skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think you can really say it "regenerates" what it was thinking from the last prompt, since the new prompt is different from the previous one (it has the new word appended to the end, which may change the potential meanings of the sentence).

There will be some overlap in what the model is now "thinking" (and has calculated from scratch) since the new prompt is one possible continuation of the previous one, but other things it was previously "thinking" will no longer be there.

e.g.
Say the prompt was "the man", and output probabilities include "in" and "ran", reflecting the model thinking of potential continuations such as "the man in the corner" and "the man ran for mayor". Suppose the word sampled was "ran", so now the new prompt is "the man ran". Possible continuations can no longer include refining who the subject is, since the new word "ran" implies the continuation must now be an action.

There is some work that has been saved, per the KV cache, in processing the new prompt, but that is only things (self attention among the common part of the two prompts) that would not change if recalculated. What the model is thinking has changed, and will continue to change depending on the next sampled continuation ("the man ran for mayor", "the man ran for cover", "the man ran his bath", etc).
> The language's standard library will expose names using the language's convention

Looking at you, C++ STL. Almost nobody names structs/classes all lowercase. This leads to silly style guidelines eg. in the Google c++ style guide:

- Name classes PascalCase (even if it's templated)

- Except if your class happens to be a templated container type, in which case name it all lowercase.
While not defending OpenAI or Altman, the caveat here is that this was a voice actor using their natural voice, not an actor impersonating scarlett johansson.

Setting a precedent that if your natural voice sounds similar to a more famous actor precludes you from work would be a terrible precedent to set.
You can make calls to OpenAI's API with curl, too. Should we ask for linux distros without curl, to prevent employees from accessing AI that way?

If companies are that worried about rogue employee access to forbidden AI APIs, the network layer seems like a more appropriate place for those blocks.
As 99.99% of HN comments are based on 5-10 year old data, how recently and which chatbot you asked?
> Oh you will be forgotten.

Not your parent comenter but please allow me to enlighten you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Bright

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_(programming_language)

When in doubt, always double-check who you're replying to in HN. We are lucky to have many great minds around.
he seems to be a sociopath/psychopath. not uncommon in folks in his role
A potential answer to that is liability protection even when you feel like you are legally in the clear. It is still worth paying a sum to avoid a lawsuit you think you will win.

An example of this is Weird Al pays for the rights to things that are probably ok under fair use parody protection. Paying for the rights removes the possibily of a challenge.
If listen to them back to back (Scarlett from Her and Sky) they aren't similar at all. Scarlett has a distinctive raspiness to her voice that entirely doesn't exist in Sky. Sky isn't doing an impression of Scarlett.

However, they both sound like AIs because Scarlett is playing that role and so is OpenAI's voice app.
If you think Python is like that, I advise you to never look at Ruby codebase.

But seriously, of course you can write Python one-liners or nested comprehensions, but I get the idea that it's not really Pythonic. They still want clear, iterative code. It's just more concise, but the idea is the same, but with less scrolling.
Plug: This entire thread really doubles my motivation to get Terminal Click [0] out the door even sooner. I'm an indie dev who wants to sell an offline binary for the equivalent of a night out at the movies, probably cheaper.

Feeling a bit like a dying breed.

[0] https://terminal.click
I’m here for the critical review by experts. I want to see new things and I want experts to chime in and provide feedback.
There was a product posted here recently that finds relevant Reddit threads and posts your product to them. Everyone here said “please god no, don’t ruin the internet” if you’re an investor considering investing in a company that makes that product hearing that feedback is gold.
There's currently like 10 lawsuits against generative AI companies that are working through the courts including the one from Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz, one from Getty Images, one from the Author's Guild, and one from the New York Times. It should be shocking to nobody that lawsuits take time to litigate, and until the court settles the questions at hand, Open AI and its ilk are operating in a legal gray area.
> If it does do that then yeah, there should be backlash.

It's a threat. Disrespectful to users.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't! If it doesn't maybe it will someday! When just the right person gets hired into exec.
Isn't there also something about an actor's voice versus an actor's performance?

Eg, James Earl Jones performing Darth Vader vs Mufasa vs Terence Mann are three different things.
I think “clever” is more related to unfamiliarity.

There is actually a lot of cleverness going on that people just become familiar with.

Structured programming is actually very clever if you think about it.

Function calls are, when you look at it closely, very clever. It encapsulates how to jump to a function entry point, how to pass on values in registers or in memory, how to adjust stack pointers, and all other sorts of cleverness.

For loops are clever with different parts of the statement controlling and executing different parts of the loop.

Compare that with BASIC

A six year old child can understand:

10 PRINT “Hello”
20 GOTO 10

Going on to object oriented programming, dynamic dispatch and v-tables are clever. What you call and where you go to in your program are determined by the dynamic type of an object. This is very far from the simple BASIC GOTO

What difference does looking at it like this make.

First we don’t reject automatically reject new concepts just because they aren’t simple. While function calls are complex, they bring many benefits. In addition, this approach emphasizes the role of education to in taking useful concepts and making them familiar to a broader group of people.
Learning to blindly follow a spec for the purposes of parsing the SMTP wire protocol doesn't give you extra ability to follow the state machine or distributed business logic specs better. It just adds to the overall opportunities for you to make a mistake. This also ignores the fact that SMTP specs is split across multiple RFCs with no single normative version which further complicates the probability that you implement the spec correctly in the first place.

Engineers get better faster because they leverage better tools and build tools to overcome their own shortcomings and leverage their strengths, not by constantly being beat into shape by unforgiving systems.

To be fair, what you and OP said is not an uncommon mentality. It's even shared in a way by Torvalds:

> [easier to do development with a debugger] And quite frankly, I don't care. I don't think kernel development should be "easy". I do not condone single-stepping through code to find the bug.
I do not think that extra visibility into the system is necessarily a good thing.

> Quite frankly, I'd rather weed out the people who don't start being careful early rather than late. That sounds callous, and by God, it _is_ callous. But it's not the kind of "if you can't stand the heat, get out the the kitchen" kind of remark that some people take it for. No, it's
something much more deeper: I'd rather not work with people who aren't careful. It's darwinism in software development. It's a cold, callous argument that says that there are two kinds of
people, and I'd rather not work with the second kind. Live with it.

He has similar views about unit tests btw.

I personally would prefer to work with people who are smart & understand systems and have machines take care of subtle details rather than needing to always be 100% careful at all times. No one writing an SMTP parser is at Torvald's level.

I'm not arguing that this excuses you from being careful or failing to understand things. I'm saying that defensively covering your flank against common classes of mistakes leads to better software than the alternative.
I too would be immensely frustrated if this was released in my terminal emulator, and would jump ship immediately. My current job would (and probably will) ban this and similar integrations unless compliance gives the thumbs up... and they do not care about how optional it is. GitHub Copilot is still not allowed unless you are in a small pilot project with their own agreement and contract for sharing and storage with Microsoft with tons of red tape. ChatGPT is still banned. Please keep AI out of the core features of applications that absolutely don't need it.
> He will tell you with great concern about how "nervous" or "scared" (he said this to the US Congress[1]) of what he thinks his newest LLM model is gonna let loose on humanity.

It’s so refreshing to hear someone else actually understand this sentiment for what it is— snake oil sales. The normies out there eat this up, and there is no convincing them otherwise because of how powerful the AI trope in entertainment media is.
Add a bot to the work to enhance engagement
I think pulling the voice right away is the right strategy. Even if they fight and lose a court case, losing the rights to the Sky voice, will there really be a lot of damages just for including it in a demo video? Probably not. And what's the upside of fighting? Do you really want a voice that sounds like Scarlett Johansson and reminds people of this whole thing? OpenAI should just compromise, take down the voice, move on, and focus on making something people want.
Woah there cowboy, best time in history? That’s rather optimistic. I’m pretty sure everything sucks AND this is not the best time in history to be a hater.
Isn't the unified memory architecture one of the advantages of the Apple M* notebooks for running AI workloads?
Imo it doesn’t matter at all. Both are fine. Surely there are more pressing things out there to think about!
I would argue that what constitutes clever code varies a lot by language. There's always a "cleverness" threshold where being able to read or refactor the code becomes harder, but this threshold isn't universal.

Python in particular makes it very easy to be too clever, since its extremely rigid syntax was designed specifically to discourage it, but it ended up giving the user the necessary tools to be clever anyway, and the end result is usually... not pretty.
> And not for nothing it’s a weird coupling. I can’t think of a single reason I’d integrate with an ai agent in this way over a more unixy approach.

The AI Agent part is a bit weird, but the "Engage AI" feature is pretty nice. Just hit "cmd+y" and type something you want to do like "Clone without blobs", or "get the last two fields from a CSV", and it shows you the command which you can then run with "shift+enter"
DNA + protein is turing complete. Everything else is just engineering that demonstrates that fact.
Ilya was right
This is a good point and good perspective I think we need to apply more often - where we separate how difficult a thing is based on the physical scale and the technology feasibility. A Dyson sphere isn’t a technologically impossible thing - the scale is just not feasible, where as you pointed out we have no idea how to do FTL.
I'm curious what the fix was, presumably just retry?
I've been working on this as a way of better exposing organisational knowledge recently. A few things I've observed:

* The prompt engineering side is a black art.

* Generation is pretty amazing but less useful than it first seems.

* The open source and proprietary tooling around managing and interrogating datasets for NLP stuff is way ahead of where it was last time I looked maybe a decade ago

* It looks to me that with appropriate thinking about indexing then there's a lot of potential here. For example if I have a question answer set, I can index the question and which answers point to it. Get the LLM to identify the type of question I've just asked, and then use my corresponding corpus of answers to provide something useful based on the appropriate parts of the answer corpus.

That last bit is not the automatic panacea that the flashy and somewhat gimicky emergent properties of the generative side supply, but it seems like it can get good traction on some quite difficult problems quickly, and actually quite well using not too many local computing resources.
Tensions run high in these situations, and in the end they were just building personal computers. So yes, I can understand a boss who's always yelling that the product is shit and demanding that people fix it, but is also an ok person.

If there's a comic book villain tech leader out there, it's a CEO of some lifeless conglomerate that mainly buys out the competition and fires everyone aboard, or it's someone in charge of society-altering tech who is choosing to misuse it. And I'm not going to name names.
In various speeches, Xi has made reunifying with Taiwan by 2049 (IIRC) a reflection of the legitimacy of the CCP. They can't wait centuries and continue to rule China (unless there is a lot of re-writing the past, which is certainly possible).
This is just straightforward propoganda. None of it is remotely based on anything that could be considered factual.

I've flagged this and hopefully the admins deal with it appropriately.
SpecLang – End-to-end development in natural language
Ask HN: Dealing with Fraudulent CVEs?
One of my open-source projects was hit by a "CVE fraudster" -- a spam account that files bogus CVEs with questionable repros for various repos that haven't had a ton of activity or maintainer bandwidth [0]. The account that reported the CVEs has also targeted a number of other repos, filing CVEs with reproductions that don't even run [1].

Is there any recourse for "false" CVEs"? The CVE system appears to be based on the honour system, which means that taking down false CVEs is impossible.

Has anyone successfully challenged a CVE and had it removed as fraudulent?

The CVE is question is https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-33289, and the URL purported to be a "DoS" is provably _not_ an issue.

[0] https://gist.github.com/6en6ar

[1] https://gist.github.com/6en6ar/a4977866c59cbcfc716f0f2717b812bf
Show HN: Created a UI Components generator that uses llama-3
If enough people find it useful, the plan is to build a subscription option with higher (or any) limits.
If calling to ask again 2 days prior to release doesn't reek of desperate, then what does?
The only one of those you could make a reasonable case for from a general consumer perspective (not the general HN SWE consumer perspective) is maybe Journal. Which in of itself is simply too new an offering from apple to make it a must have app. Besides, if you really needed a journaling app, the app store is filthy with options.
Agree. And what about people who look similar to SJ? Are they precluded from acting jobs, simply because SJ became an actor first?
When you have verified employees offering “full account takeover”, are the employees just advertising their willingness to just hand over your account to anyone willing to pay?
The voice and expression is copyrightable, that's just how audio books are under copyright protection.
It is more Equatorial vs Polar than North vs South.
He was delivered to the court by his own country who was heavily pressured by the United States. That is obviously not going to happen to Netanyahu considering both US political parties back Israel.
I literally didnt define it as good. Maybe read again. I said it isnt good or bad, its nature, its what it is. Ironic that while explaining why using "bad" to qualify nature is not appropriate you think im saying its good.
No, it is. Waits v. Frito Lay was a successful lawsuit where Tom Waits sued Frito Lay for using an impression of his voice in a radio commercial. https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc

See also Midler v. Ford Motor Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
I don't think any of this translates to anything bad. He loves the movie. OpenAI invented similar technology. They wanted to use Scarlett's voice to market it. She said no. They used a different voice.

People really want their to be a crime here with no evidence. You all have ears, you can listen to both clips back to back and discover, unsurprisingly, that they are actually different voices. Not even an imitation.
How would you distinguish between them in some cases like: 03/03/03?
History of the Creation of MIT Mystery Hunt
Great example. My personal preference is the first one, but I put that down to me being inexperienced and not working in a professional development environment.

I've been using Ruff with most of the rules enabled, and they have a page for this scenario here: https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/manual-list-comprehension/

Another one that trips me up is the ternary operator: https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/if-else-block-instead-of-i... I prefer the longer, more verbose version, even though the suggestion looks more clever.
FWIW, it being un-configured is a dealbreaker in my company. We just received word that iTerm is now unapproved for usage, and that impacts all historic versions as well. It's overkill, but that's the stance legal is taking on it. People are having to migrate over to Apple Terminal and losing a lot of the environment that made them productive. It's really impacting us.

While they're allowed to do whatever they want, and I'm happy for the years of wonderfully useful software they've provided, 3rd party AI features are radioactive for some organizations and the suddenness of this is jarring to impacted folks.
Daniel Kucera: "[PATCH] mmc: core: allow detection of locked cards" -- CMD42
An open-source self-host AI search engine
> No company is going to fire you because you were trying to help.

This absolutely happens. As an example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-fired-stop-kidnapping/

"You were employed by The Home Depot until June 19, 2017 when you were fired because you assisted the police in preventing a kidnapping."
> can’t integrate with ai systems

Do these locations have no devices running Windows, OSX, or iOS?
Lawyers gonna have a great day with this one
There's nothing more to be done, we're reaching the limits of what the current attention-transformer models can accomplish, and more data and computing power will not get us much further. With the investment OpenAI has taken in, coupled with their annual costs ($$$) they have to start making money, soon. Sam is embracing the grift, and power is corrupting him like most others in his place.
We are talking about miohtama's argument, not Sam Altman.

I don't believe Sam Altman, but I am interested in the general “is it legal/ethical to immitate something uncopyrightable” argument.
Some developers like to solve problems and some like to solve puzzles.
Fair objection, but if you don't need to modify the structure/behavior, you can just use the html template file I built for you :)
No, it’s the opposite and some people very obviously have an AI Pessimism Overload at this point.

People need to grow the fuck up about whatever particular aspect of AI is making them personally salty (there are a number of common answers) and realize these models actually do deliver real value for people right now, and that they are going to have to learn to live with those feature being present in products even if they personally choose not to use them.

It’s the same thing in hardware, there is a large group of people who are not emotionally mature enough to realize that not every product is meant for every customer and just because you wouldn’t personally purchase some product that isn’t suited for your uses, doesn’t mean nobody will and that it shouldn’t exist. This is the same thing with people wanting to sandbag development of LLM features because they personally don’t use them. Well, tough.
Self driving, Waymo is playing chess while Tesla plays checkers
Because it’s still great marketing to have Scarjo on board? That immediately returns positive ROI on the cost to hire her.
> I guess the more ignorant ones do? I figured it was common knowledge that when something is broken policy-wise at companies, and they're clearly avoiding fixing it, it's rarely the non-management employees that are the problem. Almost always, it's a strategic decision by management to not address the issue (or sometimes they do address it, but poorly).

Yikes. I'd call that ignorant myself.

By supporting the "strategic decision by management" you implicitly approve of it. This is particularly true with well-paid FAANG employees who could absolutely take their expertise elsewhere.
No, voices can be exclusive. One good example is Bette Midler, who sued Ford in tort for misappropriation of voice and won on appeal to CA9. 849 F.2d 460.
When is foot fast, and when is it not?
I would think you someone could build a dyson sphere,
it would be the step needed for interstallar travel.
The unlimited energy that could be harvested with little effort
and channeled.

Perhaps a tiny vessel with huge solar sails being pushed by a
stream from the sun?

I have no idea if that makes scientific sense.

I liked the idea in "The 3 body problem" of sending something
extremely small
A simple list comprehension is quite readable and better IMHO. It is very common and most people will understand directly what it does.

Of course, when you have multiple levels or complex lambdas inside, then I agree that the for loop might be preferable.
That's terrible! I'm curious if you pay for any Google services, do you get better support? For example, I know people who pay for Youtube Premium just so they don't have to watch ads, or spend a few dollars on GCP for personal projects.
I don't think you're correct about this. I think Japan is both much more racist than you think it is, and Israel less (both are deeply problematic in this regard, though it should be clear by now that I have far more sympathy for Israel [within its 1967 borders] than Japan). Have you talked to an American long-term resident of Japan about this? I've heard stories that knocked me on my ass.

There's nothing practical to be said about this stuff. Everybody in the world is racist. It is a strength of the west, and of the US in particular, that we pay so much attention to it. There's no "should" about Israel, only "is". Israel is a nuclear-armed state with a thriving, self-sustaining economy and one of the world's better regarded militaries. If you want to call it an ethnostate, that's fine (I will then call Japan an ethnostate as well). I don't like ethnostates either. But it is what it is: the history and purpose to which Israel --- which, unlike Japan, at least nominally proscribes racism! --- is designed is profound. It's not going anywhere.

I'm fond of pointing out that you'd have a stronger argument that Texas be returned to the Coahuiltecans. Texan settlers hadn't just survived the Holocaust. There was no large scale exchange of populations, with Tamaulipecan tribes somehow finding reservoirs of Germans and Czechs to expel from Nuevo Leon. But, again: nobody is protesting this.

I would say my position is this: to litigate the existence of Israel itself is to surrender any hope, at least rhetorically, of self-determination for Palestinians on any Palestinian land.
I am experiencing difficulty using the system as I am encountering an error immediately upon logging in.