skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I love Vim. I use it pretty much exclusively. I found it very funny.

So, yes.
The first few days of a long hike, my appetite and my wife's are suppressed. We live mainly on trail mix that we consume during the day. And chocolate covered coffee beans in the late afternoon, when we need a stimulant.

The appetite starts to come back around day six. Normally I've lost about two kg by then, after allowing for trail dehydration. After two weeks or so, I'm down about 4 kg.
What is the simple but uncommon trick?
> they want to make sure nothing ever tarnishes their reputation

In the spirit of where you want the conversation to go, I see the point you want to make.

However, they are willing to tarnish their reputation just as long as it's not ruined. Their reputation on support is rubbish. Their reputation on YouTube's automated violation handling is rubbish. Their reputation on releasing a pet project long enough to just start to gain traction and then kill it is rubbish. Their reputation on allowing their search to be gamed by SEO and ad purchasers at the expense of smaller sites is rubbish.
> 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.

Nope.

Look back to the GP's paradox and the energy consumed watching even just the single most popular youtube video . . .

That isn't "energy saved" from "otherwise people would be flocking miles in cars to watch Despacito and Baby Shark Dance in theatres.

The AI training loads are over and above the already existing supercomputer modelling of land|sea|air fluid flows vie regular means - it's questionable whether LLM's et al even add anything of values in that domain (despite a plethora of papers asserting it to be so).
> Logically, the first two civilizations to "team up" would easily handle any single civilization that challenges them.

I don't think saying "logically" and then an unsubstantiated claim constitutes a proof.

If two civilizations team up, whether that makes them stronger, weaker, or equally effective, is not certain IMO.

When two human companies merge, the result is often mistrust, poor communication, poor effectiveness, and sometimes ultimately failure. Sometimes the result of the merger is more effective.

A single, decisive government can run more effective than an indecisive coalition with no clear leader.

I just don't see how a definitive conclusion is possible any way. Surely it would vary case by case.
At this point the ineffectiveness is a feature. It's a huge source of domestic intelligence on citizens.
Relieving some latent demand is a great thing, especially when you’re the one needing that last new hospital bed, traffic lane, or supercomputer time slot to predict who the hurricane endangers. More throughput is wonderful. When unsure, best to endorse meeting demand rather than judging it as unworthy.
I can see how the switch to closed source could be annoying to some, but it definitely doesn’t rise to the level of “unethical” IMO. In fact, the explanation of the rationale for the decision seems perfectly reasonable. WRT to Altman’s ousting and return, I still haven’t seen any evidence of compromised ethics on his part. It looked a lot more like clumsy doomers botching a coup. A supermajority of OpenAIs employees, people who I’d venture to guess have a far better handle on Altmans ethics than you or I, insisted on his reinstatement. That’s enough of a refutation on that point for me. What else?
It is a nice scheme, but what if your target is not bound to gravity wells anymore and the most of its economy is artificial structures orbiting its sun?

You will hit some ancient rocks orbiting the star, and even if people there dont need them anymore they are bound to become curious of the origin of your missiles.
Hoo boy... if you think chatbots are all this is... wait til you find out what's next.
A good reminder to everyone that global CO2 emissions are higher than they have ever been [0]. Again: 2024 was the mos polluting year in history.

A lot of feel-good articles and tweets will often talk about the plummeting costs of solar, or how the share of renewables is higher than ever, or stuff like that, which is, from a global warming point of view, absolutely irrelevant.

The only thing that matters as far as warming is concerned is how much CO2 is there in the air. The cumulative number. It doesn't matter if the growth is slowing, it doesn't matter if there's more solar than ever, etc etc.

So yeah, we're producing more clean energy than ever, but we're also using more carbon than ever.

[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-...
I am of the opinion that AML/KYC are purely political. They are a useful tool outside the legal and judicial framework. Want to freeze someone bank account? Gov. used to need to go to court for that, now you just need to inform the bank about potential suspicious activity. No legal process. Want to reduce outflows to China or some other countries you don't like? Yep, make every wire to that country "suspicious" and in need of further and stricter KYC.

Plus, now you have your obedient citizens giving you all these information about beneficial ownership, transactions information, etc... could always use that to tax more.

> In Europe, the anti-money laundering movement apparently makes private businesses spend as much as €144 billion in compliance costs to help authorities confiscate up to €1.2 billion of more than €110 billion generated by criminals each year. This suggests a higher recovery rate, at 1.1 percent, but for reasons outlined above may be overstated, and offset by compliance costs 120 times the amount successfully recovered from criminals. (Bizarrely, by these estimates, compliance costs exceed total criminal funds).

With this being a "hundred billions" (mainly consulting) industry, good luck getting rid of it the easy way. There will be billions in lobbying to not remove AML/KYC anytime soon.
And let’s not forget that Sam Altman is the CEO of OpenAI. He clearly has a vested interest in creating hype around AI, AGI, etc. But when i point this out on Reddit, for some reason i get downvoted.
Yes, we have already been shown this is true in Indiana Jones Last Crusade
GPT 3.5 and haiku are great for prototyping
> Humans are more of an emotional target. Some humans are a high value target, but most are not.

Tell that to Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Also, tell that to Ukraine.

Humans will always be targets at least somewhat; If for nothing else, they are near the controls to some drone. Warfare is psychological at least as much as it is physical.
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. A drone-on-drone war may be an opening salvo, but unless drones are the only means available to an aggressor or defender, they will never be the only means being used in warfare no matter how technologically advanced things become. As long as an enemy has the will and capacity to resist force upon him, or still has the ability to impose his will by force on another, the war will continue. Once enough of one side's drones or robots are sufficiently defeated, it will be people that are the means for imposing or resisting force, so they will eventually always be the ones fighting and dying.

I can't imagine if Ukrainians had incredibly advanced drone/robot tech, them throwing all their drones at the Russians, loosing them all, and then saying 'Well, we used up all our drones, I guess we'll give up now.' It always comes down to removing an enemy's capacity or will to resist force, and people will always be part of that equation.
Way back in 2006, I reverse engineered the protocol used between isc.ro and its desktop client so that I could write my own GUI. It was just a fun side project.

https://www.michaelfogleman.com/projects/word-warrior/

In the process I discovered all sorts of vulnerabilities (potential cheating vectors). Nothing prevented a malicious client from:

- picking your own tiles (even if they no longer exist in the bag)

- seeing your opponent's tiles

- setting your clock to any value after making a move

- aborting a game at any time without opponent approval

If you exchanged tiles, the number of tiles you exchanged was sent through the # of seconds on your clock. So if you exchanged 3 tiles at a point where you had 1m40s on your clock, it would change to 1m43s or 1m33s or something like that! There was no other way to communicate to the server how many tiles you exchanged.

I never took advantage of any of this. Like I said, I just wanted a nicer GUI to play Scrabble on. But I was pretty shocked at what I discovered in the process.

Not sure if anything has changed since then!
Do you have a source for this? If true, what a stupid way to make food.
It is praiseworthy Microsoft straightforwardly reported the increase.

I haven't paid attention to these kinds of optional disclosures. Never thought about it but were I asked I would have said these are advertisements. I don't dislike sustainability, but I thought those function as advertisements because you can expect to get more sustainability "for free" over time, because of many things (Moore's Law, ephemeralization, societal investment). So of course savvy corporations publish sustainability reports that say, "We're doin' great : )."

Therefore I'd argue their commitment to sustainability is shown by their disclosure of the increase.
I started learning common lisp this week. Instead of jumping straight into code/syntax as I would with other languages, I spent the first 3 days reading about (and trying to understand) homoiconicity.

The tl;dr is it's metaprogramming made extremely convenient. In other languages metaprogramming might involve regex to parse string representations of code, perhaps string interpolation, and eventually pass strings to eval() or similar. But since lisp code is its own data structure (not just a string as in other languages), the ways of interacting with and altering lisp code programatically are every bit as robust as the methods for altering any other data structure (like a list or array).

For obvious reasons, I'm proceeding with caution, as some practices are best exercised judiciously or infrequently (or never e.g. ruby continuations).

But my early thoughts are that now that I know of this concept it seems odd that it's not feature of every programming language. I guess languages can still be highly productive without metaprogramming as a first class citizen. And, funnily, it's probably a good thing if tools like metaprogramming (and properties like homoiconicity) are a not obvious first choices for solving problems.
Oh great. Like we didn't have enough 'this changes all our architectural tradeoffs and business models' events last week.
Clean energy until waste is hidden under the carpet for thousands of years.
> sufficiently close to a black hole it is impossible for particles to safely follow circular orbits.

Health and safety gone mad!

Weirdly, it's hard to actually find information about this using the phrase "plunging region", as if you search for it everyone is currently regurgitating the strange Oxford press release wording of "safely". Which is an ironic turn of phrase because the result of the plunge is falling into a black hole. Though I think they probably mean that the circular orbit itself would be safe, not that the particle is falling in deliberately to avoid orbiting in some unsafe manner within a circular orbit!

But the Wikipedia article is actually pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innermost_stable_circular_orbi.... So closer than 3 Schwarzschild radii, you can in theory have an circular orbit instantaneously, at a speed lower than light (until the photon sphere at 1.5Rs, where you have to orbit at c). If it was Newtonian rules, you could just orbit here. But because spacetime is warped inwards, anything actually in such an orbit will tip off the circular orbit and into a lower orbit, where it tips inwards and so on, into an inward spiral.

It seems a bit like one of those coin spiral games/charity boxes where the coin spirals down a curved cone-like funnel into the central hole. Even a coin injected tangentially eventually falls in, because the continously curved inward slope of the surface always makes the coin turn inwards and resists a stable orbit (even if it had no friction or air resistance).
The doom and gloom comes from much the same pontificating and rumormongering. Except somehow less official, and that's what you want us to go with?
Nuclear weapons are on a different category. They are not targeting a lot of humans but pretty much all humans; and infrastructure too (strategic or not).
One of his articles has this line that is a personal favorite:

> I know that sounds like the guy at the pet store packing a starved Komodo dragon into the carrier with your new dog, just to calm him down some.
Any future conflict between the US and China would look far, far different than the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. In particular, the ranges are much longer in the Pacific theater of operations. Just look at a map. Small drones, tube artillery, and short-range missiles will be ineffective. There won't be as much ground combat. Both sides will have to rely more on naval forces, large aircraft (high fuel fraction plus aerial refueling), long-range missiles, and satellites.
What does range of one off concept car with non functioning doors matter? Its like Musk was boasting about Falcon 9 ~4K km range to sell Teslas.
The author is wrong. I live where the ground water is cold and I replaced a large tank with a tankless system in the same location. The hot water reaches the show as quickly as it ever did.
I would be very interested in the breakdown of how they conclude it's 0.01kWh (10Wh) per request, and what that does and doesn't include.

I expect that if you were to calculate "incremental energy per request" - how much "extra CPU compute" each request adds, you could probably get to that sort of value.

But odds are good that figure ignored all the training data collection, all the processing on that, storage of that digested information, retrieval of it, etc, and that sort of number tends to also skip things like "storage systems running to have the information available."

If I've got an entire datacenter running to provide services, and the request consumes, say, 3 GPU-minutes of time across all the nodes, sure. This is a sane value. It just ignores a lot of the other resources dedicated to the task at various points.

Microsoft isn't using 30% more energy than their current footprint on 10Wh/request AI answers.

Math like this is very much a "Tell me what answer you'd like, and I'll make it work out!" sort of scenario. An increase in data center use by 30% is harder to fudge.
We can't formally stumble into sentience because we don't have a definition of it let alone a test which can confirm or refute its presence.

People will think they "know it when they see it". The arguing will be fun.
To add a bit of color (ha) I was with my color-sighted spouse at a spot well known for panoramic views. 50ish people there. Many conversations happening around me.

“I can’t see anything”
“Maybe that’s something over there?”
“What’s everyone looking at?”

Someone shows their phone.

“Ooh!” “How do you turn on night mode?” “Wow it’s so much clearer on the phone!”

So I can’t know what their eyes see or what they really think, I could hear what came out of their mouths.

I don’t think this is an instance that warrants deep philosophical skepticism about the nature of truth or the impossibility of knowledge.
The fact that you can do that on YT without triggering a thousand alerts and extra account validation is just stupid. They could cut down that scam significantly, but... YT doesn't care.
> None, and the court has already spoken on this. It's a pretty dead issue.

The question of rights would be legislative rather than judicial. More importantly, the discussion should actually be among the people first in anything resembling a democracy, the few in charge are meant to represent us not rule us.

> See PGE and its own death toll.

Unless I'm mistaken, PGE isn't an artificial intelligence or sentient.

> No, and we aren't even on a path where these questions are relevant. It's all an exercise in mental mastrubation. If you think that were going to accidentally stumble into sentience never mind sapenenc I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

OpenAI's explicit goal is to create and release an AGI. A majority of experts in the industry I have either talked with personally or heard in long form interviews expect that we could be very close to AGI, on the order of a couple years up to maybe 15 or 20 years on the high end. Given how slowly any societal discussion related to rights of a population move, do you think we'll have plenty of time to decide this after an AGI is released in some spectacularly Silicon Valley product release party?
Here's a good excuse: https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-leak-200-million-user-em...
aside from the way she's terrible, she's not terrible?

the wonderful thing any capitalism is that you can absolve yourself of guilt by having someone else do your dirty work for you. are you so sure every single seamstress that made clothes and stuffed animals, and the workers at the toy factories, and every single person involved with the making of the movies for the Harry Potter deals she licensed her work to were well compensated and treated well? that's not directly on her, but at least some of her money comes from there
Just wait for a few more climate catastrophes
Amazon already have a datacenter with an attached nuclear power plant, and Microsoft have contracted with Helion for future delivery of a fusion power plant (assuming it materializes).

https://www.ans.org/news/article-5842/amazon-buys-nuclearpow...

Zuckerberg says part of the problem is not just the amount of power needed for a SOTA AI-training datacenter (~1GW), but the fact that you need the power at that particular location which makes co-locating a power plant the best option. The biggest solar power plants in China put out over 2GW, but the biggest in the US is Solar Star in CA, wihch occupies 12 km^2 and only puts out 58MW.
Does Microsoft have a history of buying fake carbon credits? And by that I mean, do they buy carbon credits from disreputable sources more often than reputable ones on average in recent years? Or do you simply believe that all carbon credit systems are fake?
I tried to find the source of the 29% figure, but it's defined as data center usage. I understand machine learning is resource intensive but how much is it really? Are the numbers for this available to the public?
Function calling in OpenAI models is essentially this. You define the functions using JSON Schema and it is guaranteed to match.

See also https://python.useinstructor.com/
The energy consumption would not be a problem if it was renewable energy. Ironically, we already have plenty of renewable energy in the US, it’s just there, sitting, waiting to be hooked up to the grid and not being used productively.

The US currently has 947 GW of renewable generation capacity that is not hooked up to the grid [1]. To put that number into perspective, the US currently has 1160 GW of generation capacity in total [2]. We could almost double our countries generation capacity if we could just hook up the power to the grid.

Unfortunately it takes 10 years to build new transmission lines in the US [3]. Changes are going to need to be made to the permitting process, which may include giving more responsibility and agency to FERC to oversee the review process.

Congress needs to act on this. If you care about this, you can educate your self and get involved.
https://community.citizensclimate.org/topics/clean-energy-pe...

[1] https://emp.lbl.gov/utility-scale-solar

[2] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

[3] https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/10/permitting-americ...
>“YT Kids” on repeat/autoplay.

how else are nonsense videos get xx-xxx million views on yt/tiktok.
he probably felt the need to prescribe dense theoretical books given his position.

prbably look like a fraud if he recommended ' grokking machine learning on manning.com'
It takes about a minute for our shower to get hot maybe less. I basically have time to pee. This is just as fast or slow as was the case for our tank based heater, only now it runs forever and with 4 girls in the house we would never trade back. We also have a big house even by american standards
This case is not about production, only possession.
Oh I can see that. Given OpenAI's push for multimodal engagement with GTP4o I fully expect the erotica they want to support would be more than just text.

I do agree with you there though, I can't think of any meaningful risks of text-only erotica unless you consider the psychological impact of the person choosing to engage with it.
The most rosy outcome would be benevolent state actors control it, and the value capture is simply for everyone as the costs for everything go to zero (food, energy, housing, etc). It would be post-capitalist, post-consumer.

Of course the problem is whether or not it could be controlled, and in that case, the best hope is simply 'it' being benevolent and naturally incentivized to create such a utopia.
Sending a relativistic chunk of tungsten is something we could accomplish at essentially current technology levels. Hell we could send a hundred of them. It’d be expensive and it would take awhile to get there but we could do it in a decade given sufficient motivation.

If caveman-level weaponry is sufficient to take out anyone not well on their way to becoming a Type II civilization, I’m betting on the cavemen.
> Interesting that OpenAI has completely destroyed their reputation over the last year.

No, they're still the "name brand" option for commercial LLM stuff.
> The thing that you are misunderstanding is that people don’t want to be humiliated about their weight.

But shaming is effective. There are of course fat Japanese people, but for the average person, shame is an effective deterrent against weight gain. That makes sense. Food doesn’t act on people’s rational senses. It targets pleasure centers. The cold logic of non-judgmental medical advice is powerless to do anything against that. Medical professionals, after all, are nearly as likely to be overweight or obese as the general population. Shaming, by contrast, targets a different, more primitive part of the brain. People will change their behavior in an effort to avoid shame in a way they won’t for abstract good advice.
I swear no person on earth ever makes a proper analogy: You can't just gloss over the fact that crypto-currency mixing is a real privacy concern that should exist. If you are a rich m'fer not every person you buy a piece of gum from should know they could blackjack you to get to $billions

Your analogy would have to be more along the lines of the right to privacy that you own a firearm with a particular serial number, instead of every person on earth knowing exactly how to frame you with said serial number openly
I wish it had the ability to statistically correlate operating expenses or capital expenditures, for instance, with share-prices, especially for historical "backtesting", to determine if there is a positive or negative correlation.
Yes, that was it!

The delivery of that line, deadpan, was so well-done I laughed out loud. That's why I rememebered it, even though I don't personally ever need to set multiple timers.
I made a meme and sent it to my even older coworker with two guys from the office looking pensive. Titled 'The Build Failed Saturday and Again Sunday Night'
I hear people often talk online saying energy in the future will be either free or very cheap.

Dont know what cheap means for them, but it will never be for free because abundance happens when the supply exceeds demand and I dont see the scenario where the demand for energy is declining in a long run.