a simple fender bender can now cost thousands by the time sensors are all replaced.

It honestly feels like another situation where good intentions of optimizing new vehicles for energy efficiency, safety, etc end up doing more harm then good if we're concerned with environmental impact. The cost of producing and delivering a new vehicle is huge, if they can't stay on the road for more than say 15 years we're just committing to an endless loop of replacing every car on the road more quickly.
The article does in fact give an explanation for each item. (Perhaps you may not think it's eli5. I found them mostly fairly explanatory[1], but... maybe they're more eli20? And maybe fairly short and terse?)

[1] Except double-entry bookkeeping, which didn't explain anything. And the AD-AS model, which probably is not possible to explain in a concise way or an eli5 way. And...
Wait, those are very different. Is the snake's width the same as the road's width? (Like some sci-fi T-rex) Or the snake's length the same as the road's width? (Like a fairly long snake on a fairly narrow one-lane road)

(I'm thinking of that "10-foot dragon" meme, iykyk)
It was clipping for me in firefox too.
I wonder if there is perhaps some sort of anti-trust based reason for that?
Their smallest model outperforms GPT-4 on Code. I'm sceptical that it'll hold up to real world use though.
Microsoft never attempted dominance of the kind Apple asserts. You look at threads like this: https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar/-/issues/445

This doesn't just affect iOS users - if I want to use Briar to communicate, it's just impossible to involve anyone who has an Apple device. They don't need a total monopoly for this to be anti-competitive. They've made it so that if you have 10 devices and you want some feature like AirDrop, it's impossible for that feature to function unless Apple wrote it, because 4 of the devices are Apple devices and Apple monopolizes all network code to those devices.
Web APIs are forever. What's unstable are the dreadful frameworks built on top of it that people seem to think are essential.
That phrase you're looking for is willy nilly. You did a bone apple tea.
They* don't have to hustle to compete when they're the in-market dominant player.

* I mean Spotify.
Either something like that or just because the model's output is basically the best you can get and they utilize their market position.

Probably that and what you mentioned.
It's less of a problem than you would think as water that's liquid will drain through it and snow etc doesn't expand. You generally get pot holes because water pools in an a layer and then expands and contracts, but if it's draining that's not a problem.

Also, air entrainment has long been (~1930's) used as a means of freeze thaw resistance because it allows some deformation without cracking. Porous concrete has similar flexibility.
There’s a market for that though. If I am running a startup to generate video meeting summaries, the price of the models might matter a lot, because I can only charge so much for this service. On the other hand, if I’m selling a tool to have AI look for discrepancies in mergers and acquisitions contracts, the difference between $1 and $5 is immaterial… I’d be happy to pay 5x more for software that is 10% better because the numbers are so low to begin with.

My point is that there’s plenty of room for high priced but only slightly better models.
Android and F-Droid user here. I choose to buy hardware that allows me to install what I want, but I also consistently advocate for the right of consumers to buy into a closed ecosystem.

There is a large class of technology users that is uninterested in installing whatever they want on their device. They want their device to be predictable, they want their app store to be curated, and they don't want to deal with dark patterns on a company by company basis. These customers choose Apple because it provides a tightly integrated experience.

Forcing Apple to alter enough of their rules will eventually cause that user experience to no longer be an option, which is bad for consumer choice.
"0 people live within 5 km of Warsaw." (actual value is close to 2 millions).

"80.000 people live within 0 km of Paris." (ditto, 2 millions live there).

There are many other cities where the numbers are absurdly wrong. Don't take this tool too seriously, if at all.
I think it's just to get free credits that you need to give a phone number?

To the other point, yes it's crazy that "When inside kitty, how do I get my python inside latex injected into Julia? (It somehow works using alacritty?)"
Despite the question being pretty underspecified or confusing, it still shouldn't read as inappropriate.

Unfortunately, many image generation systems will refuse prompts with latex in them (I assumed it was a useful term for styling).

My best guess is that it thinks latex is more often used as a clothing item or something, and it's generally associated with inappropriate content. Just unfortunate for scientists :/.
No, different behaviour. If Apple had announced its own Android derivative called Apple Android++, somehow forced all major OEMs to pre-install it, designed it such that 'Android' apps written for it wouldn't work on real Android, then killed it, that might be the sort of behaviour that would be closer to the mark.

Like, Steve Jobs making vague threats isn't really in the same league as what MS was getting up to in the 90s.
It’s not about the mode but the max.
For sure, capitalism requires a certain level of consumer savvy to remain sane.

For most real-world users, the M3 really is about 30% faster in single-core and 100% faster in multicore. That is really significant for a lot of us, especially software engineers. But the really big speedups mentioned in Apple's marketing are more niche and it takes some savvy to recognize that.

(I'm plenty content with my M1 Max for now and I expect I'll continue to happily use it for a few more years)
Sheer force of will did Tesla manage to bring around the EV market. Noone else had any interest in doing it and theres no way any of the incumbent car companies would have pursued it even if it was more viable from a battery perspective.

Any other reading of that era of industry would be re-writing a narrative to diminish what Tesla really did. It is too bad he has earned so many detractors (through his own mistakes) because many of his accomplishments are exceptional.
I think aws has Claude in Frankfurt not the new one but instant and 2 should be there.
Seems to be that CI was also nonexistent then.

QA was one guy doing manual testing with a checklist.
mirrord is a dev tool for dev environments. One can use it for production but that's not the use case we encourage.
Thanks for playing! :)
I wasn't discussing any part at all, I was explaining why the goal of the project determines the license and not the preference of the authors.

If the goal is to allow others to close off the product, then one license is suitable. If the goal is to prevent others from turning it into a closed source product, then you choose the other license.

When the goal is "popularity amongst closed off companies", then one license makes sense. If the goal is "popularity for the community" then the other license makes sense.

There was a no value in arguing over which is easier for companies unless the goal is popularity for companies and o close off.

After all, any company that simply wants to use the software without redistribution doesn't really care.
cost is relative. how much would it cost for a human to read and give you an answer for 200k tokens? Probably much more than $3.
I think the Sorites paradox may point to something specific about these kinds of ideas, which is not shared with the meaning of things like evil or knowledge. There's a page on it on SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/
I don't understand. If Spotify (or EU) is unhappy with Apple's offerings and don't think they are worth the money, they can simply build their own smartphone ecosystem and offer their products on there. Why coerce Apple? Why not let them do their own thing? It's not like they are preventing you from developing your own technology or funding/buying from someone else.
Ask HN: How to generate 3 digit Card Verivication Value (CVV)
How is the basic algorithm to generate 3 digit Card Verivication Value (CVV) of credit card ?
I think so, it's just typically a pain. For example using `ppoll()` or `pselect()` is not that bad really, but it requires you to have centered your program around such a call and have access to it (IE. It's not buried in a UI framework or network library somewhere). Beyond that, leaving signals masked for the majority of your program makes things a lot simpler (if you're multi-threaded, I'd just create a completely separate thread for signals and mask them on all the others, or use `signalfd` if you can).

Handling the actual signals themselves is annoying, but in concept it's similar to any kind of async code - the only big catch is that understanding which functions you can or cannot call in a signal handler is pretty messy. Some signals also shouldn't be bothered to try and recover from, Ex. SIGSEGV. Some other signals are also just poorly designed for a multi-threaded environment and there's better alternatives to watching for them. Only some like SIGINT are really worth supporting IMO, and the signal handler should do little more than set a flag to be handled elsewhere in the regular program flow.
The amount of people with two external USB-C displays isn't that large compared to the majority of users.

Also this must be some kind of Air-specific limitation. I'm writing this comment with an M1 MacBook Pro with two external displays (USB-C + HDMI) + laptop screen.
That's a tough question. I believe it boils down to ethical decision making and acknowledging the potential for influence (and money) to corrupt. To build a successful platform, we are committed to making transparent and fair decisions that prioritize the end user. We aim to build trust and a positive reputation over time. Users should hold us accountable if we ever fail to fulfill those obligations.
Oh, I totally agree that ‘renv’ probably solves 95% of problems. But those pesky 5%…

I think that most problems are ultimately caused by the fact that R packages cannot really declare versioned dependencies (most packages only declare `>=` dependency, even though they could also give upper bounds [1]; and that is woefully insufficient), and installing a package’s dependencies will (almost?) always install the latest versions, which may be incompatible with other packages. But at any rate ‘renv’ currently seems to ignore upper bounds: e.g. if I specify `Imports: dplyr (>= 0.8), dplyr (< 1.0)` it will blithely install v1.1.3.

The single one thing that causes most issues for us at work is a binary package compilation issue: the `configure` file for ‘httpuv’ clashes with our environment configuration, which is based on Gentoo Prefix and environment modules. Even though the `configure` file doesn’t hard-code any paths, it consistently finds the wrong paths for some system dependencies (including autotools). According to the system administrators of our compute cluster this is a bug in ‘httpuv’ (I don’t understand the details, and the configuration files look superficially correct to me, but I haven’t tried debugging them in detail, due to their complexity). But even if it were fixed, the issue would obviously persist for ‘renv’ projects requiring old versions.

(We are in the process of introducing a shared ‘renv’ package cache; once that’s done, the particular issue with ‘httpuv’ will be alleviated, since we can manually add precompiled versions of ‘httpuv’, built using our workaround, to that cache.)

Another issue is that ‘renv’ attempts to infer dependencies rather than having the user declare them explicitly (a la pyproject.toml dependencies), and this is inherently error-prone. I know this behaviour can be changed via `settings$snapshot.type("explicit")` but I think some of the issues we’re having are exacerbated by this default, since `renv::status()` doesn’t show which ones are direct and which are transitive dependencies.

Lastly, we’ve had to deactivate ‘renv’ sandboxing since our default library is rather beefy and resides on NFS, and initialising the sandbox makes loading ‘renv’ projects prohibitively slow — every R start takes well over a minute. Of course this is really a configuration issue: as far as I am concerned, the default R library should only include base and recommended packages. But it in my experience it is incredibly common for shared compute environments to push lots of packages into the default library. :-(

---

[1] R-exts: “A package or ‘R’ can appear more than once in the ‘Depends’ field, for example to give upper and lower bounds on acceptable versions.”
From the YouTube video description :-)

...

With mere hours of experience in the art and science of optical design, the team at SUPERCHROMAT remain novices in the field. As such, this prime lens, with 6 elements over 4 groups, provides inferior optical performance at a price affordable to few.

Regardless of whether it’s a matter of selective focus in the close-up range, high-contrast available light applications or landscape shots with immense depth of field, this lens fails to deliver persuasive arguments in nearly all situations unless stopped down to f/22.

2X 200mm biconvex lenses
BK7. Uncoated.

-700 / 075 X 3 used eyeglass lens
1.67 / Vd 42. Fingerprint coated

+30mm aspheric achromatic triplet
LAK14/SF57/Aspheric polymer. VIS 0º coated
Let's buy some fake reviews for a pointless Chrome extension
>No point in continuing as you said. If you were capable of admitting you were wrong you could have done it on any number of points so let’s just stop here. You’ve even gone on to the green issue and there plenty of stats out there to show break even after x miles so maybe that’s a good place to start for you without me feeding you the numbers.

I was not wrong on even one of these points, except perhaps sales. You couldn't even admit that EV fires are considerably worse than petrol fires despite being provided a video of a car burning underwater.

>It’s sad people buy in to the conspiracy stuff. If you ever find a way out, please let me know as I’d like to help my friends overcome it too.

It's sad people believe everything "authorities" tell them. If you ever start thinking for yourself and doing your own research, let me know as I'd like to help my friends overcome it too.

Seriously, conspiracies are common. You have to be pretty naive to deny that or say it's all in the past. Conspiracies happen all the time. The same people who smear others about "conspiracy theories" only seem to have trouble with admitting the possibility when it suits their imagined vision of reality. They will come up with their own conspiracy theories if it suits them, all the while smearing "conspiracy theorists" who do the exact same in equally plausible situations.

>One thing with the conspiracy angle that absolutely baffles me that maybe you could explain is the whole “agenda” / control narrative that gets pushed, as if EVs are somehow evil and controlling.

They aren't inherently evil, they are just inferior tech that was known and abandoned a hundred years ago. Now it's back with improvements (sort of).

>Can you explain how having a vehicle that you can take completely off-grid, and even fuel yourself by solar panels is controlling? I’ve never understood what the logic could even be here.

Most people can't afford enough solar panels to charge an EV. EVs are expensive and inferior to ICE cars yet they are being mandated. They are loaded with tech that monitors your every action. It's only a matter of time before EVs drain the grid so much that "smart charging" will be mandated to control when you are allowed to charge, and that will be another level of surveillance and control. So I'm going to fight this until all of these problems are addressed.
Isn't the expensive part keeping the tokenized input in memory?