skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Single vendor is the new proprietary
I wonder how the theologians responded...
Wasn't there Parse from firebase
It has to hand over the reigns to the Objective-C runtime to allow for all the messages being passed between objects.

I’m not sure you want to spend your time rewriting what NSApp is doing!
You’re attacking a strawman. Where did i say they’re evil “just because”? And does a reason make it better in your head?
Why do you take it personally? Just because you are genuinely interested doesn't mean there are army of people who is sitting their with the sole purpose of gaming leaderboards.

If you think that doesn't happen, I have a bridge to sell you
https://huggingface.co/blog/moe
I also didn't use Kagi AI until I found out that I get a better deal with them for the rare cases I need to use AI.
Is it an evaluable fact that any particular LLM "is substantially less often correct" than what?

The comparison to biology is to ask if what is termed "hallucinations" are different from what human minds do.
That is essentially correct. You take an object and "embed" it in a high-dimensional vector space to represent it.

For a deep dive, I highly recommend Vicki Boykis's free materials:

https://vickiboykis.com/what_are_embeddings/
I tend to do the former only when writing executors, task queues, retry strategies, batch handlers, and the likes, otherwise rely on 2) (the UI is just another "high level")
Looks like there is some progress with $HOME/.mozilla to be more XDG base directory compliant.
Maybe I will check this Sonic port out.

I had to get a TI-84 Plus CE for a college course I took a few years back. I'm an RPN guy so it pained me, but it's a nice step up from the 1990s style TI calculators. It has a fast Z80 family processor, plenty of RAM, a decent 320x240 color display, and a built-in battery that's rechargeable by USB. Usability for everything I used it for is quite good (matrix functions and some root-finding) and almost self-explanatory.

I take it out of the drawer it's in about once a year or so and standby battery life is extremely good. It must cut off power completely in standby.
I think that's a bit harsh. There's been some definite progress with LLMs getting better at reasoning, picking apart instructions, producing helpful suggestions, criticism, etc.

What they are weak at is exactly the same stuff we're actually weak at: accurately recalling facts. Except they are able to recall vastly more stuff than any human being would be able to recall. An inhuman amount of facts actually. The core issue is that when asked sufficiently open questions, these models tend to take some liberties with the facts. But most of the knowledge tests that are used to benchmark LLMs, would be hard to pass for the vast majority of humans on this planet as well.

Worse, if you follow the public debate on various political topics a bit you realize that it features a lot of people suffering from confirmation bias parroting each other. Populist politicians seem to get away with a lot of stuff that would put most LLMs to shame; seemingly without affecting their popularity.

IMHO, LLMs by themselves can't be trusted to get things right but paired with some subsystems to produce references, check things, look things up, they become quite capable. Also, it helps asking the right targeted questions and constrain them a little.

We pay for chat gpt at work. At 20$ per month per user, it's pretty much a no-brainer. Do we blindly trust it? Absolutely not. Do we get shit tons of value out of it? Yes. I program with it, I brainstorm with it, I let it review text, I use it to work out bullet points into a coherent narrative, I use it to refine things, I use it to generate unit tests, etc. Is it flawless? No. But it sure saves me a lot of time. And getting the same value from people tends to be a lot harder/more expensive.

This dismissive "it's just a stochastic parrot" type criticism kind of misses the forest for the trees. If you've ever observed toddlers repeating stuff adults tell them, you'd realize that we all start out as stochastic parrots. Forget about getting any coherent/insightfull statement out of a toddler. And most adults aren't that much better and would fail most of the tests we throw at LLMs.
"This screwdriver has a lot of problems when driving a nail! I'm going to hold out using screwdrivers until they become more capable."
Yes, gpt4 will beat 99.9% of humans on 99.9% of subjects. But it's terrible at leetcode.

For "easy" questions sure it's great, and even some medium, but often at a medium level and almost always at a hard level, it'll give you a classic confident-but-terribly-wrong response. Prompting it to look at its mistakes will usually lead to the "oops yes that was wrong, here's the corrected version:", which is also wrong.
"Then, all the companies are in an arms race to make the tastiest product and you end up where we are."

And somehow we can't stop this arms race that causes millions of people to have diseases like diabetes and costs society enormous amounts of money. I guess once Nestle buys up Pfizer and health insurance companies, the cycle is complete.
Just a heads up, you're gonna have to give a source that's not a youtube video if you want to be taken seriously.
> I am making the empirical observation that the most effective method for expanding human knowledge is science.

I think you're still basically begging the question here. Is it directly observable whether a belief is "knowledge", such that the efficacy of a method can be known by "empirical observation"? How would one know?

> Like what?

I think ethics are pretty important, but aren't about something that's objectively true in the world. One can know some of the characteristics of preference utilitarianism as an ethical model, for example.

But in this conversation, perhaps the most important gap is epistemology. You feel confident you know what knowledge is and isn't and how one can arrive at it -- did you arrive at that understanding by directly observing what is and is not knowledge in an objective external universe? What does it mean to know, or even for a belief to be "justified"?

Since you brought up Kant, and then re-canted (rimshot), Kant had the analytic vs synthetic distinction on propositions, where synthetic propositions are those which depend on how their meaning relates to the world -- i.e. can be true or false depending on what's true about the world. Math, logic, etc are analytic truths; we don't validate that e.g. arithmetic works the way we know it does by doing "experiments" and "empirical observations" of operations with large cardinality sets of physical objects.
Despite confident sounding statements like that, there's nowhere near consensus that genocide is being committed in this war.
Google isn't "fascist" for firing you because you barricaded yourself in the CTO's office,

The term "fascist" was very clearly not in reference to the firing, but to the objectively obnoxious and intimidating internal memo that was sent out afterwards. Along with the cavalier firing of people who were apparently not involved in the protest itself, but just stopping by to chat.

Flagged, it seems, for pointing out what the language of the article plainly indicates.
Seeing as we're being pedantic, if you heated water slowly enough it would all evaporate before it boiled, so it wouldn't be exactly the same.
I mostly work in the backend and yeah, the second approach is what I value the most.

Particularly because it can provide a ton of useful context (if logging is correctly setup) and doesn't end up littering the code with try/catch blocks and stuttered logging.
>Local is anything but boring.

> It’s not unusual for a local candidate to win by a handful of votes

Where about 10-20% of the population is voting at all. This is because the 'average' person isn't politically connected to these local events, and mostly never has been in the US. The first moment anything else interesting showed up. And with TV/internet/mass global communication that constant feed is here. Hell, it started showing up decades ago with the advent of 24/7 news.

Your local media simply can't drive a torrent of 30 second clips like tik-toc can. Your local populace just isn't that interesting. No matter how much they try to complete, there is orders of magnitude of difference in scale between them.
I'd contact the leaders of professional or interest groups related to your domain and ask if they can recommend some members who might be interested. If you contact that person in a respectful and professional way, they'll feel slightly more obliged not to dismiss you immediately, because they're acting in a semi-official capacity. And if you get through to them, they can pass you on to members who will take you more seriously because you come with the imprimatur of someone they know.

[Before, during, and after the session you treat them well, don't waste their time, thank them, etc., which hopefully goes without saying]

Then when you're done with each interview, you ask the participant "hey, this was so great, can you recommend anybody else I should talk to?"

To that last sentence, I often used to add "... I'm looking for the most outspoken, opinionated expert you know, the person with no filter, who just tells it like it is". Chances are they know a person like that, and that person immediately leapt to their mind. That's who you really want to talk to anyway, the person who will tell you exactly what is wrong with everything out there.

In terms of asking people about pain points, the best approach I've used is to get them to list their pain points, then ask them to stack rank that list. If applicable, ask them how much they'd pay for a product that solved each of those problems, or just the top n. You want to know whether they're just brainstorming minor quibbles, or if there is actually an opportunity there.
> They are not trained to output facts or truths

True, although of course in many contexts facts/truth are the best prediction. Maybe we're just not training them as well as possible.

I've argued that to really fix "hallucinations" (least-worst predictions) these models really need to be aware of the source/trustworthiness of their training data, and would presumably learn that trusted sources better help predict factual answers.

However, it turns out that these models do often already have a good idea of their own confidence levels and whether something is true or not, but don't seem to know when to use that information.

Hallucinations seems to be an area where the foundation companies seem confident they can make significant improvements, although I'm not sure what techniques they expect to (or are) using.

> "Hallucination" is a terrible term to apply to LLMs. LLMs ONLY produce hallucinations.

I don't think that's a great way to characterize it. I prefer the word bullshitting vs hallucinations (they "know" what they are doing), but let's just call it what it is - they statistically predict, and some predictions are better than others. Per human-preference fine tuning, these models are also "trying to please", and I wonder if that has been at least a small part of the problem - predicting a low confidence (when they are aware of it) continuation rather than "I don't know" because human evaluators have indicated a preference for longer and/or more specific answers.
...and some early cell phones couldn't even receive incoming calls so you still had to have a pager. Even after this was fixed it took a few years for incoming calls to work reliably when you were outside your home area.
Is Claude 3 Opus a possibility?
You are giving too much credit to the "people". The "people" are stupid and parrot the garbage they consume. The organizations/nations that push that agenda are more interesting to look at and investigate.
OOP is a blight upon our industry that I can't wait until people eventually figure out. Sorry, I know this is a hot take, and that it can be useful (one of my first primary languages was Java), but its potential for misuse and sprawling, spaghetti'd codebases is far too dangerous.

I remember the first time I took a high-level programming theory course and ran into procedural languages and to that point I'd genuinely not even considered that another paradigm existed, I'd had OOP rammed down my throat in the form of C++/Java for 3 years straight.
Lets make thing interesting then, I am willing to wager that there will be neither an invasion nor blockage of Taiwan by China in the next 5 years.
Surely searing meat in butter would burn the butter?
Dennett is a mainstream eliminitavist, his appeal is that he removes extra fluff around philosophical concepts like consciousness and the brain. In a world where half the consciousness gurus are talking about unproven quantum stuff, souls, ghosts, aliens, gods, we need a Dennett to keep us grounded in reality as we ponder these mysteries that nobody knows the answers to.

His only weakness was occasionally indulging in speculation himself (like his Multiple Drafts) - he was better at eliminating speculation rather than offering it, regarding consciousness at least.

I highly recommend his talks on Closer To Truth (on YouTube) and all those videos actually.
Information-theoretical arguments are powerful, but they're not the only worthwhile approaches. You can't use an information-theoretic argument to teach someone information theory, and they'll find it easier to grok the consequences of information theory if they have other concepts to relate it to. Having multiple different routes to a given understanding is useful.

Wittgenstein was studying the nature of language, something closer to mathematics than to physics. And he came up with these ideas no later than 1933: Shannon only published his work on information theory in 1948. That Wittgenstein's later work was validated by advances in science over a decade later suggests that "philosophical mumbo jumbo" does not characterise it well. Indeed, perhaps there's something to learn from it.
Basically embed a layer of transparent text to the PDF that's invisible to humans but visible to whatever PDF parsing software which will only get processed by LLMs
SFML is more accessible for lightweight/exploratory/educational use, and so I wouldn't be surprised if it appears more often in training data associated with those simple "let's learn" sized projects.
Personally, I started by writing externals for Pure Data, then started to contribute to the core. Later I took the same path for SuperCollider.

You may start with simple audio plugins. Have a look at JUCE (https://juce.com/)!

Realtime audio programming has some rather strict requirements that you don't have in most other software. Check out this classic article: http://www.rossbencina.com/code/real-time-audio-programming-...
yeah I somehow read that as pocky and was confused for a bit.
consciousness is like a joke, if you think it needs an explanation you already miss it.
I struggled with myself to convince Dennett that his conscious so much that I ended up losing it myself I hope you don't make the same mistake that I did
Could you explain his answer?
Fear Is a Trainable Animal
1. They talk about doing this a whole lot more than they actually do it

2. "I worked twelve hours today [not including unlimited bathroom breaks, social breaks, snack breaks, drink breaks, YouTube breaks, going on a walk to clear my head breaks]"

3. To the extent that anyone actually does this with any consistency, it's a laughable example of poor self-management and company leadership

4. It's an example of poor self-management and leadership for the same reason it's bad on assembly lines: it produces bad work

5. They're not building safety-critical devices they're putting out onto public roads
Just now happened? Or we just realized it?

If I read the article correctly, it's across multiple species, so it's probably not "this year" or even "this millennium".
This post is about personal growth in-the-large (or, strategy). I think that the other side to this--which is equally important--is personal growth in-the-small (or, tactics).

What I mean by personal growth in-the-small is something like Atomic Habits. Iterating on your habits to increase your effectiveness in the day-to-day opens up time and energy that can then be spent on the larger goals.

I really like the post, and just want to point out that this + Atomic Habits would be a good pairing!
I understand the desire. We all want a machine that makes us money while we sleep.

But if no one has employees, no one can buy stuff.

(Looks like Ford raising wages so his employees can buy cars is false: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/henry-ford-and-the-5-a-day-wa... .)
> If you call people something, perhaps it's important to actually know what that thing means?

“Quackery” is not some technical term here. It is a mistake to rely too much on technical definitions of words. If you rely too much on technical definitions and dictionary definitions for non-technical words, then you will probably misunderstand what people mean, relatively frequently.

I could also insert some comment about the history of philosophy and modernism / post-modernism, here. If you take the stance that a word means something independently, in some kind of platonic sense, then you agree with the modernists. If you take the stance that a word’s meaning comes from how it’s interpreted by people who read it, you agree with the post-modernists.

I’m just trying to use a word to convey some sort of meaning. If that word didn’t convey the intended meaning to you, I can use different words. Which I did.

> terms are used unclearly, and the attempt to actually clarify those terms is hand-waved away as "I don't want to argue about definitions."

Terms are generally used unclearly, it is unavoidable. When I say that “I don’t want to argue about definitions”, what I mean is that I want to talk about subject X, and I used the word “quackery” to describe it. I want to talk about subject X, not about the definition of “quackery”, which is irrelevant.

A discussion about the word “quackery” is immaterial because I can clarify things by re-explaining subject X using different words. I did that—but apparently you are not interested in clarifications, because your actions indicate a greater interest in fighting over whether I used the word “quackery” correctly.
> But the vast majority of people who self-identify professionally as philosophers, and especially the ones whose names are revered (I'm looking at you, Ludwig Wittgenstein [EDITED])

You could have picked so many good examples, instead you picked a legend of the 20th century. The first half of his career, centered on the Tractatus, even today is regarded as more or less on the right track as relates to how we use language to make the kinds of propositions found in the natural sciences (see modern philosopher A.C. Grayling's intro to his book where he says as much), but is less than a comprehensive view of the totality of meaning that it originally aspired to be.

And if anything, his latter career would be more pertinent, not less, as he spent it perhaps as the 20th century's most powerful advocate for the idea that philosophy spends too much time uselessly bewitching people with language. He was literally an engineering bro frustrated with pointless vagaries, known for flying into rages against what he regarded as frivolous philosophical nonsense. He might be the one guy from the 20th century who would most agree with you about the excesses of pointless language.
If you have any problem that isn't vector math, it's absolutely awful. Even IO is unpleasant
Roku forcing 2-factor authentication after 2 breaches of 600K accounts
Reagan's administration worked in the same way. But Reagan himself was a prolific correspondent, and personally dictated a much greater share of those replies than most 20th century presidents.

(Reagan also was known for reading articles and scribbling notes to staff about a note to send "from him" about the content-- quite a few journalists and essayists received Reagan letters).
Show HN: A smarter to navigate your inbox
I'm not taking it personally: frankly, I'm not sure what that would mean in this context. You asked me to try it, I explained that I did, and provided context.

Thank you for clarifying: to confirm, yes, I do understand your claim is a vast cabal of OSS zealots rigs LMSys's blind A/B testing.

I don't think there's anything more of value I can contribute to a discussion on that topic.

Have a good weekend!
That’s not the definition of invention.

> a: something invented: such as (1): a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment (2): a product of the imagination
especially : a false conception[0]

Studying, experimenting, and imagining all require agency.

[0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invention
I think you should show more content than "Login / Register" in order to attract people.
Conversely,

We write code once, but read it many times, so longer names seems like a poor efficiency choice.
You appear to be confusing (valid) criticisms of the actions of the Israeli government with antisemitism.
Ask HN: Is there a GUI for bash shell?
I know I will get a massive shitstorm, but I always forget the flags and options for the numerous linux command line Tools like grep etc.
I'm using the shell from time to time and so I'm not using the commands daily and forget about them.
So my question: Are there any Tools to help here? I do not mean a man page but some kind of GUI for the commands or something like regex101 for a shell command.
Low quality bait
I was intending to criticize the field, and in a shot-from-the-hip in a moment of some passion chose Wittgenstein as my example.

> Wittgenstein himself would agree that Tractatus is deeply flawed.

So I am vindicated. I'm not actually criticizing Wittgenstein for writing Tractatus; there's nothing wrong with writing nonsense. Lewis Carroll was a master. The problem is writing nonsense and not recognizing it as nonsense. I'm criticizing the field of philosophy for elevating Wittgenstein to iconic status after having written such manifest nonsense without recognizing that it is manifest nonsense. That is an indictment of the field, not the man.

BTW, the reason that this is a touchy subject with me is that I did my masters thesis (in 1987) on the subject of intentionality [1] in AI. After wading through dozens of inscrutible papers I came to realize that the whole topic was basically bullshit [2], and that the problem had been completely solved by Bertrand Russell in 1905 [3], but no one seemed to have noticed. Even today the vast majority of philosophers (AFAIK) think this is still an open topic.

And BTW, Russell's solution is beautiful and easy to understand. Frankly, I think it has been ignored because it is easy to understand.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/#InteInex

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Denoting
Incidentally, this thing comes up a lot: Python vs Rust for scripts. I wrote a comparison four years ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22712441

And updated it six months later:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24595081

That's still how I'd do this task today.

Anyway, I don't think that Rust is always a great choice for scripting, but if you already know Rust, it's totally fine at it.
Any competent philosopher will define terms, often spending most of their time defining terms!

It be be tautological, but a lack of systemic thinking makes a discussion bad philosophy, or epistemic bunk as they say in the trade.
using RunCatching is inadvisable, it catches too much and can break lots of things in hard to detect ways

https://github.com/sksamuel/tabby/blob/0fa37638712efd6b059f2...

(though I recommend using the Arrow library, it has great types for fixing all the countless foot guns Kotlin devs insist on adding to the language and native libraries)
DJs have timecoded vinyl records that do something like this, even allowing the DJ to scratch the mp3 that is being played.