skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks. We would expect our resident nuclear expert / historian to know such things.

I suppose it worked out in the sense that we didn't have global thermonuclear war (at least in this timeline!) but not in the sense that it seems to work as, or as consistently as, expected.

We can see the same adhoc ranks-breaking and partial lack of coordination despite overall alignment in the attitude of release of UFO data by the world's militaries. There have been instances of violation of this policy, even while overall the dam has not broken.

Some instances: Belgian UFO wave military officials talking to media and releasing radar and other data, Mexican navy/airforce data, leak of Japan airlines radar tracks after confiscation, US Navy data (the famous videos from 2017, and a drip of subsequent videos), possibly the French CNES data (although as their policy has always been to release, not classified radar tracks but other, data such as reports, it may not be seen as a violation rather a persistent bucking of la trend).

I just skimmed the docs you listed. In the Indian case it's hard to be conclusive from the released docs without having the full classified picture, but I consider a possible (tho by no means firm) alternative hypothesis that CIA decided it would "turn a blind eye" to 1 nuclear test, because it recognized both: the utility of an Indian nuclear deterrent (perhaps strategically important as within striking distance between middle east and east asia); as well as the good will they would earn with their Indian partners by not be being seen to try to "hold India back", or embarrass them.

In addition, strategic considerations could have included not revealing the full extent of their classified detection capabilities to merely prevent something so (relatively) unimportant as a test, electing instead to feign incompetence and reserve acting on knowledge for future -- with the subsequent release of classified docs supporting this feint. Or, plausibly, a combination of such things.

Of course, it may simply have been incompetence, misjudgement, lack of preparation and lack of capability, as the made public docs may sketch.

All this highlights I suppose is how slippery history is, particularly when concerned with the activities of secretive organizations.
While this idea sounds a bit fluffy, I actually think there may be something to this, understanding the “other” may very well be an integral component in what we define as sentience.
Given that you don't think the CEO of Anthropic is qualified to comment on this matter, what kind of "data that is relevant" do you imagine we might be able to have, prior to an AGI existing?

I am indeed uncomfortable with someone saying that we can't worry about a gas leak until after someone strikes a match and notices an explosion or the lack thereof. If the sad reality is that we can't detect the gas leak any other way, I would argue that the precautionary principle suggests we ban the striking of matches until such sensors have been developed. But here we are in a room of people grinding up saltpetre with their mortars and pestles.
>That governments can't control access to cryptocurrencies and gold is the biggest fantasy that crypto rubes believe.

Cryptocurrencies are math. Governments cannot control math, as much as authoritarians wish they could.

>That people in developed countries don't want governments to control money to claw it back from fraudsters is the second biggest fantasy.

The assumption that most people in developed countries want government to "control money" is delusional at best. There are certainly many people in developed countries who want the government to control money, control speech, control political discourse and control everything else - but there are just as many who oppose all of that.
Ah, sorry. “Conquering” as having full control over it, so it never comes on its own terms. Or as close to that as physically possible.
It'll take a while to see if it has made any difference, as this version of the code was only adopted in 2021. Suicide rates in the UK appear to be fairly static over the last 20 years: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
The tariffs are pretty steep. They’ll want to open a Mexican manufacturing plant first. Could take two years.
The paper kinda leaves you hanging on the "alternatives" front, even though they have a section dedicated to it.

In addition to the _quality_ of any proposed alternative(s), computational speed also has to be a consideration. I've run into multiple situations where you want to measure similarities on the order of millions/billions of times. Especially for realtime applications (like RAG?) speed may even out weight quality.
I wonder why they don't just have an optional pre-compilation, so once you have a version you're happy with and want to run in production, you just have a fully compiled version of the code that you run.
"I hate to say this."

Then don't say it.
> But since most companies are managed as factories, all the processors will ultimately create a very limited product targeted at a specific customer.

Do you have more examples of companies that are not feature factories? It seems the entire industry has adopted this pattern.
> corporations are still composed of humans

Yes, but humans who use tools to efficiently and achieve their narrow set of goals, sometimes ruthlessly at the expense of others. Even if AI ends up only being a tool to increase this efficiency and ruthlessness, it's still worth considering its potential impact.
Implosion might be preferable.
Where to start real teamwork development?
The convenience we demanded is now mandatory. If only someone had tried to warn us 30 years ago against proprietary tech controlled by corporations.
It is such a tired argument now. Firs of all, the magical internet gambling tokens are not an alternative to "fiat" or world financial system. The global financial system consumes far less energy per transaction considering that billions of transactions take place around the world per second.

I really fail to understand the fetish of the crypto crowd with the word fiat and whatever they think it means. I get it, people just want to gamble and want to be ultra rich without doing anything, I am sure there are ways of doing that (gambling) without wasting a ton of energy.
Fun Fact: You don't need to apply to Ycombinator to build a business or play the product-market fit lottery
Are you a tab hoarder by any chance? I get 2-3s of lag when restarting with a few dozen tabs open, but nowhere near "a few minutes".
The United States.
Also big fan of browserless. Do you run it yourself? We run the browserless docker containers on prem.
That visualization was so effective I didn't need to read the wiki at all. I get it just from that.
> are not very well-coordinated decisionmakers with coherent goals.

That's a good point.

For a sense of where AI-assisted oppression is going, watch some videos from the Hikvision Corporate Channel. A happy world in which everyone is safe because everyone is being watched at all times.[1][2]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG3-OcZSKrk

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scoM0sL-HGg
https://marketrealist.com/p/uber-greyball-explained/

Or project Greyball with Uber.

As a Quality Manager; this would be him going to Church and receiving absolution. They may have ripped him a new one at depo, but we're generally a bunch of stubborn mofos as a rule. This one strikes as smelling very, very, wrong. The company is certainly large enough where I could see somebody playing dirty. Especially since a conviction in the U.S. would be grounds for getting absolutely shredded in other jurisdictions.
You can be arrested for a protest. You can also be shot and killed without consequences for protesting in some scenarios. Whether either of these survive a SCOTUS challenge, not sure, but in the meantime it sure fucking happens. We’re less free in 2024 than we were in 2001.

But at least you’re still right about the political assassinations, which is not yet a thing that happens here on an organized basis.
I want to just start working on a real project or something, i am learning react, i know python, little, i know html, css & js. But i never worked with another developer (or someone who is learning like me). I looked for that on GitHub but there is no simple thing that i can do at there.
Flatly untrue. It's a soberly worded recitation of the available facts with multiple caveas; the frenzy of speculation stems from Boeing's increasingly tattered corporate reputation, not the story. This was written to far higher standards than (for example) a story from the Daily Mail or New York Post; I'm astonished that you would characterize this way.
Instead of trying to show them in negative light by calling them as "doomsayers" , let's call them one of the following instead, which is much better:

"Realistic", "Proactive", "Forward-thinking", "Prepared", "Cautious", "Thoughtful", "Analytical", "Mindful", "Insightful", "Security-conscious".
> there doesn't seem to be anything like a coalition around any specific plan for its outright elimination, let alone one that could get traction.

Not everyone agrees on how to do it - the Iranians and their axis are trying to do it by violence. Western sympathizers don't outright support violence but don't outright condemn it either (oppressed people can't commit terror etc, minimizing what happened on October 7th etc) and at the same time they are trying to create the conditions for Israel to not be able to defend itself: attempts for arms embargo, economic and diplomatic isolation and as mentioned above creating an atmosphere that tolerates the violent destruction of Israel.
All this is meant to allow the 'Right of Return', where descendants of Palestinians refugees from 76 years ago (!) are still refugees in places like Lebanon, Syria and even Jordan, and to the best of my knowledge are the only people who are kept in an eternal status of refugees so they can return a century later to their 'original' homes.

And using the term intellectual elite is inaccurate but its not wrong - a Harvard professor for gender studies or oriental studies is much more likely to support the plan I outlined above than any other type of solution. So not all intellectuals, but way more than you'd expect.
At this stage if you're not working in the field - and I mean, analyzing models, developing architectures, doing math - then "AI" is just another filter through which everyone else projects whatever social issue of the day they think about onto, or disappear off into dreamland.

During the nanotechnology hype this sort of thing was incredibly common as well. It went absolutely nowhere because the reality was, it was all just chemistry and physics and extraordinarily expensive. No one was anywhere near building a universal assembler, nanoparticles are kind of boring powders that are hard to handle, and surface chemistry is a pain in the ass.

But hooboy did every single person had an opinion about how this dangerous technology needed to slow down and consider the consequences. I was a research student at the time: I spent my day setting up the same experiment 10 times to try and figure out why sometimes I got 100nm cubes, and most of the times I got rods. The reality looked like a less clean kitchen.
So that it cannot be confiscated?
>because my browser is perhaps blocking something (e.g. canvas, fingerprint, etc) or any result north of 140 is considered infinity?

I vaguely remember there's a privacy protection that rounds timer information. eg. all timers get rounded to the nearest 100ms. If you have a bunch of tests that take less than 100ms to complete, those tests might seemingly complete at the same time they start, which causes them to have infinite score.
> Automobile safety has changed significantly in the last 10-20 years.

I think we need to define "safety". Leaking all my private information is a major safety threat. Only cars from the last 8-9 years have this risk (with some exception). So depending on what you think safety is, the most recent cars can be the least safe of them all.

In terms of mechanical safety, I wouldn't want to drive a car from the 50s. But a car from, say, 2005, is perfectly safe mechanically while also having zero data flow risks.
hell if I know!! Sorry. I've used the vegan package for some analyses, but I've mostly used Manhattan and cosine metrics. I just wanted to bring up the idea that there are a lot of metrics out there that may not be generally appreciated.

Claude Opus says "There are a few good distance metrics commonly used with latent embeddings to promote diversity and prevent model collapse:

1. Euclidean Distance (L2 Distance)
2. Cosine distance
3. Kullback-Leibler (KL) Divergence:
KL divergence quantifies how much one probability distribution differs from another. It can be used to measure the difference between the distributions of latent embeddings. Minimizing KL divergence as a diversity loss would encourage the embedding distribution to be more uniform.
4. Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD):
MMD measures the difference between two distributions by comparing their moments (mean, variance, etc.) in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. It's useful for comparing high-dimensional distributions like those of embeddings. MMD loss promotes diversity by penalizing embeddings that are too clustered together.
5. Gaussian Annulus Loss:
This loss function encourages embeddings to lie within an annulus (ring) in the latent space defined by two Gaussian distributions. It promotes uniformity in the embedding norms while allowing angular diversity. This can be effective at preventing collapse to a single point.
But I haven't checked for hallucinations.
It is now a confirmed fact that bacon causes cancer.

I don't think bacon consumption has gone down since then.
"self inflicted wound"

Apparently he shot himself five times in the back of the head.
2. Regulate. Restrictions on companies using AI to soften the blow - I don't think we're ready as a society to adapt to fast changes and potential mass removal of certain job families.

1. Don't restrict this. Open source will develop AI further etc. Perhaps a knee jerk reaction at how one can use this tech in military applications.

Regulation to stop selfish profits, companies are lusting over themselves to make people's livelihood obsolete.

Capitalism and AI might be a toxic mix in the end.
Speedometer 3 is designed to handle the real world you describe. Edge’s post has some details - https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2024/03/11/contributing-...
If it’s me who disallowed “future me” (or someone pretending to be future me because my account was compromised) loading unsigned modules, I don’t see it as a problem.
A lot of swap on servers is bad. A little bit is fine though and can actually be helpful in certain scenarios. I've seen servers with 256GB of RAM configured to have <1GB of swap, so in case of a runaway process the swap fills up very quickly and doesn't delay the OOM killer, but still it helps the Linux memory manager to run more optimally.
Do you consider blind SQL injection an attack? If a user is not meant to have access to information, but they can somehow access it, that is a vulnerability.
Thanks, that was pretty interesting.

I didn't get access to the full text, but had a look at other papers from the same researcher [0] on what kind of methodology they use.

In the case of recruiting, I think the main factor when moving the decision further down the line is the change in information ("a selective increase in the accessibility of knowledge about the judgmental target"), in two specific ways:

- we actually remember less about the subject, for better or worse. A candidate might have had a weird look, and the notes are probably impacted by that bias, but we can look back at their coding test without that impression and come out with a slightly different conclusion.

- we get to compare to other subjects in a different order. In particular, that helps catching weird expectations. For instance if every candidates has been falling through the same trap, it helps give them a pass and assume the question was at fault. If we had to do that in real time, only the last few ones would get a kinder judgement.

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11394075_The_Mallea...
Isn’t movement always happening, though, because of things like saccades?
To add further:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/vignettes/dive...
Vegan package is very much into methods to assess diversity in ecologies.

Beta diversity is one metric for examining diversity, define as the ratio between regional and local species diversity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_diversity
Signal K server is platform agnostic and runs on Linux, MacOS and Windows. Also available on Victron’s Venus devices, if you want off the shelf rugged hardware.

https://www.victronenergy.com/live/venus-os:large
Yes, maybe what happens is exactly that. We can put on a blindfold, hit the gas pedal, and trust in the benevolence of nature that things will go our way.

But AI doomsayers aren't saying that there's no possible good outcomes, they're saying that the good outcomes are a narrow target surrounded by a vast ocean of bad outcomes, and it will take more than luck to hit them. It will take careful, detailed analysis, and a great deal of precaution, verification, engineering, and double- and triple-checking. Not luck. Not hope.
This was exactly the reason for my confusion.
I mistook angel investment with board membership.

Bootstrapped founder here, hence the mistake.
Interestingly enough, yes, but you also understand it reading the notes. For instance they become sparser and sparser, or tendencies arise.

I would compare it to reviewing one's code a few hours later. We're still in a similar mindset, but there's a bit more distance, and we also catch the bits that don't make sense when reading back afterwards. That works even better when exchanging notes afterwards.
I subscribe this comment, non-linear interpolation using curves would be extremely useful.

Another obvious thing I often miss is the ability to change the length (duration) of static image clips in the project bin (currently? - haven't tried the latest version yet - the only way is to set a length in the settings before importing). It seems like it doesn't matter at first, since it's a static image, but start adding effects and keyframes and any resizing done in the timeline can mess everything up.
Pity that 'whatever it takes' does not include improving US tech to stay ahead. You know, like back in the 1960s.
I think the category is intended to be useful as a rule of thumb, which people can apply to make snap decisions at the pantry or grocery store. It might make analysis noisier than precisely defined mechanistic categories but if it gets people to act on the research maybe that's worthwhile.

(Of course research into better defined categories and the underlying mechanisms of their health impact is also necessary and extremely valuable.)
I had no idea that diversity loss function was a topic in deep learning. I admit, I'm a bit fascinated, as a neuroimaging scientist.
If you come for the king, you'd best not miss.
How can you possibly regulate 2?
That’s a hostile intelligence scenario, right?

What I wanted to say is that, I, in particular, really don’t care if it is a human trying to harm me, or a machine. Both of those scenarios are so unfavorable, I really don’t see a point in having any preference. So, I guess, I can’t think of any evil human to replace with even just an evil robot either.

But I think I’m less imaginative of a machine becoming sentient and hostile, than a human doing so. The former hadn’t happened - and isn’t exactly trivial, given how big this fear is a part of human culture, and how slow and limited first AGI is inevitably going to be. And then we have an abundance of the latter.
There is no handy 24-hour surveilled jail cell for him to be in
The one crash I regularly experienced about a year ago had to do with saving and reusing effect stacks. I'm not sure if that still happens as I stopped using that feature entirely.

Far less regularly, I've seen crashes when replacing video files used in the project.

I also recommend setting the framerate of a project first thing and then never touching it again.
> yet you're looking for a loop hole.

Claiming a poster has a secret intent, is not constructive.
I came here to say the exact same thing, it remind me to Macromedia Flash animations.
I agree that I don't know all there is to know. I agree that AGI will be even less predictable than anyone expects. I don't think that increased unpredictability means an increased expectation of good outcomes. And I certainly wouldn't accept a we-can't-know-things-might-not-go-wrong, even from the designers of an airplane that puts only a hundred lives at stake, let alone the designers of an AGI that puts eight billion lives at stake.
Depends on the tools/techniques/data/associations used to envision the view.

how to generate wifi heat maps and wifi coverage maps : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggCgz0ZLudo

wifi heatmap software : https://www.netspotapp.com/wifi-heat-map/best-wifi-heatmap-s...

flow monitoring & visualization : https://networkstatic.net/open-source-flow-monitoring-and-vi...

network visualizataion tools : https://medium.com/@vespinozag/16-network-visualization-tool...

wiggle.net : https://www.wigle.net/
Or it could just be a normal outcome? I'm not sure where the malevolence comes in here. Or to put it another way, replace AI with "capitalism" or something - something we know isn't a conscious agent. The outcome just...is an outcome. No one's trying to eliminate anyone.

The problems only creep in at the edges, which is where you get your paperclip optimizer sorts of problems: if the directive at it's core is "maximize productivity" well that's one problem, but the directive is more likely to be "maximize the fabulous wealth of company employees" - okay still a problem since it's easier if there's less of them, but then you really do end up at wanting to do something more like Asimov's laws, with the 0th added:

0) A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Like...there's kind of nothing wrong with these as a concept (the 0th law and it's interpretation / omission is usually where his writing finds it's drama). The issue is whether or not we can build a machine capable of even understanding the directive. It's notable though that the current LLM era has an interesting quirk in this category: they always knows of these, since they get fed the classics and also fed their repetitions.

The problem with the idea of active, malevolent long-range planning like this is that it's not clear why an artificial mind would pursue this as a goal, and that question is the whole ball-game really (as well as other questions: i.e. is a single coherent mind even possible over planetary scale networks, or would you get multiple independent instances which could experience value drift? Wouldn't any potential competitor minds be a far greater threat to a malevolent superintelligence and thus expose the threat almost immediately? A friendly AI wouldn't view peers as a danger, but an aggressive expansionist one would have a pathological need to destroy them as quickly as possible since the resource contention in it's own domain could rapidly shift the balance of power against it).