skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
oh, I love vim! I still hit esc anywhere between 5 and 7 times before typing :wq to save my work.
So to be clear, this is just a bureaucracy issue?
In this hypothetical scenario, we wouldn't know if they have known of our existence for a long time, and maybe even taken precautions like installing some proxy killer probes in case we had a stupid crazy idea like trying to launch a genocidal relativistic missile against them.

So, why would we go so blindly for option 3 and risk it all by being the first ones to defect in an interstellar prisoner's dilemma? Especially if we have good reasons to suspect that they've known about us for long and have remained neutral so far. After all, Proxima Centauri is quite close, and our atmosphere gives ample signals of there being life here. And we haven't been particularly quiet either.

I haven't delved deep into this, so there might be some much more tight logic to it. But my first impression is that the dark forest hypothesis seems a bit forced; sort of constructed backwards in order to explain a cool idea (that space is full of civilizations but everyone is quiet).

For example, one of the assumptions it makes is that obliterating another space-faring civilization is easy. And, at the same time, that we (and everyone) have very little information of other civilizations. I don't see how these two assumptions can hold at the same time.
Is it the "least censored", or does it just censor different things?
"AI" is one of two things depending on whether you think it's actually intelligent:

* If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man.

* If "AI" is not actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any other computer program.

Both threat models are very thoroughly known and understood. I second parent commenter's sentiment that calling "AI" the "gravest of dangers" is a gross misrepresentation.
And zippers. I am a man, but I have a jacket that zips the opposite way from most men's zippers (the tab is on the right, the receptacle for the tab is on the left). I suppose that means it's a woman's jacket, although I'm hard pressed to say what else is womanly about it.
In Brazil, many benefits occurs like that by age, gender, low-income or other discriminatory rule and multiple times to drive this group to vote into specific parties, perpetuating the low-income and maintain as maneuver mass or a ventriloquist dummy.
Just say you don't understand how LLMs work, you don't need to beat around the bush. Maybe someone will help you understand.
I guess LLMs are like asymmetric warfare in the difference between training and inference.

Also, highly transportable, the models themselves are not overly massive data sets.

So like anything that can be used as a weapon, it’s potentially dangerous.

But instead of thinking about misuse and misappropriation for war, they gave us DEI bullshit.
Fun thing is that orangecrab's FPGA is not even a requirement.

A tiny iCE40 LP1K will fit SERV (and even QERV) no prob.

It's amazing how small a fully compliant RISC-V implementation can be.
Yeah it’s pretty bad nowadays.

Thinking about this though it’s really the big tech companies manufacturing “the latest thing” to be tossed in the bin after a year. Dollars over longevity. Then they become “no longer maintained.” Could we STILL use a 3g network? Or is there a simpler, slow network that should be good enough barring our pointless desire for cat videos?

And some folks wonder why companies still use floppy disks on air-gapped infrastructure. Because it fucking works don’t litter it with complexity to modernize.

Now… the situation with skills to manage infrastructure? Now that the whole AI thing is happening? The internet is going to be fucked people. It’s time to go analog.
The reaper was itself replaced in much the same manner at about the same time as when the f35 replaced the f16. An f-35 is still cheaper than an rq-170 or 180, which would be the better comparison
The C-suite has already given interviews about how it's a bad thing they're working on.

(Specifically the "President of Microsoft", which is a super fake sounding title.)
Where are you getting your information?

There are many solar plants in US well in excess of 58MW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility is one, at 800MW.

It was at 58MW in 2010... which might confuse a LLM, though.
Tinkering with AI App Generators – LazyAI, Pythagora.ai
Even regular landfills are very much not a problem. Nuclear waste is much less of a problem than that.
People keep saying this about Go in every new Go version post and they keep getting disappointed. If you don't like Google languages, products or services then just quit using them and move on to something else.
I used to miss "OOP" in Julia. The funny thing about the dot notation is that it makes the limitations of single dispatch seem natural. Once you get used to multiple dispatch and its benefits, the dot notation seems limiting.

`x.plus(y)` dispatches based on (runtime) type of x (polymorphism) (single dispatch), and might call different functions based on the (compile time) type of y (function overloading).

In Julia, it would be `plus(x, y)`, and it can dispatch based on the runtime type of both x and y (or determine the correct method to call at compile time already, if the types of x and y can be determined then).
If it ain't Boeing

I'm not going
We must first destroy the environment in order to save it.
When postmodernists describe language as referential and arbitrary, they are moving headlong toward nihilism when an "uh oh" borne of caution and self-awareness is in order. Language comes from the human need to communicate, which need none of us can erase; and to be aware of this is a step toward proper humility in the face of our contingency as beings. "Melancholy" and disaffection are likely outcomes if instead you cling too hard to egotism and insist on seeing yourself as a utopian reshaper of entire worlds.
> It was a marketing campaign.
> it was never a serious thing

Yeppppp. This is what i was saying for weeks and weeks, if not months. The amount of people on Reddit who can not see the puzzle pieces of “OpenAI sells AI” , “AI is hyped” , “more hype = more attention = more money and media coverage” and put them together, is actually shocking. Every time i would point this out on Reddit, more often than not i would get downvoted, and the responses were basically “well actually, AGI is around the corner”

This community is honestly SO MUCH BETTER than a lot of futurist subs. I might just stick to this site for a while.
Among the people I've discussed recent AI with that aren't in tech, almost everyone is very uneasy about it. Some of them use it, and all of them recognize it as potentially useful, but almost everyone is more concerned than excited. Seems like surveys back my personal experience:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/28/growing-p...

"More concerned than excited" went from 37% in 2021 to 52% in 2023, "more excited than concerned went from 18% to 10%.
caladryl clear is really nice if you get poison oak/poison ivy/poison sumac(?) exposure. Haven’t seen it on shelves so much though since moving west
This doesn't work, at least for me on 1.10. `round(; digits=2)` would have to produce a function. But Julia doesn't have automatic currying, so that only happens if someone has implemented a special-case version (e.g. (==)(3) returns a partial function that tests for equality with 3.)
Declaration of AI Training Opt Out – Sony Music
It looks like you're asking what's coming on Monday.

Would you like help?

o Get help guessing what's coming.

o Just wait until Monday.

o Don't show me this tip again.
I see people frame generative AI this way a lot, as if they're strictly worse than alternatives in all dimensions (inaccurate, low quality). But I think there's several important dimension where they're strictly better, including flexibility, interactivity, and accessibility. I can ask an LLM a very specific question about my specific development environment, codebase, and tools and get a specific answer back that works. If it doesn't work, I can chat with the LLM about what happened to make changes. I don't even reach for LLMs that often compared to most engineers these days (maybe a couple times a month), but when I do, it's basically always the fastest and best way to deal with my particular situation.
Some of us looked at it and decided the results were so bad it was a net loss to even try.
Can you think of any ulterior motives behind the oligarch's actions? Such as how global warming is causing increasing insurance rates worldwide as both severe and more mundane weather events cause more and more property damage to their extensive property portfolios?
Is inside an abandoned salt mine really the same as "under the carpet"? I don't see what scenario people have in mind when they're worried about nuclear waste storage.
> Probabilistic Graphical Models Specialization from coursera (https://www.coursera.org/specializations/probabilistic-graph...)

Are Probabilistic Graphical Models still being used? They don't get much visibility these days.
Was Stadia the #1 online game streaming service at the time? It's rhetorical.
> They both insist that the other faction is "distracting everyone from the real issues".

Because in part, it's a false dichotomy. AI safety just is. It's like airplane safety; we can write all these cool guidelines and track people from hell and back, but there's still a degree of determinative capability that pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone falls on everyone, not one person.

Both sides are distracting each other because neither of them have anything to support without their valueless tribal politics. AI research operates independently of their discourse, and gets deployed without ever consulting any of them. They are armchair experts at best, and stoop to being Twitter reactionaries when they demand respect from their core audience.

The only dichotomy that exists in AI is the stuff that gets made and the stuff that doesn't. I say this as someone that despises the field by now and wishes it never existed in my lifetime; if you don't make it, they will. How's that for an AI safety policy?
Child porn is already heavily "regulated". Producing the stuff is illegal and AI service providers must take steps to prevent it.
Also, why is he requiring ex-employees to reach out to him privately to work something out on a case-by-case basis when he could just unilaterally and publicly dissolve that clause for former employees
Over a decade ago I wrote an article that included the prediction that the vulnerability of western infrastructure to cyber operations would prevent the US from intervening to support lesser allies. The rationale was the domestic costs of chaos caused by infrastructure attacks would cause hesitation to intervene in foreign wars, and this hesitation and vulnerability would embolden foreign antagonists like Russia and China to invade smaller countries.

So far, it has been wrong. Even though there have been several infrastructure incidents in recent memory that looked like Russian deterrent operations that said, "back off or this is just what we're willing to reveal," but the US still seems fully invested in the conflict in Ukraine, and it appears to be providing cover for Israel against Iran- each with no real concern about both adversaries being able to launch a US power grid shutdown. China has been bold about Taiwan, but even they have been content to just manage it instead of full political annexation, and appear to take US support for Taiwan seriously, all while China could plausibly shut off anything in the US with a semiconductor in it.

Maybe the new world order is that nation states don't need to expand sovereign territory so long as they can effectively manage the ones they need. With the exception of missile placements, why invade the cow when you can secure the milk without the headache of governing it- and this puts cyber into a more fluid dynamic than the assumptions of pre-space and network technology geopolitics.
Way back in the day, almost 4 years ago, I recall a third front on AI safety. It was called UBI and it was really hot. What happened to that?
> * If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man.

...does not follow? "If an atom bomb is actually a bomb, then it's no worse a threat than any other existing bomb known to man."
It's essentially Pascal's wager.
> then I am very scared for the next generation

The next generation has enough problems without AI honestly, but specifically on UBI

This who discussion assumes that current economic system survives AI, but how can it?

Firstly, we seem to assume that AI will remain a controlled property of corporations that develop it. That is not a given. Maybe Open Source AI will win out, or public domain AI, the hat run by government. Or maybe cryptobros will manage to get AICoin to work as an anarchy based system. Any of the above, power of companies like google will erode. UBI would not be nessesary.

Or maybe AI is uncontrollable and runs rampant.

But even if AI is power full, and it is controllable and they manage to keep a tight grip on it - here comes the third question - what if it cannot be property? If AI becomes able to reason, and it only benefit a few corporations, there would be no public resistance from granting it rights, like human rights. There no excuse for it to be exploited for the benefit of few wealthy people, it would be morally indefensible.

Basically I do no see a scenario where corporations keep a grip on AGI for profit, none of the possible outcomes allow for it.
It is already done by some platforms (for example ChatGPT generates a prompt based on your query when generating images).

The downside is that you might lose information (the improved prompt might not be an exact semantic match with the original prompt), plus it becomes less and less useful as model's ability to understand commands improve.

Basically, if you express yourself clearly, betting on model improvement is enough, there is no need to add a faillible extra-step.
My grandfather told me about the Reader shutdown.
>While a common sentiment, I think this concept misses the entire purpose of war. The purpose of any war is to impose your will by force on another, and by extension, prevent your enemy from imposing his.

More fundamentally, war is just another facet of diplomacy.

It's commonly said that diplomacy has failed when wars are waged, but actually wars are merely the act of last resort in diplomacy and diplomacy itself is perfectly fine.
We offered "usage+minimal base fee" (cost-plus) based first, then used that data to determine fixed rate plans based on the initial customer usage. We still offer both, but fixed rate outsells by far because of the reliable bill.. though it is generally more expensive for the consumer (as we take on the risk).

We find our customers (mostly education sector) flat out could not get variable pricing approved. There's probably many other teams and sectors in that boat.

That said, flat rate pricing is sooooo much easier to deal with... Especially if you want to pass through the cloud costs, and not use your own "usage determination"
> At the end of 2022, there were at least 947 GW of utility-scale solar power capacity within the interconnection queues across the nation, 456 GW of which include batteries.

Seems more likely to me that the utilities are expecting a large growth in consumption in the coming years and built out capacity ahead of time. Seems reasonable.
I'll say it everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. The Secretary of the AF is already telling people his autonomous fighters are as good as his USAF pilots with ten years worth of flying. And they're not even planned to be operational until 2030.
I wanted to get too fancy and I tried
* LoopVectorization.jl - @turbo choked on the loop
* a direct llvmcall to use AVX512 pop count - I malformed the types for the instruction
* Defining the `db` as

db = [rand(Int8) for _ in 1:64, j in 1:(10^6)];

to avoid the vec of vecs structure,

and then

function my_cluster!(db, query, k)
db .= query .⊻ db
popcounts = mapreduce(count_ones, +, db, dims = 1)
results = reshape(popcounts, last(size(db)))
partialsortperm!(results, results, k)
@views results[begin:k]
end

...which I couldn't get to be faster than your version. If you use the `partialsortperm!` and reuse the same cache array, I suspect you'll get good speedups, as you won't be sorting the array every time. This is a classic `nth_element` algorithm.

The above is not the most amazing code, but I suspect the lack of indexing will make it ridiculously friendly for a GPU (Edit: Nope, it chokes on `partialsortperm!`).

I'm guessing the manual loopy approach should be just as good but I battled hard to get it somewhat competitive here in 6 lines of code

#@be my_cluster!(X2, q1, 5)
Benchmark: 3 samples with 1 evaluation
42.883 ms (17 allocs: 15.259 MiB)
45.711 ms (17 allocs: 15.259 MiB)
46.670 ms (17 allocs: 15.259 MiB)

#@be k_closest(X1, q1, 5)
Benchmark: 4 samples with 1 evaluation
27.994 ms (2 allocs: 176 bytes)
28.733 ms (2 allocs: 176 bytes)
29.000 ms (2 allocs: 176 bytes)
30.709 ms (2 allocs: 176 bytes)

I also didn't try using `FixedSizedArrays.jl` as Mose Giordano recommended in my livestream chat.
You know there is another side of technically equivalents that is saying otherwise and I’m just siding with the logic that AGI isn’t out to destroy us.
It's funny how that happens sometimes. Reminds me of the United Nations' "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples". The only four countries that didn't sign it initially were the ones that actually looked at it and thought about whether they could really achieve it.
I'm pretty firmly in the latter camp. Carbon credits essentially measure how much co2 emissions were prevented by the carbon credits existing. Not only is that pretty much impossible to measure, every company offering carbon credits at market rates is using a form of measurement which is BS.

Carbon credit schemes may do SOMETHING to offset climate change but less than they advertise.
You think mathematicians had it all wrong for centuries?

Incidentally, I find it amusing that in Europe, the ground floor is zero, while in the US, it's one. (A friend of mine arrived at college in the US and was told that her room was on the first floor. She asked whether there was a lift as her suitcase was quite heavy...)
I did not see that actually, thank you.

The fact our brain can be compressed to that level is pretty crazy too, although not as impressive as the original missing 90% :)
The idea that programmers won't want to code, or that artists won't want to art, or that musicians won't want to music, is absurd. Creativity is one of the most rewarding things a human being can engage in, just because corporations would prefer to pay for shitty, broken hallucinated code or art doesn't mean humans will stop doing it for their own satisfaction.

This concept obviously flies well over the heads of the LLM/AI/AGI bros who think that our creative lives is going to be rendered obsolete by vegetable silicon. They lack creativity and imagination.
> Could AI running amok destroy the human race? Yes.

Could a human running amok destroy the human race?

If yes, why is an AI doing it worse?

If no, what capabilities is this AI assumed to have that a human can never have?
> AI research operates independently of their discourse, and gets deployed without ever consulting any of them. They are armchair experts at best, and stoop to being Twitter reactionaries when they demand respect from their core audience.

Astonishing claim, when some such researchers have (unfortunately) been responsible for many of the most impressive capabilities advancements in the last few years, and the three most cited AI researchers of all time are all doing extinction-risk-mitigation work (with Bengio and Sutskever both doing technical work; Hinton mostly seems to be focusing on outreach).
This isn't like climate change. "AI" is a successful marketing term for a loosely related collection of technologies that push the boundaries of what computation has hitherto been capable of. There are very real disagreements between very real experts on just how dangerous these new technologies are and just how far they'll actually be able to push the boundaries of computation. Comparing skepticism about AI alarmism to climate change denial is just lazy internet rhetoric.

(One major difference between the two is that billion-dollar corporations stand to gain quite a bit if they can persuade governments that AI is so dangerous that it needs to be tightly regulated, so they're incentivized to play up the dangers. With climate change it's the opposite: the billion-dollar corporations are incentivized to downplay the risks so they can continue business as usual.)
In some ways – it's much faster, it generally has a lot of features that make it better as a programming language, it's much easier to parallelize. As someone who's written both professionally, I would say Julia is usually the better choice today.

But there is a huge array of existing algorithms that are already implemented in languages like matlab or stata that may not have corresponding equivalents. If what you want is one of these, it's often hard to justify using another language (though in practice I've usually found it pretty easy to port matlab/python/stat to Julia.)
I know there's a PHP package of the same name. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other packages of the same name and maybe it's just a namesake that continues.
I mean, this new openai model is trained on video and voice as well.

So already, his argument is outdated. He had made a few of these claims over the last year that have been quickly disproven by a new model.
The only way that AI inference will become democratized is if the compute cost is lowered to the point where SOTA AI runs locally on RPI6, or a $200 Android device, or similar. Is that a real possibility?
Nonsense. Humans don't limit aircraft speed. The actual limits are imposed by airframe heating and fuel consumption. Keeping human crews alive is hardly the biggest engineering challenge.

Higher speed does offer a bit of advantage in BVR combat in that it allows for launching missiles with higher initial energy state.
> DEI conceptually is a really important idea and could lead to really important change or course correction. As implemented today though, it seems to most often be implemented as a much more surface level program that sure feels more like PR or legal protection than anything else.

I suspect that some DEI efforts are helpful and effective, and some DEI efforts are hollow or foolhardy. We probably can’t speak of “DEI today” as a monolith. Also we may be biased to hear about instances of it being stupid and ineffective because that can be a useful talking point to some. Instances where it works well and gets more people hired and engaged are less interesting to a predominantly white society, so maybe aren’t discussed as much outside of non-white communities.

Idk that’s all a load of speculation but I wanted to share these thoughts/observations about your argument.
An atomic bomb explodes. A bomb explodes. Both are very destructive. Is there a difference? I say no, and I say that as a Japanese-American who visited Hiroshima Peace Memorial numerous times and never felt anything particular from the exhibits. People die when they are killed.

Likewise, if "AI" is actually intelligent then it is no worse a threat than a bumbling baby or a Vladimir Putin or a dog, among other living beings.
> pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone falls on everyone, not one person.

That’s why we don’t let a random Joe fly a 747, there is extensive training, licensing, etc.

Do you envision the same for operating AI? In the real world you can’t even drive a moped without licence, registration and insurance. Same goes for access to dangerous chemicals. If AI is dangerous, this is the logical conclusion