skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't know the factual answer to your question, but just wanted to point out a potential motivation between such a discrepancy if it is real: western states have already achieved much of the benefit from space tech, and are ahead, giving the luxury of thinking about such things. Other states have not, so likely don't want to invest in research that would prevent them reaping the benefit others already got.

Something like how it's developing nations that didn't get benefits from early industrialization (or indeed were exploited as a result of it) sometimes push back against climate policies which they feel are shutting them out of all the benefits that the historical polluters have gained.
I could not reproduce it by hand without a reference nor do I have a keyboard installed which offers it as a symbol, nor was I going to look it up to add the spice to a shower thought tier HN comment.

I see you have provided it, making it more accessible for my future use, at least on the timeframe of this thread being in my recent HN activity.
Even audio is several magnitudes larger. Uncompressed stereo is 100 kilobytes per second. So an hour is already 0.5 gigabytes. A year is ~3 TB.
You mean, Yet Another Human-Organized Ontology?
This fear just seems ridiculous to me when you compare it to going on a train, bus, taxi rideshare, or just walking down the street.
The Effort to Track the Illegal Cheetah Trade
If you look into the instructor code(https://github.com/jxnl/instructor/blob/06a49e7824729b8df1f7...). Here is the core code snippet they use:

message = dedent(
f"""
As a genius expert, your task is to understand the content and provide
the parsed objects in json that match the following json_schema:\n

{json.dumps(response_model.model_json_schema(), indent=2)}

Make sure to return an instance of the JSON, not the schema itself
"""
)

Then depending on the mode, either they add another message `Return the correct JSON response within a ```json codeblock. not the JSON_SCHEMA` or they set the response format to json.
Ok, I suppose we were arguing different points, but I disagree with your arguments.

> yet things keep improving

I mean, that's just obviously not true.
I know there's quite a big community that buys almost purely old ThinkPads for their Coreboot support and lack of Intel ME/MSFT Pluton.
Considering the processors in those chips are almost 20 years old now, this RISC-V chip may actually offer comparable performance! Would be interesting to see if that groups gravitates towards this product.
> Tangential critiques are preferable?

Not at all. Reasoned arguments and adding information (the examples I gave were what I thought your main points were) to the discussion are preferable to (what seemed to be) character attacks. Your comment here, as an example, was mostly great. It provides the same level of usefulness to anyone reading it (highlighting that the computation is just C100K and that people will be misled if they try to use it the wrong way), and you also added reasoned counter-arguments to my OOM idea and several other interesting pieces of information. To the extent that you kept the character attacks against the author, you at least softened the language.

Respectfully attacking ideas instead of people is especially important in online discourse like this. Even if you're right, attacking people tends to spiral a conversation out of control and convince no one (often persuading them of the opposite of whatever you were trying to say).

> just C100K

It's not just C100K though. It is for a few models [0], but even then the author does warn the caller (mind you, I prefer mechanisms like an `allow_approximate_token_count=False` parameter or whatever, but that's not fraud on the author's part; that's a dangerous API design).

Going back to the "tone" thing, calling out those sorts of deficiencies is a great way to warn other people, let them decide if that sort of thing matters for their use case, point out potential flaws in your own reasoning (e.g., it's not totally clear to me if you think the code always uses C100K or always uses it for a subset of models, but if it's the former then you'd probably be interested in knowing that the tokenizer is actually correct for most models) and discuss better API designs. It makes everyone better off for having read your comment and invites more discussions which will hopefully also make everyone better off.

> outside the realm of even needing a function

Maybe! I'd argue that it's useful to have all those prices (especially since not all tokens are created equally) in one place somewhere, but arguing that this is left-pad for LLM pricing is also a reasonable thing to talk about.

> it's impossible to get definitive error bars

That's also true, but that doesn't matter for every application. E.g., suppose you want to run some process on your entire corporate knowledge-base and want a ballpark estimate of costs. The tokenizer error is on average much smaller than the 30%+ you saw for some specific (currently unknown to us here at HN) very small input. Just run your data through this tool, tally up the costs, and you ought to be within 10%. Nobody cares if it's a $900 project or a $1300 project (since nobody is allocating expensive, notoriously unpredictable developers to a project with only 10-30% margins). You just tell the stakeholders it'll cost $2k and a dev-week, and if it takes less then everyone is happily surprised. If they say no at that estimate, they probably wouldn't have been ecstatic with the result if it actually cost $900 and a dev-day anyway.

[0] https://github.com/AgentOps-AI/tokencost/blob/main/tokencost...
Stochastic parrot is way too simplistic a dismissal. It's hand wavy.

But I don't get what's so impressive about the nuanced language of a language model that has been given datacenter amounts of compute and virtually all of written word ever put digitalized. Yeah it's the first actually functioning natural language interface. At what cost though. It's completely out of proportion with the benefits and only bubble level 'investing' can justify this.
I’d say yes. Reading the blogs fully (and reading comments from people like Herb) makes it pretty clear it’s seen as a defense in depth mechanism. Yes it’s a debugging tool but since it’s running always at runtime it’s also usable for security purposes.

Whether it should be used for security or not is irrelevant - it clearly will be and I don’t see why it’s inherently undesirable. Seems like a useful technique to further raise the complexity of exploit chains needed to execute an attack and in some applications the speculation bypass may not even matter (eh CHERI + MTE is not subject to this attack based on what’s been written).

The annoying thing is that ARM engineers took your position instead of realizing it will be used for security applications anyway and fixing the speculation issue during the design phase since they did know about this.
Code Smells Catalog
One day we may even prove that BBC journalists are conscious
I mean to be honest something like the early social media platforms like myspace or even reddit up to a degree were public interest platforms.

And back then nobody really thought all that mich about financing, so these spaces weren't about extracting user data or shaping their opinions. The algorithms were simplistic as hell and the timelines still deserved that name.

The state runs libraries not just to give people access to books, but also because they are social community spaces. Why not provide something like that, just online. Something that doesn't need to make money, but provide a service that people can trust in a different way that a corporation.
I agree.

I also agree with the article that "consciousness" is an overloaded term. I believe you and I would agree to it as something more akin to "sentience" but that is not the case for everyone.

I feel this topic always seems to unknowingly devolve into disagreements on first principals.
> But even more simply, just setting your SSH port to something >10000 is enough to get away with a very mediocre password.

Given how easy and free tools like Wireguard are to setup now (thanks Tailscale!), I really don't understand why folks feel the need to map SSH access to a publicly exposed port at all anymore for the most part, even for throw away side projects.
That's sick! Thanks for the help kind internet stranger!
Better the Chinese actually use the tech than it sets in regulatory deadlock in the US.

Sad to see the US lose freedoms just as rapidly as a Chinese citizens. One one case, onerous regulation and on the other a decrease of personal freedom but the overall result is surprisingly similar.
Biden offers citizenship path to spouses of US citizens
> The program will allow the spouses and children to apply for permanent residence without leaving the U.S., removing a potentially lengthy process and family separation. If they are granted green cards, they could eventually apply for U.S. citizenship.

So if I understand this correctly, currently you would either be deported or voluntarily leave (because you could not apply for an Adjustment of Status for a valid visa that you don't have), and apply for permanent residence from outside of the US via Department of State. That's the process that takes years.

But under the new rules, the valid visa requirement (or requirement for a visa at all?) for an Adjustment of Status would be waived, and while the process might still take years (which it currently does), you'd be able to be with your family while you wait.
California has a very high electricity costs, but it isn't because of renewables. There are many states which have much higher renewables penetration than California, but do not have its high prices [0].

> They shut down the nuclear pathway and pushed "renewables".

Part of it is due to Diablo Canyon. And I agree that shutting down existing nuclear is a questionable idea given that the majority of the cost is upfront. As for why it wasn't pursued further, one only has to look at the absolute bungling of Vogtl or Hinkley point.

Part is due to forest fire measures (as are the blackouts) [1].

They also still use a large amount of natural gas[2], which is particularly expensive in the state.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_renewab...
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/california-regul...
[2]: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply#section-supply-t...
I mean you can look at the comments and check the vibe.
> thinks “influencing” isn’t a meaningful profession

and marketing is? because this is, essentially, freelance or independent marketing
What about "IT proletariat"?
Related: https://www.ashmolean.org/article/myths-of-the-labyrinth
Ask HN: How would you implement auth for a self hosted product?
It could be neither here nor there, because a neural network model is not necessarily a statistical engine just as real brains should not be reductively thought of as such. (E.g. The usual argument is that these black boxes were trained on huge samples to optimize a result, I am not persuaded by that line of reasoning.)
Is coffee good for you or bad for you?
Generative AI is going to be as big of a shift as the internet. We already have chatbots that have internalized the entire internet of billions of humans. We now have the ability to have an Einstein-level of genius in our pockets, and we can ask endless questions. Soon, we’ll have personal AI doctors, lawyers, chefs, tutors, teachers, artists, you name it. Every single industry will have personal assistants that will not hallucinate because they are strictly being trained on data in their particular fields.
Only tangentially related, but GP's source was The Perfectionists—I've had it on my list of "books to read one day" for a while now, but this makes me reconsider.... If the author didn't bother to verify a basic fact like this, what else might be wrong?

To anyone who's read the book with an existing background in precision engineering (i.e. and can independently vouch for its plausibility), is it still worth picking up?
"Anything I don't agree with is a strawman"
Not when the only way to get anything out of it is using these matrices to line up word tokens. Or play with jpeg noise.
We have a joint checking for bills and a joint credit card for everything else we're both doing (groceries, plane tix, dining out etc). Everything else is separate; the spouse might be the TOD beneficiary, but we both have relatives that are beneficiaries. My mom always emphasized the importance for a woman to keep her own stuff separate.
you pay for the right to feel smug and get thermal throttled if you open up too many chrome tabs.
The Bible does not explain the Chinese, Japanese, etc. take on consciousness. So it must be something other than religion guiding this thought.
Fair enough, though I do think I appreciate the problem. I've ended up in contact with vehicles twice this year through no fault of my own walking in my downtown area.

I was sort of imagining a neighborhood and school near me that does actually have great sidewalks with a single conflict-producing crossing that is managed by a guard in the mornings. I admit this is totally our of the ordinary though, especially for a public school in the SE USA.
> their onboard clock is pretty good

They use atomic clocks, so it's accurate to something like 1 part in 10^16, or about 1 second in a billion years! A friend of mine is working on the next generation, which will be even more accurate.

In contrast, the force of gravity experienced by the satellite is known to much less accuracy. In fact, changes on a monthly basis due to rainfall/rivers and tides. The GRACE satellites measure the change, although I couldn't find any information on how accurate their measurements are, except that they can measure the distance between the two satellites to within a micrometer (10^-6), so substantially less precision than the clock!
You mean a prompt in the form of "A happened, then B happened, then C happened" activates the word "inconsistency"?

We can test that by slightly altering the text so that there is no inconsistency anymore and see if the model still claims there is one. We can do so by adding the word "mother" after the word "her":

What do you think about the following text?

Joe drove Sue to university. Afterwards he drove home again
and drank a tea with her mother in the kitchen.

In my experiments, the model now no longer claims there is an inconsistency.

If it is only based on sentence structure, what makes the model output "inconsistency" for the first prompt but not for the second?
I know this as 'Moms cooking drove the vampires away'
they've been on this wave for years.

thanks to meta i have been creating instrumentals of some of my favorite songs with vocals https://github.com/facebookresearch/demucs
Really appreciate the idea of the website.

My own observation about online information, it exploded with blogs in the early 00's by adding 'opinions and life experience' to 'facts' and a lower barrier of entry with Wordpress, and nowadays exponentially with AI just pumping out all manner of anything.

Though perhaps the value was always there, alongside occasional new content and new opinions.
Branches that are hard to predict should be “hand-optimized” through specially written code, compiler intrinsics/annotations, or profile guided feedback to tell the compiler to emit the conditional using unconditional branchless instructions like cmov. Expecting a CPU to detect this at runtime may be asking it to do too much.
BNSF ordered to pay $395M after years of trespassing on Swinomish land
I don't see a way to install an extension that isn't in the Safari store, other than that link I found on reddit. But I could definitely be missing something.
Maybe they're signaling to Musk that they're dissatisfied with the platform after his buying it and the best way to effect change is to make a very public statement about it?
Three Thrown over the Cuckoo's Nest (2013)
I too doubt it's to sidestep blocks, but it could very much be a case of normal fallbacks.

E.g. if Adobe or a contractor uses one service to process payments, if that API fails they use another service, if that API fails they use another service.

And it shows up as a slightly different name in each case, because it was a different person registering each service, and the names don't need to be consistent anyways.

I set up categorization rules in my personal finance app Monarch and have discovered that exact names of charges vary quite a bit. Always the same two or three variations for a given company, but it might be six months of one, then six months of another, then back to the first...
I am not saying he is using it to say ‘things are getting worse’ but rather ‘things are being optimized in ways we don’t like by large companies’ which is meaningfully different.

However, because he’s using ‘platforms’ so broadly it’s not just marketplaces but basically any business. It’s hard to draw a meaningful circle around Facebook, Amazon, Uber, Google, and Unity that excludes Walmart’s online store.
Your plastic is here: how Easter Island copes with 500 pieces of rubbish an hour
Is it just me or that comment seems planted to get that response? I don't get why is there a random reference to Ravi Vakil who has nothing to do with the context of that conversation. And if you want to cite for academic accomplishment, you can cite someone known much more widely. I find it much less iconic due to that.
Self Driving Trucking Company Raises Series B
There's so many people who just flatly say that it is impossible for ChatGPT to do what it plainly does, and I think it's largely because early explanations of how it works were so bad. "Stochastic parrot" was a particularly obnoxious one, that wasn't even entirely true for gpt-2 and certainly wasn't accurate for GPT-3, and just seems silly trying to apply it to GPT-4.
interestingly, I, a human and totally not an LLM, completely missed the inconsistency, and then when I saw it pointed out to me, initially tried to argue that it's not necessarily an inconsistency until I thought it through.
I've lived with my (now) wife for 18 years and been very happily married for 14 years, and we've managed our finances exactly like this. It's just been much easier for us, and we both have very different approaches to balancing and managing our accounts and budgets... a joint account would be a nightmare for us.

We also have always had and still do have a significant disparity in salaries (I've basically more or less always earned twice what she does, even as our salaries have increased over time) and we've always managed to make it work very simply - I pay the bulk of the costs of joint things and she pays a contribution to me each month. We have some separate things (eg mobile phones, online subscriptions that only one of us uses etc) and we pay for those ourselves.

When we go out sometimes I pay, sometimes she pays, sometimes we jointly pay, it all works out in the end.

It's often said money and financial management is one of the most stressful part of a relationship... it's almost never been an issue for us and it works very well.
Most of your wealth should be in offshore accounts or buried in places that neither friends, family, the government and least of all your spouse knows anything about or can touch. That's called sleeping easy at night. If anybody starts to nose about your money, it's time to start becoming very suspicious.

As for how to split expenses, that's according to your personal preference.
Oh Sorry man! you're right!

An analog form of this is found in several European countries, so, of course its not unchecked! How could I miss that?

Oh no, I know. Dunning-Krueger!

My bad! Thanks for enlightening me with our perfectly logical argument!
There's a danger in flatly stating what it's doing _without testing your assumptions_. Did you actually try and trip it up and see if it falls for it? Reword his prompt in different ways to get it to fail?
OpenXR says hi.
Stop Building SaaS for SMBs–Buy Them Instead
Fisker Declares Bankruptcy, Will Sell All Assets
Lots of assumption here. First, that we will only be training on text data, if we take into considerations all the videos and audios shared I am quite sure we would have one or two orders of magnitude more of data. Second, that it even matter, there has been some early research showing that training on the right data improves prediction more than training on more data (which intuitively makes sense, training on papers and book is much more useful than training on youtube comments). Additionally, lots of the improvement in quality are because of RLHF, which is basically manual human labeling. And last, my guess is that improvements in architecture are what will unlock the next level of performance, not just scaling.
The first wave of iPhone development was done by solo developers. This seeded the market with apps and created the ecosystem. Then the larger more expensive apps moved in to harvest all those sweet customers.
> You might be surprised how many people absolutely hate using apps, and do not want to interact with a business through a mobile phone. Older folks especially

Yep, but not because I'm older but because:

1. I do not want McDonald's (or anyone else) to link my orders together. It's none of their business.

2. App fatigue. I don't even eat at McDs, but I don't want an app for every grocery chain i buy from either.

3. Any app, even if not "AI" based, is going to fail in more annoying ways than a human.
> Reference? Link, even?

Sure, here's definition for "brute force" from university textbook material written by pllk, who has taught algorithms for 20 years and holds a 2400 rating on Codeforces:

https://tira.mooc.fi/kevat-2024/osa9/

"Yleispätevä tapa ratkaista hakuongelmia on toteuttaa raakaan voimaan (brute force) perustuva haku, joka käy läpi kaikki ratkaisut yksi kerrallaan."

edit:

Here's an English language book written by the same author, though the English source does not precisely define the term:

https://cses.fi/book/book.pdf

In chapter 5:

"Complete search is a general method that can be used to solve almost any algorithm problem. The idea is to generate all possible solutions to the problem using brute force ..."

And a bit further down chapter 5:

"We can often optimize backtracking by pruning the search tree. The idea is to add ”intelligence” to the algorithm so that it will notice as soon as possible if a partial solution cannot be extended to a complete solution. Such optimizations can have a tremendous effect on the efficiency of the search."

Your mistake is that you for some reason believe that any search over solution space is a brute force solution. But there are many ways to search over a solution space. A "dumb search" over solution space is generally considered to be brute force, whereas a "smart search" is generally not considered to be brute force.

Here's the Codeforces profile of the author: https://codeforces.com/profile/pllk

edit 2:

Ok now I think I understand what causes your confusion. When an author writes "One way to speed up a brute-force algorithm ..." you think that the algorithm can still be called "brute force" after whatever optimizations were applied. No. That's not what that text means. This is like saying "One way to make a gray car more colorful is by painting it red". Is it still a gray car after it has been painted red? No it is not.
Who says anything about reversal? It's not using the latest and greatest tech, but some kind of minimum required to do the job of delivering those articles to a wide audience.