skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As I've said, I don't consider Bostrom as a racist, I consider him as an idiot because he felt for the first scientific quackery that sounds edgy.

Even in 1996, it was obvious that "Blacks are less smart than Whites" is incredibly scientifically stupid, the same way that saying not long ago "LK-99 superconductor is a game changer, and people who are skeptics are wrong". In 1996, it was clear for anyone who look more than 10 minutes that the situation was way muddier than Bostrom realised, and that Bostrom is as stupid as the idiots who jumped on the LK-99 superconductor craze without waiting for more info.
Quantum immortality. In the universe branches we've screwed with that electron we exploded and disappeared.
You can't automate perfect enforcement, but you can express a norm (as they have) and hold individual human contributors accountable for following it so that when a violation is discoved the humanms other contributions can be scrutinized and the human can be penalized/monitored/whatever going forward.

People bicker over the quality of generated content vs human content, but accountability is actually the big challenge when granting agency to AI tools.

There are many humans who might produce or contribute to a work, and when they violate norms it's accepted that we can hold the person individually accountable in some way or another -- perhaps by rejecting them, replacing them, or even suing them. Much the way mature financial systems depend on many features of legal and regulatory norms that crypto can'f deliver, most mature organizations depend on accountability that's not so easy to transfer to software agents.

If there are a handful of code generators and they're granted autonomy/agency without an accountable vouchsafe, what do you do when they violate your norms? Perhaps you try to debug them, but what does that process look like for a black box instrument? How does that work when those services are hosted by third-parties who themselves reject accountability and who only expose a small interface for modification?

Here, Gentoo dodges the problem entirely by saying effectively saying "we're not going to leave room for somebody to poiny to an AI tool as an excuse for errant work.. if they contribute, they need to take accountability as if the work is wholly and originally theirs by representing it as so."

Contributors may violate that policy by using AI anyway, but they can't use it as an excuse/out for other violations because they now need to stay steadfast in their denial that AI was involved.

So ultimately, this doesn't mean that generated code won't appear in Gentoo, but it makes sure contributed code is held to no lower a standard of accountability.
They've also been reducing the level of acknowledgement intentionally over time - sometimes I will hey siri on my airpods and think it didn't hear me, only to be hit with a "yes?" a few seconds later.
As I understand it, this has always been the case?

The point is that the police can't prove you do or do not remember a code. Consequently, they can't compel you to use that code.

However, since your thumbprint definitely exists, they can compel you to use it.
The EU does not want you to have the AI.
Opening Essays, Conference Talks, and Jam Jars
Yes. So what this comes down to is, scams should be illegal, and a lot of advertising is scam-like, and deciding how to regulate it is a work in progress. But the topic has now moved away from brainwashing - except I suppose that some people who are exceptionally vulnerable to being scammed will also be vulnerable to repetitious pressure. It's not an aspect of adverts per se.

On the whole though you're just saying "some adverts are bad and should be stopped by regulators", which isn't going to attract much disagreement, except in the details. And regulations (beer and bread, for example) are as old as the hills, and so is consuming stuff (is that the same as consumerism?) - I think the problem is recent rapid innovations in legally permissible scamming.
Let's not fetch too far, this becomes a strawman argument.

They weren't compatible operating systems because applications compiled for one of them were unable to be executed on the other without heavy modifications.

At "underlying layers" the OS of a Tesla is compatible with that of a Nintendo Switch, and yet no one would say they have a compatible OS.

> It is like telling Samsung, Huawei or Xiomi aren't Android, because they use another GUI framework on top of AOSP.

No it's not, because they all use the same GUI framework as AOSP, hence they can run the same precompiled application.
Show HN: Tiger – Function Hub for LLM Agents
Google Arts & Culture has hundreds of excellent 360 museum (and other cultural site) tours here: https://artsandculture.google.com/

Separately, you can also zoom in to many artworks with extreme detail (e.g. 1000+ dpi).
TLDR: The problem domain (telecom) fits Elixir perfectly

If you’re talking about scaling this, Elixir is built on the BEAM VM which was originally made for Ericsson and is tailor made for telecom systems.

Its whole paradigm is built around the concept of Let It Fail, which is basically about achieving fault tolerance through isolation and supervision.

So aside from the fact that Elixir+Phoenix is a productive framework that allowed the author to build this in a few days, it also means that it will scale very well with minimal code changes.

For reference, one of the solutions you might use to distribute this in Python is Celery, which is built on RabbitMQ which is built on Erlang, which is the predecessor of Elixir.
It sounds like whirling disease[0] in salmonids.

I wonder if there's been a change in the water (e.g., temperature or salinity) that's increased the range of parasites (or their annelid hosts) not normally found there? There are a _lot_ of myxozoan species, they fascinate me in that they're Cnidarians, so related to jellyfish and sea anemones, but went the tiny parasitic route instead. Life is amazing and terrifying in its capacity for finding every niche...

Not all of them are species specific, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteromyxum_leei

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxobolus_cerebralis
But also: Facebook/Meta got burned when they missed the train on owning a mobile platform, instead having to live in their competitors' houses and being vulnerable to de-platforming on mobile. So they've invested massively in trying to make VR the next big thing to get out from that precarious position, or maybe even to get to own the next big platform after mobile (so far with little to actually show for it at a strategic level).

Anyways, what we're now seeing is this mindset reflected in a new way with LLMs - Meta would rather that the next big thing belongs to everybody, than to a competitor.

I'm really glad they've taken that approach, but I wouldn't delude myself that it's all hacker-mentality altruism, and not a fair bit of strategic cynicism at work here too.

If Zuck thought he could "own" LLMs and make them a walled garden, I'm sure he would, but the ship already sailed on developing a moat like that for anybody that's not OpenAI - now it's in Zuck's interest to get his competitor's moat bridged as fast as possible.
That was my understanding as well. Are we missing something here?
This is not quite accurate, but complex because measurement is hard. The things they are being tested on are almost surely within the dataset. Let's take the bar exam for instance. Sure, we don't know what's in GPT data, but we know it has reddit, and we know reddit has many similar if not exact questions on it. We know that the first GPT4 did not have good semantic similarity matching because they just used a 3 substring matching on 50 chararcters (Appendix C) and they only consider the false positive nature. Then there's this line...

The RLHF post-training dataset is vastly smaller than the pretraining set and unlikely to have any particular question contaminated. However we did not check explicitly.

But my favorite is the HumanEval. I'll just remind everyone that this was written by 60 authors, mostly from OpenAI

We evaluate functional correctness on a set of 164 handwritten programming problems, which we call the HumanEval dataset. ... __It is important for these tasks to be hand-written, since our models are trained on a large fraction of GitHub, which already contains solutions to problems from a variety of sources.__

The problems? Well they're leetcode style... Can you tell me you can write leetcode style questions that

Human Eval 2

Prompt:
def truncate_number(number: float) -> float: """ Given a positive floating point number, it can be decomposed into and integer part (largest integer smaller than given number) and decimals (leftover part always smaller than 1). Return the decimal part of the number. >>> truncate_number(3.5) 0.5 """

Solution:
return number % 1.0

Human Eval 4

Prompt:
from typing import List def mean_absolute_deviation(numbers: List[float]) -> float: """ For a given list of input numbers, calculate Mean Absolute Deviation around the mean of this dataset. Mean Absolute Deviation is the average absolute difference between each element and a centerpoint (mean in this case): MAD = average | x - x_mean | >>> mean_absolute_deviation([1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0]) 1.0 """

Solution
mean = sum(numbers) / len(numbers)
return sum(abs(x - mean) for x in numbers) / len(numbers)

You really want to bet that that isn't on github? Because I'll bet you any dollar amount you want that there are solutions in near exact form that are on github prior to their cutoff date (Don't trust me, you can find them too. They're searchable even). Hell, I've poisoned the dataset here!

LLMs are (lossy) compression systems. So they're great for information retrieval. And a lot of what we consider intelligence (and possibly even creativity) is based on information retrieval. Doesn't mean these things are any less impressive but just a note on how we should be interpreting results and understanding the limitations of our tools. Measuring intelligence is a really difficult thing and we need to be aware that the term isn't universally agreed upon and so people are often talking past one another and also some people are conflating the differences as if they are the same.
The emotional tone, low latency, and active listening made for an amazing experience.

I wouldn't touch Alexa with a 10-foot pole, but this is the good stuff.

A little more emotional depth, and this could work as a conversational partner.
Yeah I totally get that. Which is why I made it a point to really not sound like a salesman, but people are wired to be suspicious no matter what.

I was able to interview a few people and I consider them heroes because against all odds, they still gave me the time of day despite not knowing a thing about me.
Groceries, a lot of clothes, bulky/heavy items, impulse purchases when you're shopping anyway... I probably shop online more than the average person but I still do a lot in-person.
Currently in the process of trying to make a VR interface for roboguide. It's very challenging to hack around what they give you. I wish it was simpler to extend the software, but it requires an additional fee just to have the capability to make an extension. I'll admit FANUC can be pretty greedy when it comes to piling on the licenses just to do simple stuff.
Thanks for the suggestion!

I have seen evolution mentioned occassionaly, but I haven't tried to run it in many years.

In addition to email and calendars, it also seems to support RSS feeds. With these 3 it covers everything i use thunderbird for.

Thunderbird has bugs (some dating back decades) such as failing to update IMAP folders until they're clicked, and the calendar occassionaly "forgets" reminders after they're snoozed, until thunderbird is restarted. Filing and commenting in the bug tracker has never seemed to help.

After ~25 years of cursing (while also being thankful for) thunderbiurd, if evolution can "just work" for email, calendars and RSS, it might be time to switch...
Isn't that every law? What's the point, are you justifying a tyrannical government?
we did and gave them a two week grace period to respond, but they only responded to us after we published on arxiv

also, we didn't reconstruct the data using a ruler, you can automate that entire process so that it's much more reliable than that
Yet the author insists it doesn't matter because "of course Cheetos are junk food", even though it's just a fried corn puff.
Netflix blows past estimates as subscribers jump 16%
Ah, I see - the default transactional isolation level is what I wasn't accounting for.

Thanks for the explanation! Very much appreciated.
I think he managed to buck the trend because, despite not being one, he liked developers (some would say a little too much)
> Payne's Fifth Amendment claim "rests entirely on whether the use of his thumb implicitly related certain facts to officers such that he can avail himself of the privilege against self-incrimination," the ruling said. Judges rejected his claim, holding "that the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking."

> "When Officer Coddington used Payne's thumb to unlock his phone—which he could have accomplished even if Payne had been unconscious—he did not intrude on the contents of Payne's mind," the court also said.

I think that is a pretty reasonable interpretation.
I see many saying that contributors will continue using AI/ML tools clandestinely, but I’d counter that only a malicious actor would act in this manner.

The ban touches on products made specifically for Gentoo, a distribution made entirely with Free/Libre software, made (mostly) by volunteers. Why would any of these volunteers, who chose to develop for the Gentoo distribution specifically - presumably because of their commitment to Free/Libre software and its community - go along with using AI tools that: A) Were trained on the work of thousands of developers without their consent and without regard for the outcomes of said training; and B) go against the wishes of the project maintainers and by extension the community, willingly choosing to go against the mission of the distribution and its tenets of Free/Libre software?

It sounds to me that people would do this either unknowingly, by not knowing this particular piece of news, or maliciously, making a choice to say “I will do what I will do and if you don’t like it I’ll take my things and go elsewhere”. I don’t accept that any adult, let alone a professional developer would grin in the darkness of their room and say to themselves “I bet you I can sneak AI code into the Gentoo project in less than a week”. What’s the gain? Who would they be trying to impress? Let’s not even open the big vault of problems of security that an AI coder would bring. What if your mundane calculator app gets an integral solving algorithm that is the same, down to the letter, as the one used in a Microsoft product? That’s grounds for a lawsuit, if MS cared to look for it.

The former case may prompt a reconsideration from the board - If key personnel drives the hard bargain, the potential loss of significant tribal knowledge may outweigh the purity of such a blanket ban on AI. The latter case surely will bring about some though, but of staying the ship and making the ban even more stringent.

On a personal note, I use no AI products, maybe I picked them up too early but I don’t like what they produce. If I need complex structures made, I am 100% more comfortable designing them myself, as I have enough problems trying to read my own code, let alone a synthetic brain’s. If I need long, repetitive code made, I’ve had a long time to practice with VIM/Python/Bash and can reproduce hundreds of lines with tiny differences in minutes. AI Evangelists may think they found the Ark but to me, all they found was a briefcase with money in it.
California has been considering enforcing Prop 103 recently, which has begun spooking insurance providers into leaving.

The Insurance Commissioner is also an elected position now, so there is an incentive for them to succumb to populist pressures to climb up the poltical ladder (eg. Govenor, Senator, Congressmember)

Edit: listen to CharlesW. I'm incorrect on the fact that it wasn't enforced until recently
Believe it, it’s real
Vulnerabilities for AI/ML Applications Are Skyrocketing. Including Dumb Ones
The problem with information theory: It requires an observer.

The moment we have more than one observer relativity takes over. Local maximums no longer make sense.
Yes, most probably this. The grocery list is retro planned from the wages of the employees. So when they served the last dish, they earned their salary, they split the money and close the restaurant
I guess having built the physical system I am aware of the tradeoffs... Though due to the funding structure and 0-cost colocation (for our unit), there was not a lot to be discussed and thus I'd be interested in actual numbers for comparison!
That's almost the point isn't it? He still believes in it, just the media moved on. Passion means having a vision that isn't deterred by immediate short term challenges because you can "see over the mountain".

Will metaverse be a failure? Maybe. But Apple doesn't think so to the tune of $100B invested so far, which is pretty good validation there is some value there.
Its more a reinterpretation than a different theory because all computations are still the same. There are no alternative predictions for any measurable quantities.
[dupe]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40078380
Copy-pasting from the article:

- Earnings per share: $5.28 vs. $4.52 expected
- Revenue: $9.37 billion vs. $9.28 billion expected
- Total memberships: 269.6 million vs. 264.2 million expected
- Net income of $2.33 billion, or $5.28 per share, versus $1.30 billion, or $2.88 per share, in the prior-year period.
one of their three approaches does not replicate and it's because of a software bug in the optimizer they used, i don't know what else we were supposed to say
I find it interesting that there is such a convergence towards hubless wheels, which I think are challenging regardless of number. There are a handful that have hubs but if the passenger is on top they drift into unicycle territory, which feels like a different category -- and if the passenger is inside, then the whole vehicle is perhaps large enough that it's further out of reach for an independent hobbyist project?
Having a nerdy vision of the future and spending tens of billions of dollars to try and make it a reality while shareholders and bean counters crucify you for it is the most engineer thing imaginable. What other CEO out there is taking such risks?
recently, started using rye. Convenient for sure.
I'd really use an LLM where you kinda explain a concept and it gives you back all of the names and jargon linked to it.

The current crop of them were great at this for a few months. For some reason, they are not good anymore.
good points! it's a demo video, so I assume it's staged, as are all of them, but I assume it's not cgi.
Original announcement is a bit vague about the reasons. Does anyone know more?

> It only comes after careful consideration of all options and is due to factors that have materially impacted our funding sources - funds that were critical to continuing our programming and delivering on our mission.

https://womenwhocode.com/blog/the-end-of-an-era-women-who-co...
From a practical point of view these kinds of cases are interesting to me, because, coming from an iPhone this seems like it would largely be a non-issue.

If my phone was handed to or taken by an officer, I would either quickly do the 5-tap on the lock button which will require a password (not faceid or touchid) next time, or, simply by them handling it, faceid would be locked out.

Is that not a thing with Android? I've seen articles where a suspect is requested or compelled to unlock a phone with biometrics which was held in evidence for months!

Does Android (and I know this is a much broader question than with iPhone) just allow touch/face ID in perpetuity with no locks on it?
Exactly what pretty much everyone expected (except for the people who were praying for a miracle from god)
So this didn't seem right at first glance. NPR just not covering a primary contest, and especially one as important as Iowa, seems wrong. I was curious and went to check. Sanders didn't even win Iowa.
There's a diverse group of marine parasites, the myxozoans, that infect fish just by touching their gills or skin, so dietary preference alone wouldn't exclude them. Creepy little jellyfish cousins that evolved into parasites.

And while the most well known ones are species specific (e.g., whirling disease in salmonids), they're more studied because they impacted aquaculture species, but we know of a fair few that can also infect multiple species.

I'm wondering if there's been an environmental change in the water, like temperature or salinity or nutrient levels that has allowed parasites not previously found in the area to expand their range.
Ha, that's actually a pretty good strategy.
Yeah. Very glad Meta is doing what they’re doing here, but the tiger’s not magically changing its stripes. Take care as it might next decide to eat your face.
Unfortunately your analysis is too late. If only you had informed the judges sooner, they could have issued a correct ruling.
I can’t believe this site doesn’t mention the South Park monowheel! [1]

Until seeing this, I didn’t realize they were parodying anything or that this design was a real thing. And with so many variants!

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entity_(South_Park)
To my knowledge, the NTA does not list directors or ownership.

METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) has a portal to potentially display that information, but for private companies it may be missing, and thus the results may be no better than NTA's records: https://info.gbiz.go.jp/

Public entities (which Big River Services Japan is not) can be searched through the JPX (Tokyo Stock Exchange): https://www2.jpx.co.jp/tseHpFront/CGK020010Action.do
Yeah, I'm also surprised at how many positive comments are in this thread.

I do hate Facebook, but I also love engineers, so I'm not sure how to feel about this one.
The modern state, not ideas, brought about religious freedom (2017)
Thanks for the PDF. Generally, I try to set up Zooms because it's a great back-and-forth. In-person meetings would be insanely good just for the human factor, but docs aren't into that it seems.
we didn't eyeball the graph, there are more accurate ways of extracting the data from a pdf file than that

we did ask for the data but got no response until we published on arxiv

what is supposed to be "salacious" about the abstract?
> Here is how to turn the new banner on in case you want to witness it yourself on build 19045.4353

Why in the world would anyone want to turn this on?
Help I work in an open office and my co-workers are so loud
My understanding of it was different.

As I understood it, the police can not compel you to tell them something you know because this would be analogous to testifying against yourself, however, they can require you to give them something you have (or something they would find with a warrant) because it is a physical thing, not testimony.

It's the difference between being required to give up a safe combination which the police can not compel you to tell them, vs, a key to a safe which the police could search you for and take from you and use to open the safe within the bounds of a warrant (or some other theoretical circumstances).