skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Pretty much every serious proposal, because that't the essence of the "basic income" part.

In a system with income-dependent benefits, poor people usually have the highest marginal tax rates. Often something like 70-90%, and sometimes above 100%. Not because of nominal taxes but due to losing benefits when their income increases.

Basic income can be largely cost-neutral. It would replace most common benefits, and it would be funded by most people paying a flat tax rate for all of their income. Typically you would see it only as an accounting trick: your nominal income tax is higher, but you receive a large automatic tax credit. People receiving benefits would have more incentives to work, which is the primary effect.
And if Discord decides to ban you due to some kind of automatic flagging, you're suddenly unable to communicate with everyone who insists on using it as their sole means of communication.
A good moment to bring up Jevon's Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

"In economics, the Jevons paradox occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced. Governments typically assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising"

As there's a huge crowd who seems very convinced of the idea that the solution to handle our resource problems is to be found in various growth and tech oriented solutions.
Wasted on peanut butter. Empty the jar, and put some pebbles in there along with a polishing compound.
Microsoft has talked about being carbon negative by 2030, and removing all emissions they've done over the lifetime of the company by 2050. https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b...

Sounds good. Reciprocally though, my skepticism in various green credit programs has only grown over time. It seems unclear how many efforts out there are green washing credits, to not yet mine or make some display that doesn't help greatly. But I do think if there's any hope for green economy, a $3T company probably has swagger & personel to eventually refine & drive towards effective spending. Hopefully. If they can be true to these declarations. Let us hope.
> Both are far better off than America.

Laos has it better off than America? You're just trolling now
I feel like, when companies start venturing into adult entertainment, something has gone wrong.

There’s nothing specifically wrong with it, but there are “legit” companies and “kinda shady” ones, and when you start hanging out with a bad crowd…

Sad to see.

I feel like it really completes the fall from grace for OpenAI.
Personally I would like to see instances of where gen ai is actually useful.

An example: rewrite this java code in clojure/scala with lenses. (already done, don't bother...)
How to submit a patch by email (2023)
You also need men to actually hold any land. The best you can do with drones is turning enemy territory into grey zone.
Perhaps "AGI" and potential extinction event level fears is giving this more drama than it should have.

Seems like potential extinction event level fears might justify some drama.
My kid doesnt like bread. She will eat PBJ ritz crackers all day but will not touch bread. Sometimes eats my grilled cheese sandwiches but that is it.

Loves cake tho. Little debbie snack cakes, pancakes, waffles, cup cakes.

But not donuts, bread, croissants or thick pizza.
Great, then don't expect any new infrastructure to be built. Congrats, you've just become the US.

There is always someone who is going to suffer when new infrastructure is built in an urban area. It's 100% unavoidable.

If you say "I'll make sure that never happens", then you just won't build new infrastructure.
The lid is messy. I tried this once; never again.

I stir it with a mixer (I have these corkscrew-like attachments for my hand mixer that are perfect). Then put it in the freezer.

It gets bounced between fridge and freezer: when it's showing a little hard, it goes into the fridge. When it softens there, back to the freezer.
I've certainly added a hostname to an /etc/hosts file for testing and forgotten.

Nothing makes sense, where is this address coming from? Oh. It was me. I put it there.
1. This is whataboutism

2. According to the EPA's greenhouse gas calculator, this year's increase is equivalent to an extra 800,000 gas-powered cars on the road.
Does anyone have experience using Nucleus co-op for remote play? It'd be cool to make use of this huge collection of games which have been sent into running multi-instance with a hijacked network stack & spoofed APIs, to make use of it for game streaming with friends.
I think it’s funny, though didn’t have the attention span to read through all of it.
I didn't actually mean to refer to the DEI-flavored AI ethics. That was totally unintentional on my part, I should have caught that.

I raised both because I see them going down very similar paths. 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.

With AI safety, based on those in the industry I have spoken with, there's a very real risk the same happens. AI safety, again as I've seen implemented and what I've heard from people working in the field, is much more concerned with minor risks and has given up on concerns like the alignment problem. AI safety isn't concerned with moral or ethical questions of what happens as the technology progresses.

I'm not just talking about job loss concerns. Thinking bigger for a minute, what rights would a real AI have? Can it be turned off? Can it commit crimes or be punished? Does it have rights? No one in AI safety is realistically considering whether these systems should be on the public internet at all, unless there are drastically more powerful systems kept under wraps due to these risks. No one is seriously asking about risks to privacy, I'm sure some in the field share those worries but they are the outlier and don't seem to be given the ability to meaningfully move the industry.
I tried using your tool and found the idea very good. I signed up for a one-month. I think having an additional discount for the launching phase would be more enjoyable."
Also, don't overemphasize thinking. It has already been done by people that are much (much) smarter than you.

Also, you cannot outscan people with millions of dollars at their disposal with the only intent that you cannot make any money yourself from your ideas...

...especially when they are good.

(please disregard the bitter tone.)
Actually Google were building and scaling transformers at same time as OpenAI - BERT (following Allen AI's ELMo), T5, Meena, LaMDA (chatbot - preceding ChatGPT by a year or two), PaLM ...

It seems that Google really didn't know what to do with the tech, and hadn't figured out a way to control it (OpenAI's RLHF - critical for ChatGPT's success). It's a bit ironic that DeepMind were doing so much with RL, but Google Brain being separate at the time apparently were not consulting with them or tapping into their expertise.
People seem very confused by this so let me try and spell it out.

For the sake of argument let’s say we become aware of another intelligent civilization on a rocky body orbiting Proxima Centauri. They are, virtually by definition, apex predators on their homeworld. We cannot know their intentions should they learn about us.

Meanwhile, it is trivial for us to end their civilization. If we decided to, with more or less today’s technology, we could accelerate a chunk of tungsten to comical speeds and obliterate their homeworld. It would cost a fortune and it would take awhile, but we could do it. Certainly it would be orders of magnitude easier than getting humans there, setting up any sort of interstellar trade, or working to understand each other’s language and culture. And nobody at the receiving end would be the wiser until their planet essentially ceased to exist one day.

I’m not saying we want to. But we could. And importantly, they could do the same to us.

Do we:

1. Loudly announce ourselves, gambling our entire civilization that they aren’t aggressive, paranoid, misunderstand us at some point and take grave offense, realize we have a nicer planet than they do, or find some other reason to become openly hostile.

2. Shut the fuck up and hope they don’t catch our leaked radio signature from before we knew any better.

3. Strike first, just to be safe. Better us than them.

If we think that any other civilization might decide to open door number three, the calculus tilts sharply in favor of doing it first ourselves. Or at the very least going with the second option and investing a hell of a lot of money into figuring out how to detect, intercept, and redirect relativistic kill vehicles.

It doesn’t even have to be the Centauris in this scenario who are evil or paranoid. They could be just as hopelessly naïve as us and happily engage in a mutually beneficial back-and-forth. Meanwhile the Sirians (who have been quietly observing from the sidelines) one day fire off a pair of surprise care packages to the both of us, before we can get big enough to potentially threaten them and their way of life.
They'll just buy some more fake carbon credits, tell everyone it'll be alright and the planet won't overheat now. Nothing to see here, move along.
It seems unclear to me what it is that LLMs can’t/don’t do. I agree that there are substantial limitations of current ones, but I have little idea of which of these limitations are fundamental to the architecture (as well as which are a result of limits of the scale, and which are a result of limits to the training data (using the current training strategies), and which are a result of the overall training methods).

Do you have some insights you could share on this question?

I mean, “they can’t reason” might be true, but I’m not exactly sure what it is that it is saying that they can’t do.
This is pretty much true for any touchy subject where the mission (say infosec) isn’t actually aligned with org motives (say cutting costs at the same time as increasing profits).

The result is basically theater where doublethink and doublespeak becomes the norm, and to stick around you have to care more about the theater and the least onerous interpretations of the letter of any applicable law more than the spirit it was intended.

See also [1] for a really pragmatic way of thinking about the realities of a sustainable safety culture

[1] https://github.com/lorin/resilience-engineering/raw/master/b...
They are going to say the usual things, child pornography, risk of terrorist use etc... and conclude
that we need our overlords to protect us.
Same reasons that have been used in the past to take away freedoms.

Not saying they aren't real risks... Are there going to be sad incidents where innocent people will be harmed? Yes. The question though is if there will be enough of them, and egregious enough, for us to disregard the upsides of technology that is not heavily regulated.
I am trying to think about problems
And trying to solve but in the first thing is I am not getting problems where generative AI can be used.
I feel like you're missing a few esc's and a colon in there...
It seems the article forgot to mention that Microsoft is actively pursuing nuclear energy in response, which is a significant omission.
Here we go again. Every time this subject comes up, the dilettantes claim that drones will be superior to manned fighters for air-to-air combat due to human limitations on G forces. Of course this is total nonsense. Building airframes that can handle >9Gs imposes severe design compromises on weight, stores, and intake geometry. In reality there are other factors that matter far more including sensors (and sensor fusion), observability, weapons, data links, EW, and decoys; in fact, the next generation of tactical aircraft (both crewed and uncrewed) are being designed to optimize those factors at the expense of maneuverability.

Computing power isn't the issue. Drones will continue to gradually take over a larger set of missions, but we are at least decades away from being able to write software that can perform the full spectrum of missions as well as a human pilot. And we still haven't built electro-optical sensors with dynamic range and slew rate as good as the human eye.
We played it in the fall at a campground. Our cadet group had the group camping and we played in the 50-100 campsites that weren't occupied for the season. So lots of running between campsites through the pine trees.

The only problem was that the roads were blocked off at the end, with picnic tables, with chains from the picnic tables to the trees beside them.

Our fastest guy found a chain in the dark with his waist. Fortunately he just got turned over and not injured.
What's the synopsis here?

From a decade or two ago, my cobwebbed memories are that aerospike's advantage is that it's performance is far less atmosphere (or lack thereof) dependent. Where-as bell nozzles grow and shrink to tune the engine for certain specific altitudes, the aerospike theoretically was going to stay efficient across a huge range of altitudes.
> I guess each side will always know that humans are the high value targets and that will dictate that whatever else happens they will still target them even if a proxy-war is being fought by the drones.

Humans are more of an emotional target. Some humans are a high value target, but most are not. It's more valuable to target an oil refinery, an airport or a strategic bridge.

The next war will boil down to math. AI powered drones where intelligence and strategy will determine the fate of the war. That is until the other party decide to blow the whole thing with nuclear weapons.
The U.S could do the future war trial in Ukraine. Such a missed opportunity…it’s clear that the heavy weapons packages are not enough. Taking out drones with patriot works against the economics of war.
The positive side is supercomputers help us analyze the climate, the Atlantic current, and so forth. The negative side is they also help locate oil. Is it a win or loss on net? Hard to know.

Thinking of entertainment, it probably IS a climate win if you spend an hour at home watching Netflix or chatting with GPT, as opposed to driving around town or jetting across the world. Supposedly a GPT-4 query costs 0.01kWh - meanwhile, a Tesla consumes 0.35kWh a minute at freeway speed.
They have been working on other things for decades. Look there.
Games. I practically never use it for anything else.
Yes: I was in the petosemtamab / MCLA-158 trial at UCSD from Sept. 27 2023 until March 2024, when the tumors in my neck grew by ~20%: http://jakeseliger.com/2024/03/18/in-which-the-squamous-cell... from January 2024.

Between September and January, however, the tumors in my neck shrank by about 20%, which is a startingly good response by R / M HNSCC standards.

Perhaps the most interesting question will ultimately be whether oncologists prescribe petosemtamab for patients who get early clean surgical margins, in an effort to prevent recurrence. Oncologists are reluctant to impose chemo-radiation because of chemo's deleterious side effects, but petosemtamab, though it causes rashes, paronychia, and other skin problems.
Mathematicians and the Selection Task (2004)
no this is unconstructive as it gets even worse than your example with special medical needs .. the way this evens out in that case is to expand the capacity of medical treatment such that they can provide acceptable intervention and monitoring for the special needs person.. A different angle is that somehow, in the West, the family unit has been morphed into something in the background.. many places in the world with dense populations rely on extended and long term family definitions to accommodate basic needs and special circumstances for individuals
>I no longer agree that the "safety" people want the same things we do. I suspect after the bard debacle a bit back that "safety" looks a lot more like 1984.

It's interesting that's how it looks like to you from the outside.

If you look a little closer at the "AI Safety" community, it consists of two competing factions: the faction responsible for the Bard debacle, and the faction that's focused on trying to prevent human extinction -- "AI notkilleveryoneism", as in https://x.com/aisafetymemes

They both insist that the other faction is "distracting everyone from the real issues".
Have you tried cold applying?
Very complicated model for early business; not enough sample data to build the model and experiment is much harder than other methods (ie: monthly|usage)
I am really not thinking about this but the thing is whenever I think of an idea and share that idea to someone they just say to my face that this will not work especially family and friends.
<lobbing hand grenade>

Modal editing is fundamentally-insane UX.
What harms, in the real world, have GPTs produced? If few or none, does that not indicate that OpenAI has done a good job at safety? If so, should that not buy the company some credibility looking forward?

It’s fashionable, for reasons I am unaware, to hate on Sam Altman and OpenAI. Seems to be mostly the doomer crowd and it’s Blake Lemoine types (boy do his claims look ridiculous only 2 years on). To my thinking the open source crew poses a greater danger.
Identifying and Correcting Programming Language Behavior Misconceptions [pdf]
Says that such a comparison is not useful to the military, because the blast of the eruption was mostly subsonic gas, dust, and mud, rather than the supersonic plasma of a nuclear weapon.

However, I wonder if there is any use in estimating the power - thermodynamic work - required to equal this cataclysm in terms of nuclear weapons.

Perhaps not, because the number criticized in the abstract - 10 to 20 megatons - could be meaningless.

A 20-megaton bomb might alter the shape of a mountain, if strategically placed where it could do the most work. But maybe you would need multiple such devices to move the same amount of mass as this volcanic eruption. It might not be possible to do with bombs -- more devices could result in just a higher temperature of rock that refuses to cooperate with you. Mechanically coupling all of the energy of the bombs might require an unrealistic amount of vibranium.

Which is yet another reason not to mess with Wakanda.
GPT-4o still uses BPEs.
Maybe I can help.
Progression is usually defined by radiological endpoints (RECIST 1.1 criteria) meaning that at timepoint x the tumor stayed the same size, got smaller, or grew less than 20%.
Radiological measurement is very subjective so most of these trials centralize measurement of 'target lesions' (some patients have many tumors but not all are measured in clinical trials).
It is worth nothing that inside PFS not only progression is an event but also death. So if you progressed and/or died, you count as an event.

The overall response rate is a combination of complete response (tumor not measurable radiologically) and partial response (>20% reduction in size). That is a common trial endpoint.

As someone else said the Breakthrough designation is common and does not necessarily lead to efficacious drug approvals.
> "Android Studio" was not fast enough on some of the group's m1 macs

I'm going to sleep.
Negative reputational or legal consequences directed at the company providing the AI.
Probably the best post under this submission. Great tip!
I couldn’t understand what is the context of Browser until I read the first usage example with the line “Mozilla/5.0…”. I immediately understood that this is a user-agent parsing library.

I would prefer user-agent which is a well understood term.
Text continuation poses "the greatest of dangers"?
Oh that's so interesting, I fall very much on the side of avoiding regulations as the solution at all costs.

Regulations won't fix a damn thing and regulators have no chance of keeping up even if they wanted to. We need these tools to not be developed or offered at all by choice. Unfortunately that really means either the company, investors, or customers need to make a moral decision at the cost of economic gain or convenience/novelty.
The Main perpose why I want to use AI is I have knowledge and skills in that so.
The problem here is the potential toxicity of this combination.
In lung cancer for example, the combination of anti-EGFR therapy + pembrolizumab led to deadly pneumonitis (lung inflammation). We want to cure more patients, but we don't want to kill them before their cancer.
Wow, thank you for signing up and purchasing our service. I have a discount program for all packages. Use the code TAP30 to get a 30% discount for the next month. Wishing you many valuable experiences with Tapmention :)
There was a shortage of five-gallon buckets. I still haven't figured that one out.
> If that conversation changed to providing a resource which the person could use to earn, does that make the recipient more of a farmer or fisherman, rather than just being given a fish.

Tieing UBI to working pretty much is counter to the word Universal.

Existing schemes which aren't UBI but are tied to working have caused a lot of problems where an individual is unable to work for some reason (possibly dealing with keeping access to the scheme) lose the benefits from the scheme and not cannot work as they needed those benefits.

Although I think the larger issue is that whatever resource you need to have enough of it and fungible enough to distribute. Distributing just one fish to 300 million Americans is actually nearly impossible. There's a reason the stimulus checks were done through the IRS; it's pretty hard to do things at this scale.
I use a hand mixer with two attachments, which are the corkscrew type.

They are called "dough hooks".

Hand mixers that ship without these are incompletely delivered.
Diffraction limit determines the fundamental beam divergence angle theta = lamda/pi/D, where D is the beam diameter, lamda is wavelegth of elwctromagnetic radiation (eg. light).

To minimize theta, we need to either increase D or decrease lamda.

Lets assume we would be able to make far infrared high power lasers, at say 10,000 nm = 1e-5 m wavelength.

Lets assume we would be able to make D, the diameter of our laser beam, similar to the diameter of a typical planet, for Earth it is ~13,000 km = 13e6 m.

Theta = 1e-5 / 3.14 / 13e6 ~= 1e-13 radians.

Sun is ~ 25,000 light years from the center of our galaxy, ~= 25e3 y 3e8 m/s 31.5e6 s/year ~= 1e20 m.

Laser beam diameter, there far away, would be: 1e-13 *1e20 = 1e7 m, similar to the diameter of Earth, not much further diverged, focused and delivering the wast amount of energy all over the planet thereby evaporating it to a gas.

Indeed, what you say about the melting far away planets is possible, in theory.
It’s $6 now. And I’m happy to pay it. The official scrabble app is a horrible testament to psychotic UI’s being passed off as “normal”. I swear to god, it’s like living in a clockwork orange. I just want to play the game but there are chests and gemstones and adds you can watch and unlocks mid game and on and on…
You should check out a currently approved drug that is very similar called amivantamab (Rybrevant). Also targets EGFR and MET (MET can sometimes be a resistance mechanism to EGFR blockade).
> If few or none, does that not indicate that OpenAI has done a good job at safety?

No. It only indicates that OpenAI is less technically capable than it claims. To judge OpenAI's competence at safety, you have to look at the ethics of their behavior, since building the right ethics into an AI before it gets powerful enough to do serious harm to humans is the essence of AI safety. And the ethics of OpenAI's behavior, to put it as gently as possible, does not look good.
Well I knew that in 1998, immediately after playing StarCraft with Protoss. Too bad I didn’t have the right connection s to sell this precious information to the U.S army