skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> IIUC, there is a way to run a script that will delete my OS and install Nix

There is! It's a fucking nightmare: https://xiaoyehua.dev/posts/nixos-on-oracle-arm-machine

It works though, and thanks to the genius that wrote this script I've got a 4 core 24gb Oracle Always Free instance loaded up with NixOS at all hours of the day. I feel spoiled.
> fundamentally based on an irrational fear of the unknown — specifically the fear of having to rely on something that you may not be able to perfectly understand or control — and a prideful desire to not only control everything but not have to rely on the expertise of others.

That's you. Please don't project your inabilities on everyone else.

> I'm not so sure that's true.

Interesting that you think it's OK to simply assert something based on absolutely no actual data, information or experience, in direct contradiction to what others personally know and experience. What a take!

You're making an argument that looks like this: things happen, and we're OK with them. Therefore, we should be OK with the same things happening with other aspects of life. Simply, no. I can accept that I know very little about how municipal water systems prevent contamination, growth of microbes, et cetera, but how ridiculous is it to suggest that because I simply accept that it's done reasonably well, I have to do that in other areas, too? Do I need to accept being as ignorant about the intricacies of something as everyone else, even when I'm an expert in that particular field? That's absolutely ridiculous.

> simply not practical in any other field of life

Bullshit. I can think of many, many examples where this is plainly not true. See my previous statement.

The fact that you think this complexity that defies understanding is required to handle problems that can't be handled more simply shows you have a shallow understanding of things. I genuinely don't know if you can't understand this, or simply choose not to, but I'll say that you giving up does not have any impact whatsoever on those of us who haven't. Needless to say, arguing for others to give up wanting to understand something that you seem to lack understanding of is, in basic terms, gatekeeping. You're no different from people who say to not self-host email because they can't self-host email (or for whom it's too much "work", or takes too much energy). Likewise, if you don't want to do something, that's really not an argument for telling other people to not want to do something. What kind of person does that?
One of my values contains a literal ,
https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1bmna2e/fertility_...

Or to quote Bertrand Russle:

> There were once upon a time two sausage machines, exquisitely constructed for the purpose of turning pig into the most delicious sausages. One of these retained his zest for pig and produced sausages innumerable; the other said: 'What is pig to me? My own works are far more interesting and wonderful than any pig.' He refused pig and set to work to study his inside. When bereft of its natural food, his inside ceased to function, and the more he studied it, the more empty and foolish it seemed to him to be. All the exquisite apparatus by which the delicious transformation had hitherto been made stood still, and he was at a loss to guess what it was capable of doing. This second sausage machine was like the man who has lost his zest, while the first was like the man who has retained it. The mind is a strange machine which can combine the materials offered to it in the most astonishing ways, but without materials from the external world it is powerless, and unlike the sausage machine it must seize its materials for itself, since events only become experiences through the interest that we take in them: if they do not interest us, we are making nothing of them. The man, therefore, whose attention is turned within finds nothing worthy of his notice, whereas the man whose attention is turned outward can find within, in those rare moments when he examines his soul, the most varied and interesting assortment of ingredients being dissected and recombined into beautiful or instructive patterns.
As I see it the purpose of safety training is to make it so that if I run a service where I return model outputs to innocent users it's not going to say things that will get me in trouble (swear at them, recommend they commit a crime, and so on). This is important if you want to run a user facing model and your reputation depends on what it says.

That threat model includes the user putting nonsense in the "user" turn of the model. It doesn't include the user putting things in the "assistant" turn of the model, that's not something a responsible/normal UI exposes. So... this quote-unquote attack seems uninteresting. It's like getting root access by executing a suid binary that you set up on the system as root.
I got the idea from Max Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe".
Em Client (www.emclient.com) has supported Exchange for a while I think
But that output is wildly more variant between applications, especially for cases involving escape sequences, whitespace handling, and so on. All of these are specified in JSON
Netflix Subs Jump by 9.3M
> something that humans have been discussing in a rigorous way for thousands of years

That's my point: most philosophy is not rigorous. It might have a veneer of rigor but most of it is nonsense because it starts with false premises. Garbage in, garbage out.
nobody supports 2fa on every mail request, that's just silly.

Even MS's MFA is nothing more than a token that gets stored locally ( aka, a password ) and which can be stolen and be used elsewhere ( like a password! ) by hackers.

https://mrd0x.com/stealing-tokens-from-office-applications/
I check SMART regularly. SSDs aren't cheap!

When I'm writing code, disk wear is pretty much always on my mind. I do RasPi work, and I'm always aware that every write could cause a failure if a power glitch happens at the same time, even if the total isn't excessive.

I think OSes should be doing this by default though. Alarms for unusual conditions should be first class OS objects or built into some common standard out of the box tool.

There's about a dozen issues you'd never noticed unless you manually check or set up a monitor service yourself.
I shot a suppressed 308 with subs last weekend. The firing pin was louder that the report.

I seriously think a bow twang is louder
I wouldn't mind if facebook managed to present some interesting suggestions to me with this "AI", because their current algorithms just doesn't work out.

I have been trying to teach their algorithm that I am not interested in Ancient Aliens crap groups, but they keep being suggested to me.

I have probably blocked hundreds of these nonsense groups by now from their suggestions.

My issue seems to be that I am interested in actual archeology, and they seem to not make a distinction.
I wonder a bit about the way some of the questions are phrased.

E.g. asking people whether asking if incest is bad, is taboo? Like the taboo part would be if someone thought incest was good, the question itself isn't taboo as long as you answer it the right way. I'm not sure they accounted for that in the phrasing of the survey.
Countries that have systems for detection (i.e. better medical systems) and less stigmatization of depression will have higher detection rates.
I just don’t like the tone, because someone in congress will see the headline, and then we’ll have to endure:

REP OCTOGENARIO: The industry is lying to parents about the safety of this AI technology. I submit this for the record [without objection].

One person on a ‘hacker news’ site even said, “sorry Zuck,” after “jailbreaking” these supposed protections.
…
Another commentator on this “Hacks R Us” named b33j0r even said further, “I bet they’re reading this comment at a hearing in congress, right now.”
I read Kaczynski long ago and saw a huge hole immediately.

So surrogate activities replace the authentic struggle for survival. I can get that. But why is the struggle for survival better? Isn’t it just another game?

Kaczynski like many other romantics rails against the system, but isn’t nature just another system? It’s an older one that we didn’t design, but didn’t we learn in the end that the matrix was inside an even older matrix which was inside an even older one…?

What would it even mean to escape the “system?” How can you do that except death? If you are breathing you are playing some kind of game.

Instead the question is: can we exercise some choice over what systems we give our energy to and can we influence these systems? I do think we give our energy to a lot of dumb pointless or even evil systems today, so how do we turn our attention elsewhere?

For the natural system of subsistence hunting and gathering or farming the answers to these questions are “no” (little choice, play or die) and “no” (the system is billions of years old and isn’t even ours). We have more choice today in our complicated mesh of systems, or at least we have the potential of choice.

This is ultimately a big part of why I am not a primitivist, reactionary, or traditionalist. Sure what we have sucks sometimes. Are we sure it was better back then? Or was it just different? I always want to ask “trads” of various types if they are sure they would be happy in the traditional state they imagine.

Maybe the people who railed against nature and sought to command it with science to escape its constraints were malcontents not entirely different from Kaczynski in their emotional and personality structure. Send Ted back to 1400 and you might have an enlightenment radical materialist.
While it's all software that compiles down to assembly in the end, there's a lot of code that is monstrously difficult to do in C, especially at scale, but relatively straightforward to do in Rust with 1-5% of the dev time. There are also many skilled developers who would simply refuse to do a project like this in C, but would be happy to do it in Rust.

As a simple example, writing portable I/O code can be a huge burden in C, but has been abstracted away through libraries like mio in Rust.
Found the TSLA long. This is not the place to talk your book.

I have no idea what you're talking about with Waymo. The disengagement rates are orders of magnitude different. FSD is just simply not the magical secret sauce that you want it to be.
It had some ridiculously large shoes to fill.

Like for what it is, it sure has some warts, but it's actually pretty decent, or at least not AS bad as most probably remember it being.
A simple explanation may be ease of access to someone who can make the diagnosis
It is truly horrid. I routinely have to go into the web client to search
Office 365 is dead too.
What approach do you think they should take? License content to Apple TV or some other platform?
Douglas Adams got it at least partly right"

"FORD:
They make a big thing of the ship’s cybernetics. “A new generation of Sirius Cybernetics robots and computers, with the new G.P.P. feature.”

ARTHUR:
”G.P.P.”? What’s that?

FORD:
Er… It says “Genuine People Personalities”.

ARTHUR:
Sounds ghastly.

DOOR:
Hummmm-ahhhhh…

MARVIN:
It is.

ARTHUR:
What?

MARVIN:
Ghastly. It all is. Absolutely ghastly. Just don’t even talk about it. Look at this door. “All the doors in this spacecraft have a cheerful and sunny disposition. It is their pleasure to open for you and their satisfaction to close again with the knowledge of a job well done.”

DOOR:
Hummm-yummmm…[shuts]

MARVIN:
Hateful isn’t it? Come on. I’ve been ordered to take you up to the bridge. Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they tell me to take you up to the bridge. Call that job satisfaction, cos I don’t.

FORD:
Excuse me, which government owns this ship?

MARVIN:
You watch this door. It’s about to open again. I can tell by the intolerable air of smugness it suddenly generates… Come on.

DOOR:
[Opens] Hummm. Glad to be of service.

MARVIN:
Thank you the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

DOOR:
You’re welcome. Hummmm…[shuts]"
I'm not aware of it ever happening after a hack/leak - but years-gone-by I did ask people I knew who worked in the games industry specifically why they didn't release their games as open-source and I noticed that I kept on getting the same answer from people who worked at different companies: Activision, MS Game Studios, Westwood, Electronic Arts, etc etc.

And we see the results of those concerns even when games do get open-sourced - for example, last week Descent 3's engine was released as open-source, and it was released without those parts (c.f.: https://github.com/DescentDevelopers/Descent3/blob/61bb9a337... )

-------

When a software company licenses a third-party library in source-form, invariably the license agreement includes a stipulation that the licensee take all reasonable precautions to prevent the release of the source-code - so if it can be shown that CD Projekt Red was negligent in keeping their source secure such that it was leaked by HelloKitty, then they're open to civil liability here. Obviously the onus is on the plaintiffs to prove that CD Projekt Red was negligent here.

I'm not accusing CD Projekt Red of being organizationally negligent myself; but I assume that most of their devs had a copy of their entire source-tree on their machines (just like I have all of my org's source on my machines) - and it only takes 1 person to disable their antivirus for something like this to happen. What I am saying is that it's possible that CD Projekt Red was negligent in keeping any licensed source-code reasonably secure, and that HelloKitty was aware of this fact, and used that as leverage in their extortion attempt: i.e. "we know you didn't secure your source-tree - and MIDDLEWARE_PROVIDER won't be happy about that and we estimate you'll owe MIDDLEWARE_PROVIDER about $500k if they find out, so if you pay us $250k we'll keep quiet about this, if not, we'll leak everything".

Again, I'm just positing by connecting-the-dots here - I'm not making any assertions.
> The level of resources to deliver a feature like this is staggering.

Are they, though? AzureML will straight up let you spin up a chatbot in a few clicks, and you could just have the ops team set up auto scaling so you only consume resources you need (because really, how many people are actually going to use this?).

It could be expensive if you find tune, but a free POC would just be a to prompt an LLM to act like a celebrity, maybe with an example of text they wrote.

So at worst, you're paying for compute that is a drop in the bucket to someone like Meta
One of the key insurance claims clearinghouses in America's hilariously privatised health care system was hacked – and they paid $22 million to one ransomware group (which is chump change to their corporate parent, United Health, robber capitalism incarnate.) What they didn't anticipate was that the same data was _hacked twice_. [1]

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/change-healthcare-ransomhub-thre...
Discussion: [0] (32 points, 2 days ago, 38 comments)

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40080931
100%, but they are still not really interested in onpremises exchange, at least the latest version is 2019 which is no longer in mainline support, only security with no new version announced

these days it looks like every email is a teams message anyways, so unless they also release onpremise teams server, i don't see a future of exchange very bright

maybe everyone will move to google workspace in the future?
Damn, from the title I was hoping for a series of images of the same scientist, each zoomed in more and more, until it's microscopic.
The map may be mislabelled, it appears to indicate countries where people aren't dancing enough
Since yaml is a superset of json, sometimes when I have to use yaml for some tool/config I just use json (and optionally with yml comments).
Since volatility clustering does exist in returns, a GARCH model should produced more realistic-looking returns than a pure random walk.
Afghanistan was most surprising to me.
I've been trying to reproduce the paper but langchain does have all the tools in the paper and the only thing left is to get a working prompt . I find it strange that they decided to use langchain on everything except for the Assistance API which they use to get results from GPT-3 and GPT-4 . Instead of using that API it would seem logical to just swap out the OpenAI APIs in langchain.

https://gist.github.com/zitterbewegung/b4e00c11c61ae3310485d...
I'm with you.

I tried out ChatGPT the first week or so but it is so apparently useless that I have been more and more depressed since then by watching the world get fooled by this illusion. It feels like a really bad magic trick where the whole audience seems to be impressed, while only I saw all the props and fakery.

Having discussions about this with friends and relatives becomes tiresome since they are so happy fantasizing about a future where they only need minimal amount of effort, while I became quite good at spotting GPT output and starting to see the same boring writing style in more and more places.
It was a big thing even before that.
Rust for JavaScript Developers (2019)
OK, let's be completely, utterly, crystal clear about this.

1. I observe that people who do not base their actions on sensory experience do stupid things.

2. Therefore, true knowledge or justification comes primarily from sensory experience and empirical evidence.

You're telling me that 2 is a logical implication of 1? You're perfectly happy with the way I've framed this---there are no hidden premises or anything like that? 2 is a direct, logical implication of 1?
I think I agree but that's because business-interests always take things to their gross extreme.

Humans love anthropomorphizing things and I don't think that's a bad thing. A well placed smiley face really does spark positive ~vibes~
It doesn’t in mine, but it does in the VC’s who are investing in YC startups - making them and their LPs a lot less patient due to increased cost of capital for the whole industry.
That's not the point either of us are trying to make, though. Can Bitcoin be used to mask the source or destination of money? I think the answer is an obvious: "yes" considering one of its most prominent use-cases is exactly that.

And if the answer is an obvious "yes", then the whole thing about "immutable ledgers stop governments from spending money sketchily!" is obviously incorrect.
You can search for innumerable articles and anecdotes of people moving their family and elders to iOS on mobile and Linux on desktop for exactly these reasons
I'll believe it when I see it. There are major security breaches every year, and I have never heard any company get fined or taking any responsibility. If LastPass and Okta can get away with leaking passwords, then google (or any other cloud provider) can get away with absolutely anything.
It seems my past relatives were happier even in worse conditions. I think it was all about perspective. Life might have become physically easier, but it's much more complicated and less socially connected while being more connected with negative news. Many of them went through extreme difficulties (the depression, combat, etc), the rest of their lives seemed much better.
Lockdown mode disables WebAssembly, which this uses.

(But it could be built with the Emscripten flag to translate the wasm to JS, which would work, but would be slower.)
A jailbreak doesn’t “make a model do something actually bad”.

A jailbreak makes it trivial to “provide a human who wishes to do bad, the info needed to be successful”.

Depending on the severity of the info and the diligence of the human, by the time you “see evidence of a real threat”, you could be enjoying a nice sip of the tainted municipal water supply.

This ain’t a joke.
True, this could be a nice layer of protection for the runner of such a service, but the point of LLAMA safety is to protect Meta.

For an open weights model, model users can trivially put text in the assistant side.

The point is that these open weight models can be run secretly to assist criminal enterprises, whereas models behind an API can be intercepted and reported to the authorities. So it would be really nice if Meta could lock them down before releasing them so that the total net good done by the model is maximized. But apparently that is not possible.

Personally I’m pretty libertarian on AI governance, but I’m just giving what I understand to be the purpose of the kind of “safety” feature defeated here.
Not sure if counting HTML, but it was my gateway to programming at the age of ~10-12. I found out I could make web pages in Word, then switched to FrontPage and learned HTML by watching and tweaking the code generated by the WYSIWYG editor. Good times!
What is the original source, and more importantly, methodology, of the data?

It appears to reference [0], a 2017 publication, which itself references [1] a 2015 publication, which is a bit of a dead end from a layperson perspective.

[0] https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/depression-global-he...
[1] https://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/ihme-data/gbd-2015-life-e...
Ouch! I checked the transpilation to Python, and at the very beginning I see:

# === WAX Standard Library BEGIN ===
def w_arr_remove(a,i,n):del a[i:i+n]
def w_slice(a,i,n):return a[i:i+n]
def w_map_get(m,k,d):
try:return m[k]
except:return d
def w_map_remove(m,k):
try:del m[k]
except:pass
# === WAX Standard Library END ===

catching all errors is bad because you can catch keyboard interrupts or similar messages telling the program to end. It seems in this case it should be `except KeyError`, or better yet, for `w_map_get` it could be `return m.get(k, d)`.
As a parent, I'm with you. But parenthood sucks. From day one, that person you're "responsible for" is actually a separate entity with its own thoughts and bodily autonomy.

And here they are, growing up with this technology, entirely unlike anything available to us in our childhoods. But one thing remains the same: if we shut them out altogether, they'll route around us and find it on their own.

A teetotaler myself, but the "not one drop" mentality doesn't really make a ton of sense to me. Not because I want my kid using AI or alcohol, but I'd rather him try it under my watch than go out and find it on his own.

But if this is a feature that parental controls cannot limit, then I honestly don't know what to say other than, perhaps we're fucked as a society.
I don't think you'll change your mind on that regardless of what I say, so I'll refrain from engaging that particular point.

What do you think is the relevant difference between philosophy and music that makes it silly to study the former formally but not the latter?
What if both directions go downwards? That’s even more surprising to the first time user. That moment of confusion.
I would not trust that script.
If Python is such a hassle then there is also Lego: https://github.com/go-acme/lego which supports tons of DNS providers and is very well documented.
Are you claiming that black people are 4% of Londoners or that 4% of London/UK scientists are black?
The point is to develop skills and knowledge, so I would agree. Do you disagree?
But we must disallow this too, because it allows the (advanced) user to have fun, and as I understand these safety measures, having fun is strictly prohibited. Using the model is allowed for boring things only.
I really cannot stand sitting in a car in traffic and my last name starts with an A, interesting!
where is this supposed specification for JSON?

I can make whatever I want in a [{},{},{}] and it be valid JSON. If it's the first time you've used my thing, you'll have to somehow look up how the JSON is structured. Whether that's from howtousething.com, man thing, or thing --help, you'll still need to find out what thing does. it doesn't matter if it's your thing or my thing, but some how, thing needs to be able to tell people what to do. there is no universal thing that thing outputs. otherwise, nobody would need yours or my thing, but someone else's thing already does it.