skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Reportedly, a lot of people who choose to study psychology are motivated originally to figure out what's going on in their own heads

People who go into psychology are more interested in what's going on in other people's heads and more importantly manipulating other people. It's more about controlling others than controlling oneself. It's why psychology was founded in the first place.

> people who lack a native impulse to be honest / ethical and are curious about people who do.

Ethics isn't about studying people. It's about studying principles. IE what does ethics mean. What makes an act ethical vs non-ethical. So on. You can delve into the ethics of gods, god, AI or even animals. Are ethical principles universal or not. So on and so forth.
Hey, my friend moved to Berlin 2 years ago and he takes everyone to Mustafa - is this a tourist attraction / internet one? I don't know why he does this, the kebap is original but nothing special tastewise.
Inflation in the last 12 months is 3.2%.
I what you're working on as a start! Reminds me a little of ofhttps://github.com/socketteer/loom. Composing multiple models in a guided / visually programable node flow of inputs and responses is a logical next step on from linear chatbots. The UI is feels a little raw at the moment -- zooming and scrolling / panning the canvas is necessary to keep track, which shouldn't change the visibility or zoom the lefthand pane as it currently does.

Would be nice to see a statement regarding user data security and privacy and how that's technically implemented.
If you like the government having the right to do this, could you please explain why you're OK with your political opponents having this power when they get in office? Because in many circumstances they will be attempting to inculcate an incompatible ideology with it. How can you reconcile wanting to hand this power to either in that case?
And the rest of it is predictably pretty crap. I'm no subject matter expert, but it doesn't sound like it's written by one (or any academic) either, even to me.
Yep, and the example I like to go back to is API docs, or command line docs.

One I was reading this week had a field for "language", but doesn't clue you in to the valid values by providing a working example. English for example could be:

English

English (US)

en

en-US

eng

1033

409

...And that's just for the US dialect of English. And also doesn't tell you if any of this is case-sensitive or not! Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Related Lemmy discussion of a similar incident from this week: https://lemmy.world/post/13128991

The relevant screenshot of the post: https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/9d46f584-67a3-489d-92a5-c322...
[An introduction of a published paper, containing the sentence "I'm very sorry, but I don't have access to real-time information or patient-specific data, as I am an AI language model."]
The cynic in you is overly cynical.

Ten years ago was pre oculus rift. We weren't saying anything about VR headsets.

Five years ago was pre valve index. We didn't have CPUs in a headset. Nor a battery. Cameras were only used for tracking. The things we were saying would improve is "screen door effect" and "tracking", both of which have.
ODE solving? Best in class.

I tried to use it for quick scripts and calculator-like-use, but the JIT compile times made it unfeasible. (Julia's math syntax is the best I've seen)

For more complex and performance-intensive programs, I don't see the case for choosing it over a general languages like Rust and C++.
Well theoretically both are tied together - the less raise the employee gets the costs are lower thus the profits better which means the CEO is doing a good job.

At the end of the day it is the private property of the shareholders and if they decide the guy they hired does a good job then they can pay him more. Just not sure what is the plan for IBM in the long run, from the outside it looks like some zombie company that is still riding on the fumes when they were a monopoly.
Payslope needs to be a bigger part of such conversations:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/h...

I wish we could get it added to product labeling as is currently done for price per unit weight/count.
Considering the US chose an interstate highway system in large part due to Eisenhower's exposure to the Autobahn during WWII, there's sort of a karmic quality to this.
It’s in LLVM Flang as real(kind=3).
Your view on LLM usage is too narrow. Yes, they are pretty shit for me too in solving coding problems, but they are still useful for bespoke information extraction, classification and creative applications. The interest is justified, we're just having a hard time understanding the limitations.
If style is not important, it seems like all the more reason to standardize it.
Mandelthought psyt.
Technology is complex and hard to make sense of. That is why most non-experts have a strong wish for a kind of mythical technology, which you can just pour onto your problem and it magically knows what you wanted (and which things you did not want).

For a certain class of problems LLMs achieved new, never before seen, almost magical results. Now imagine you were someone who hates dealing with the constant complexity of solving problems with technology and something comes along that seems to carry promise of lifting that off your shoulders. Then you know why people react like they do. Recall the block-chain-craze? There were people who declared that this somehow magically solved any IT-security problem there ever was – instead of seeing it as a good solution for a very specific set of circumstances, nearly nobody faced in practise.

In reality of course also LLMs have limitiations, e.g. above mentioned ambiguity that is inherent to any magical technology: To be true magic the technology would have to be able to read the thoughts of those who apply it and somehow infer from that the true thing they want or need. Now LLMs are in the end still just very good guesses based on statistical data, that means the guess could just be what you want, but it lacks an actual understanding of what it is doing.

Those applying the technology for things it is actually good at (e.g. classification problems etc) will put it to good use, but there will be a lot who will apply it and have things fall apart Canada Airlines style.
What if you don’t use react? Seems like intercom’s ability to wrap elements on page with no code is a lot better for the non technical types
I daily drive KDB/Q. This is readily extendable for example in C, which was my previous daily, and Python which I use sporadically.

I don’t use LLMs for C or KDB, I do use them for Python.

ChatGPT is good in Python. I guess as Python programmers rely on stack exchange so there is lots to learn from, and Python anyway is largely an exercise in finding the correct library.

If the only thing ChatGPT did was listen to my problem and suggest which imports to use/manuals to read, that would be good enough to use regularly. If I wasn’t after a library/pre existing code I wouldn’t be using Python!
Fighting the last war -- indeed, the one before the one before, etc. The problem goes back to the steam engine and the universal denial of its implications. The purpose of shortening the workweek by 25% is to "create" 20% more "jobs", which still presumes that "everyone" must "work"; but that presumption is false, and, like every falsehood, a sadistic trap.
Are we supposed to be outraged by this? 23% raise seems very reasonable given the average employee at the entire company is getting 7%. The raise is tied to external metrics so really not feeling any need to get agitated.
A guide to the wedge marketing strategy
Stop using it for things that are in you area of expertise but are too difficult for you. Use if for things where you think "this is probably easy but I have no idea how to do it". For example, I needed to do some pretty trivial task in powershell but I have never used it so I got chatGPT to do it for me and it worked first time. Obviously I checked the commands looked plausible before I ran them, but it still probably took 2 mins to do something that would have otherwise taken 30.
Sure, we created the word intelligence to help describe ourselves, and our differing levels of ability, as well as applying it to animals such as apes or dogs that we see seem to possess some similar abilities.

However, if we want to understand where this rather nebulous ability/quality of "intelligence" comes from, the obvious place to look is our cortex, which it turns out actually has rather simple architecture! If uncrumpled our cortex would be a thin sheet about the size of a tea towel, and consists of six layers of neurons of different types, with a specific pattern of connectivity, and including massive amounts of feedback. We can understand this architecture to be a prediction machine, which makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Prediction is what lets you act according to what will happen in the future as opposed to being stuck in the present reacting to what is happening right now.

Now, if we analyze what capabilities arise from an ability to predict, such as multi-step what-if planning (multi-step prediction), ability to learn and use language (as proven by LLMs - a predict-next-word architecture), etc, etc, it does appear (to me at least!) that this predictive function of the cortex is behind all the abilities that we consider as "intelligence".

For sure there is very little agreement on a definition of intelligence, but I have offered here a very concrete definition "degree of ability to predict future outcomes based on past experience" that I think gets to the core of it.

Part of the problem people have in agreeing on a definition of intelligence is that this word arose from self-observation as you suggest, and is more a matter of "i know it when i see it" rather than having any better defined meaning. For technical discussion of AI/AGI and brain architecture we really need a rigorously defined vocabulary, and might be better off avoiding such a poorly defined concept in the first place, but it seems we are stuck with it since the word is so entrenched and people increasingly want to compare machines to ourselves and judge whether they too have this quality.

Of course we can test for intelligence, in ourselves as well as machines, by using things like IQ tests to see the degree to which we/they can do the things we regard as intelligent (we'd really need a much deeper set of tests than a standard IQ test to do a good job of assessing this), but the utility of understanding what is actually behind intelligence (prediction!) is that this allows us to purposefully design machines that have this property, and to increasing degrees of capability (via more powerful predictive architectures).
I am quite sick and tired of all these style guides, best practices and so on. People who enjoy telling other people what to do are just disgusting. And the 'standards' are quite indistinguishable from just a random idiot with a random idiot opinion. Following a standard in no way guarantees that the code is readable. A lot of standards come close to guaranteeing that it is not. E.g., whoever came up with the idea that 2 spaces of indentation is enough. One thing is that auto-formatting rules are just not smart enough to create good looking code because one formatting style may be more readable in one circumstance and another in another circumstance.
I keep expecting them to remove the 20% discount, but it's available every time.
Did it correctly answer all of these?
I guess I’m a cloud IAM expert gulp and I don’t see how all this complexity creep doesn’t end up degrading security.
We Don't Need 'Self-Help,' We Need Support
Are companies legally obligated to give cost of living? Nope. 7% given the number of layoffs in the tech sector seems amazing in my view.
It seems like a bunch of people got high on their own supply and convinced themselves this was a slam-dunk case. A more impartial person would look at it and see a dozen ways the SCOTUS could say "nope."
25-years old 3dfx glide2x.dll bug fixed [affects v3 cards with 8MB vmem]
> Simply put, every statement you've made is false.

No. These are well-known facts, public record. On 22nd February 2014, the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 in favor of removing Yanukovych from office after what he had done. Even his own party released a statement condemning him. Elections for the new president were held in May of the same year. Which part of this is "CIA coup"? Is it a "CIA coup" every time a parliament holds a vote of no confidence to remove someone from a public office? If that's the case, then many countries in Europe have a "CIA coup" every few years as failed politicians are voted out of office, usually because of corruption or incompetence.

> From where do you derive your propaganda - the same media organizations, owned by the bomb manufacturers currently reaping immense profit from Ukraines' dire situation, maybe .. ?

No. I can't think of a single media outlet in my country connected to "bomb manufacturers" in any way. One media group is centered around an old newspaper publisher, another group is centered around a medical supplier that has branched into media and retail business, and the third major one is public broadcasting. So you have to somehow connect a dog food retailer to the war if you want to pursue the profiteering angle.
I am pro-standardize, but this isn't a great argument. Enforcing a standard style takes resources from both the language and the people using it. You don't spend resources on something that isn't important.
Your right, one day you buy a pint of milk for $1, the next day $3, and on a third day the store is out of milk.

Would you be happy with not having Internet access at times because someone else bought out committed bandwidth or having your Internet bill fluctuate based on a market rate?
> you dont buy a pint of milk and get between a half pint and a full pint depending on what time of day it is

My point exactly !

How is it beneficial to the consumer to allow the telcos to market a product where they can perfectly legally only deliver half of the product at certain times of day.

A 50% difference is just nuts. 10–20% difference, fine, we could argue that's the price you pay for the cheap service, but 50% ? That's just not on !
Snowflake FinOps Center: Control and Monitor Costs with a Free Streamlit App
I expect the CEO to perform above average.
Let's not give them credit for having two subsystems called 'control panel' and 'settings'. That it happened even once is an embarassment, and I think they started that with Windows 8.
This thread is definition of serfs jealous of other serf’s 7% over while the masters clear 23% for watching over serfs.
There's a lot of apps for vocab, topics, flashcards, language partners, and AI conversation. I think you should focus on your weaknesses. If you are bad at talking to others, you could try to find a language exchange partner with i.e tandem.

I also recommend shadowing: listen and repeat English phrases frequently, literally say them out loud. This builds up the muscle memory needed to speak and think in another language quickly. You can do it with podcasts or tv shows too.
The feedback loop has begun, next generation models will be trained on previous models outputs.
> I don't see a difference between GC languages and others, so your secret is in a rust heap then what?

The problem with a copying GC is that, even if you clear the memory which had for instance a secret key, it might have been copied from elsewhere as part of a heap compaction, and the old copies of that memory will not be cleared (until accidentally overwritten when the GC reuses that memory for something else). With manual memory management (or a non-copying GC), you can always manually erase the memory before releasing it (but even then, you have to make sure the compiler doesn't optimize out your clearing; for instance, you should use explicit_bzero() in C).

Rust has a variant of this issue: even though it doesn't have a GC, values tend to be moved in memory when transferring their ownership. This can be avoided by keeping them in the heap (within a Box), since it's the pointer to the heap (the Box struct) which tends to be moved, but you have to take care to never move the value out of the Box (or similar like Rc or Arc) before clearing it. The Pin struct might help by making it harder to move the value out of the Box (as long as you understand how to use it correctly; I've always found the Pin struct somewhat confusing).
MDF is also great if you need homogeneous materials (for stuff like speaker cabinets). And for those more than sturdy enough, they are also always protected by some layer.
Take them carting on the weekend; its how practically every F1 driver was raised.
Agreed! While these results are very promising, there's still a lot to explore in this space.

In addition to the "prompt consistency" and "thought-control" ideas mentioned in the post, I'm definitely curious how the performance is on more complex structured data (things like codegen).
unless there are multiple CEOs, they perform average, by definition.
I don't know exactly how you use it, but this isn't my experience at all. If you ask a LLM anything too specific, that isn't obvious and a common issue/discussion ( something that I almost never need to do), it just makes up nonsense to fill the space.

Equally, if you ask it general questions it misses information and is almost always incomplete, leaving out slightly more obscure elements. Again, I need comprehensive answers, I can come up with incomplete ones myself.

What's really obvious to me when I use it is that it's a LLM trained on pre-existing text, that really comes through in the character of its answers and its errors.

I've very glad others find them useful and productive, but for me they're disappointing given how I want to use them.
I would recommend anyone who has the means to, to go to Raja Ampat near Papua, specifically by boat. You're in the middle of open water in Indonesian seas with nothing around you for quite a while, and the amount of stars you can see in the night sky is simply mindblowing. We didn't even need lights turned on to navigate around the ship/islands, it was crazy to witness
You are missing an important detail here - number of tokens - yes, you have 50 "steps" in network depth, but you could have extra tokens. Assuming you don't run out of tape, there is no reason for LLMs to be limited to simple operations.
CloudFlare includes a solution to collect DMARC records.

It still tells you how many occurrences are trying to impersonate you.
Pay dropped for most googlers in satellite offices this year, for reference.
Does your job involve solving complex, challenging problems all the time?

I am a CS professor, I don't think most people would class that as a trivial job, but I find myself needing to do plenty of trivial tasks every day: mixed bureaucracy (periodic reports, grant requests, various evaluations, etc.), trivial programming (a Seaborn chart to show some Excel results), text polishing (need to cut a text to 500 words without altering meaning), writing student assignments, writing emails in (non-Native) English for sensitive requests with the right tone, etc... all of those are things I have found LLMs to do fairly well and save me a lot of time.

I wouldn't use them to do the core job of designing novel algorithms, doing experiments, writing the bulk of a paper or teaching students. But most of my working hours are not really that "core" stuff. And I would assume it's the same for most professionals.

If you have an environment where you are constantly challenged by difficult tasks... wow. I don't know if I should envy you (because I love difficult problems and hate mindless chores) or it would be too stressful.

PS: I don't think "being too difficult for you to do it yourself" is the right litmus test for LLM usefulness. I can draw charts with Seaborn, of course. But the LLM does it much faster, and I don't think doing it myself would make me grow, hone useful skills or anything. I'd rather devote my time to something else. So (in my view) it's clearly better to have the LLM do it.
I mean, they have so much potential...

As an example, they have expertise designing huge silicon chips, big iron servers, and fast interconnects. They even made a ternery chip in the past, and plenty of fabrication research. They could absolutely be a horse in the AI accelerator race.

Thats just one example of many.

...But they dont take advantage of any of that, like they are stuck in a corporate quagmire or something.
The company beat cash flow projections by $400M and he got $4M.

Doesn't seem that crazy.
Yes, my experience with academics is that there are a lot of very dishonest people. They are political bullies who also lie in their research.

Chances of being caught are close to zero (I have contacted many times authors of papers who's work I was unable to replicate - most of the time zero reply, sometimes "yeah it was a honest mistake, oops"), super high competition (only a few tenured positions in all world's high visibility institutions per year), full control over student's future and being able to force them to do fraud (and later blame on them).

Obviously, not all, blah blah - but many academic scientists are the last people that should be doing science.
This is long overdue. I've seen no difference in realtor quality or effort from selling a $500k house than a $1M house, yet the commissions were doubled just because they can.

Attn Realtors™: Time to provide added value for money like the rest of us working stiffs!
After looking at what had to be every nursing chair in the world we found that the most old-farty looking la-z-boy was better in every regard and easier to clean. Sometimes I just go in the nursery and doze off in it
Quality readable code does not depend on these sorts of styles. As a matter of fact, you can write totally opaque code, in perfect style. I have seen this.

If using getOrElse in one function and using an if in another is confusing, I am very sorry: things differ, things change, and its best to just learn to read code.
And is it a "problem" that Montreal has a mixture of architecture both traditional and modern? That is part of what makes it an interesting city! I understand that varying styles in the source code of programs may not be desirable, but the analogy to city architecture makes no sense.
EuroRust and CppCon are fantastic. If the budget is generous enough then I'd recommend mainstream ones like NDC, Devoxx, or Strange Loop.

Also, I've recently come across a newsletter that scans YouTube for newly uploaded conference talks and then sends them out in a weekly email. They maintain a list of conferences they're monitoring that is quite comprehensive. The newsletter is called Tech Talks Weekly and the conference list is here: https://techtalksweekly.substack.com/p/tech-conferences
Certainly, here's a comment:

It seems like you inadvertently left in a placeholder or instruction for ChatGPT within your article's introduction. While it's an understandable oversight, it's essential to thoroughly review your text before publishing to ensure such remnants are removed. This helps maintain the professionalism and polish of your work. If you need further assistance or editing help, feel free to ask!
The author is mistaken in the article. Alan says in the article:

Gurung told CNN that the chips are manufactured in “a European country” but did not specify where or by which company and cost $10-15 apiece for each chip. He said that they would be sewn into the climber’s jacket. Once the climber returns, the chip will be removed, given back to the government, and saved for the next person.”

No where in the CNN link does it say the chip costs $10-15 a piece. It says:

He explains that climbers will pay $10-15 apiece for the chips, which will be sewn into their jackets. Once the climber returns, the chip will be removed, given back to the government, and saved for the next person.

So the $10-15 is a rental price, not a per unit price. Which means it could be some of the more expensive solutions he ruled out due to cost.