skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> democratic governance rather than ownership

yes and no, i’d call the distinction collective ownership. you can sell your shares (by quitting), or you can stay and participate democratically. but you can’t do both, and that protects your say in the company, preventing investors from overruling worker-owners.

> i have no influence

neither do the current workers. the issue isn’t retail investors, but the ones with board seats. if boards only had one seat for an investor, that’d be one thing, but usually workers only get a single seat, if any.

> protect current workers’ democratic governance

you could do this with preferred shares, voting shares, etc. investor shares are non voting, voting shares can only be owned by workers, etc. you still have to counter their concentration though.
lol since I was a kid I called this color “electric”.
One person's problem is another person's hidden joy. Didn't they teach you to not yuck other's yum in primary school? :)
I've never worked for a business paying MSFT millions so I can't comment on that. As a business paying several hundred thousand I had no success getting any help with an issue with Windows Server (July 2021). My organization was willing to spend money but couldn't get anyone at MSFT to take it.
I think the best argument I've ever seen that AI ought to be a public good.
> I don’t actually think intellectual property restrictions are good

We already see huge amounts of LLM generated garbage on the web, as blogspam, regular websites, etc. Amazon is getting flooded with LLM-written books. Chat bots/search engines regurgitate the actually valuable content

If things continue, soon the motivation for generating new content will trend towards zero.
What if it is an orbiting particle accelerator? Edward Teller suggested such a thing in the 1980s. It would explain both the worldwide occurrences and deep penetration into brain matter.
Nothing wrong with sarcasm, obsession with civility is a liberal past time.

I was mildly critiquing the accuracy.
Word on the street is that port 53 tends to stay open. YMMV.
Is anyone doing something in the space for architecture mockups? I was talking with a friend who is an architect and he would love a tool that could iterate designs.
When I wrote my PhD thesis (the closest thing to a book I've ever worked on), I used LyX and I loved it. All the power of LaTeX, with a usable UI. When you're done, just apply the publisher settings and you're out!
Why do you presume that Mongolia would even want to arrest Putin?
I bought a steam deck, I play old sega racers (Daytona, sega rally, outrun 2, scud race) mostly due to only having a few mins of free time a day. Also dedicating large amounts time to games feels really wasteful given how little time I have. (I'm in my forties with two kids)
Definitely possible! The issue is that when I went to my Vimeo settings, I was still on the free trial. No sign of the charge, and I still had the option to turn off auto-renew for the free trial. (Which I did -- it did not reverse the charge).

Also (and I'm guessing you agree with this): When you tell a customer they won't be charged until a certain date, you should probably either (a) know their timezone and adjust the billing date relative to that or (b) know the earliest date that they might get billed in their timezone and quote them that date rather than GMT, or (c) assume they could live anywhere and don't charge them before that date hits in the last possible timezone. Or just don't provide a date at all if you can't get the system to behave predictably.
It's trivial compared to the amount of space in the US and the timelines we're talking about.

Realistically no one is going to build this super hole, it will be 1,000 smaller landfills built over 1,000 years.
Libraries would be illegal without centuries of precedent giving them a “legal inertia”.

Google benefited from the exact same kind of bulk copyrighted data collection. They made verbatim copies of the text of both web sites and just about every book in existence!

This kind of argument seems disingenuous to me. Either ban Internet search or acknowledge that training an AI on copyrighted text is no different than a student reading every book in a public library.

Speaking of which: We all have free access to GPT 4o without advertising. It feels like asking a knowledgeable librarian.
This is in complement to PKI - you still have to divulge what or how you know something with PKI in the examples given.
That hardly constitutes a precise definition

It is precise enough for our purpose: ether is a hypothetical medium for light waves to propagate. Moreover it would need to have no interaction with ordinary matter, or else it would cause planets' orbits to decay.

only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it - Einstein

This is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy wherein one redefines the assertion to deal with specific objections. I hesitate to criticize Einstein, of course, but in this case it's not clear that "ether" minus motion means anything. One can be generous and say he had an intuition about fields, however fields aren't ether, either.
Well shit.
I thought it was an AI to help me find new friends.
Instead, it generates content you can use with people you already know.

Can someone build an AI that actually finds me new friends?
Can you talk more about expat parties? What are they like? How do you find them?
You can hire an artist that did that though
The Basque Country has a GDP (PPP) of 108 [1]. Higher than France (101), as an average, or Italy (97).

I'd say its a well developed region comparable to Northern Italy. Both were badly hit by the Euro. Had they kept their own currencies, they'd be closer to Sweden or Southern Germany.

[1] https://www.eustat.eus/elementos/tbl0012365_i.html
Only for AIs, not for humans.

If humans did what some of the AI video gen tools are doing, they’d get sued.
I think this is good advice. If you're 99% sure you're going to end up paying for the thing, just skip the free trial and start paying.

Lesson learned.
Personally I just go with the scientific method. That means coming up with falsifiable hypotheses and deducing predictions from them logically, then comparing to reality in order to accept and continue, or reject and rethink the approach and situation.

Unfortunately I think most people won’t want to do this, because who wants to draw a target on themselves „he was wrong about that“ and risk job security, because coworkers make themselves look flawless by saying/doing things in a vague rather than falsifiable way.
Far from "we're just getting started":

"Oh, it's just SO complex!" is the battle cry of the academic grifter:

we need MUCH more research! I'm writing my grant application right now.

And by the way, that wasn't a "shallow dismissal." I was carefully saying that this isn't a new idea.
Protecting the Prairie
likewise at a large office building I'm familiar with

it was said that because employees/building tenants contaminate the recycling bins with unrecyclable items including food waste, there was no point to do anything but combine it into the trash

however the recycling bins were kept presumably to keep people from protesting about trashing everything, and the memory of this news quickly faded

the same goes for recycling bins in downtown toronto - they're so contaminated that they go straight to landfill
Please do. I think you'll get more signal, too. If I were worried that I've forgotten something very basic I'm expected to know, you're not going to learn much about me other than that I don't do my best work during interrogations. Tell my I'm not expected to know a thing, and then there's lots of room to talk about it, and I can show you that maybe I'm at least familiar with the ideas even if I've forgotten the particulars.
> In your scenario the cycle will likely repeat no matter how much money is injected into their life,

That's just your conjecture. Monetary help given at the right time can and often does break the cycle. The easiest way for this to happen is by the troubled person getting help from their family or friends. For instance, they may be lent a car and given a place to stay so they can save money without paying rent. Friends or family are in a good position to judge when somebody is serious and ready change their life for the better, or will just continue the cycle. They can and should withhold help until that person is ready.

For a government program to be as effective is dubious because it lacks that effective feedback mechanism. As I said, I don't pretend to know how such a program could be effectively run. I am only responding to the premise that money (or equivalent, such as lent vehicles) can't actually be the missing link that allows people to put their lives back together. People who have access to such support frequently do success, while those who don't usually won't.
>I can't stand corporations with excuseses like this. "But we have too much scale to fix that." "But we need this data to operate." "We can't be responsible at our scale." I say too bad for all of it.

If you read the source article that's a huge mischaracterization of their position.

>“Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens.”

>OpenAI said it complies with all copyright laws when training its models and that “we believe that legally copyright law does not forbid training”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/07/openai-warns...

In other words they're claiming that whatever they're doing abide by all current copyright laws, and don't want future laws to curtail them. They're not asking for retroactive carve-outs for their current illegal behavior.
Adblock is ethically equivalent to theft. This is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned (even if it wasn't deliberate).
> The difference between Mondragon, the kibbutzim, and other successful examples of collective labor, and the Soviet system, is precisely that the former are not governments...

I've heard it put as "Socialism works great, as long as the socialist community gets to decide who is included."
Nope. Don't trust the carvers, given the current state of campaign laws. Thank the SCOTUS for Citizens United.
Any form of hacking products to be more useful is a win in my books! I can see the multi room play being a nice thing on the odd occasion. Perhaps if I had kids and had to move around the house a bunch more or maybe if it operated as a home system that could also do those additional things I may have had a more positive experience with it. But I maintain my original point that hardware tethered to some software service is basically a random financial-enshitification-quarter away from being bricked and that’s a shame for otherwise excellent hardware
Q3 and UT are probably two of the best games ever made. They came at a really special time in games. Goldeneye goes in that list too.
42. 0.ae . 1e
I'm not. I want authors and artists to have some ability to make a living.
Location: Arkansas, USA

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: Teradata, Oracle, MS SQL
(25+ years of database administration experience across these)

Resume/CV: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eHmw2XvXnujfhAGKddqZo_QO...

Email: nathan.gillmore@gmail.com
That's not quite the same. The argument in that case was that Google did that not in order to copy and distribute books, but rather to provide search and indexing of certain words within the text. It was important that it wasn't for the same purpose as the original works. There were also limitations on the amount that would be shown.

In the case of LLM training, it's for the same purpose as the source material -- to generate code, or writing, or photographs, etc. Not only that, but in several instances it's been shown to reproduce source material, which is either derivative work or straight copying, depending.

They're different situations.
Nope. Pay or fuck off.
Your dreams of AI aligment with transnational and corpocryptofacist elements are already dead. Even if you pass laws, they'll be ignored, and you'll lose to those groups who ignore these laws (which is already how the status quo you worship operates anyway). I already know what tech enables this and I'm not telling you. AI alignment fanatics = "im afraid of status quo power structures being disrupted that give me a false sense of safety/financial security". There is no such thing as "we as a species" agreeing on anything. Utopian fantasy mixed with naive megalomania. Your own fantasy world is that there will be some magical agreement to stop technological/evolutionary progress. Fortunately, AI destroys the value of marketing online. And the value of mass gathering data. So all the techbro mass data gathering/social engineering projects inevitably fail. This is of course why you want "alignment". You want to maintain the ability to mass social engineer while the "normal people" as you call them, lack this power. Same old neoliberal crap.

What we will get instead is AI mediated warfare. Actually we are already there, have been there for at least 10 years, and there is nothing you can do to stop that. Other than turning off the internet.
Because lots of AI firms literally pirated books to train their model. See https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2023/07/fruit-of-the-poisonous-llam...

Neither the authors nor publishers received any compensation for having their work ingested. It isn't like OpenAI went to Amazon and bought one copy of every book - they downloaded a torrent.
Privacy-Focused Code Sharing: Onboardbase's Answer to Traditional Pastebins
For those of us who've been wary of sharing sensitive snippets on public pastebins, this could be a game-changer. The tool supports syntax highlighting for multiple languages, allows for easy sharing via unique URLs, and doesn't require registration.
Fair enough. Here it is visualized using Google Earth:

https://x.com/breckyunits/status/1831080588406849585
I did read it. Also, a recent summary of "the world since Jaynes" (forgot the link)

They did say that he had something there. AFAIK they didn't say that he spawned a whole field of research, though.
> but personally I find nothing wrong with someone being unable to use things I've created to make a buck without my permission

There's no legal framework for this rule, and you really don't want one. This is like a math textbook being selectively copyrighted as "you can read this, but you can't use the knowledge to make money". Do you want to live in that world?
Hard for me to not see efforts like this as further proof that Generative AI might be revolutionary and important technology, but that the decentralizable nature of all of it means that no big company is going to make piles of money off of it, because it is so defacto open-source?
Why then?
Your comment made me think of something. Wait, I know!...

These sometimes quite expensive textbooks that we use to train children and students. Those should also be usable without a fee ever paid to the authors or publishers surely, education is clearly a social good!
> I don’t want a world where

You don't want the LLM world? Let's send it back where it came from. Can we unpublish Attention is all You Need?
The "soviet system" as you call, started (yes the revolution) with a slogan "power to the soviets". In the slogan the word "soviet" meant "worker coop".

This slogan was abolished when more central planning took over, and the word soviet become more associated with the central govt/ the state.
Location: Bethesda, MD

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Open to it for the right opportunity

Technologies: Javascript, Python, Node.js, Docker, SQL, Web3, AI/ML

Résumé/CV: [Link to Résumé](https://carlos-a-diez.com/cdn/resume/resume.pdf)

Email: charles.karpati@gmail.com

MS in Information Systems, 9+ years in frontend and full-stack dev. Co-founder of Addy-AI. Looking to build something impactful with a team that values innovation and speed. My website: https://charleskarpati.com
The big question is whether or not a judge(s) will consider a vector space many orders of magnitude smaller than it's training set, and not really containing anything that resembles legible data, to be an archive of copyrighted works.

To me it makes way more sense to just censor outputs. I can draw Batman from memory, but I wouldn't go out an start selling batman drawings. I can easily self censor.

The solution for transformers is plainly obvious, but I can understand the fear of training something that might well displace you.
>As far as I'm aware, Google didn't create new versions of those books based on that content.

It's _copy_right. If reproducing verbatim snippets was "transformative" enough to fall under fair use, I don't see why producing whole new books would not count as "transformative" enough. Copyright is a regime to grant monopoly over a specific work, it's not a regime to prevent competition from others in general.
>The complaint cites several examples when a chatbot provided users with near-verbatim excerpts from Times articles that would otherwise require a paid subscription to view. It asserts that OpenAI and Microsoft placed particular emphasis on the use of Times journalism in training their A.I. programs because of the perceived reliability and accuracy of the material.

>In one example of how A.I. systems use The Times’s material, the suit showed that Browse With Bing, a Microsoft search feature powered by ChatGPT, reproduced almost verbatim results from Wirecutter, The Times’s product review site. The text results from Bing, however, did not link to the Wirecutter article, and they stripped away the referral links in the text that Wirecutter uses to generate commissions from sales based on its recommendations.

>The lawsuit also highlights the potential damage to The Times’s brand through so-called A.I. “hallucinations,” a phenomenon in which chatbots insert false information that is then wrongly attributed to a source. The complaint cites several cases in which Microsoft’s Bing Chat provided incorrect information that was said to have come from The Times, including results for “the 15 most heart-healthy foods,” 12 of which were not mentioned in an article by the paper.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t...

This is a pretty good discussion of some of the other issues:
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/does-chatgpt-violate-new-york-...
CMS with Builtin XSS Mitigation
This. And, commercial or not, what they're creating is fundamentally more important and more valuable for humanity than any of the inputs that go into it.

And, by "they", I don't mean just OpenAI. If it were just them, you could perhaps argue they shouldn't be getting a free pass (I'd rather go with "potentially too dangerous to be allowed to exist" angle though). But it's not just them. The same training process and the same use of copyrighted content powers all the commercial and non-commercial models, including SOTA competitors like Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and "open source" wannabes derived from various Llama versions, which are not far behind.

To me, the "open source" models alone are already good enough to outweigh any copy rights being violated through use of unlicensed materials in training.
I think people generally want to do what they feel is right. The problem lies in 1) the use of propaganda to force blanket solutions to what they pose as the problem and 2) not using evidence-based scientific methods.

for 1) various groups show heart-breaking images of wildlife suffering due to pollution, then work to mobilize the outrage into their solution. for 2), recycling programs should have had metrics, such as lbs of plastic "saved" from the landfill, energy saved from collecting cans, but also the counterpoints such as "tons of CO2 emitted by recycling trucks", and "dollars removed from poor people when local cash-for-cans businesses are shuttered". If the data show they emit more CO2 equivalent than they save, then they should concede that the program has failed. If the program needs a jump-start before it is "ecologically profitable", they should say so and agree to cancel the program if their goals aren't met by X date.
I was looking for something similar as a gift, that's really cool!
Honestly there are a lot of laws that don't really make sense given modern technology. It's one thing to say people have no expectation of privacy when people only have cameras, or even have to purposefully videotape you. It's another to say you will 100% be recorded in HD at all times in public and that data will be sold to any random third party to do whatever with and store forever
What does that mean? They are still being farmed right? Since they are sold for meat and there are no incentives to let them live a long life

Basically they reach maturity and die
Seriously, it's trivial to fry a key and swap it with the working spare if you have access to it
Actually Google's faced this problem before. Caching is generally legal, and Google's just holding a cache to search through instead of requesting every site every time anyone searches.
This. It's very easy to build a new technology like this and realise the benefits to that tech while training it on your data. They knew the ingredient was more data, and without even asking, they just started to consume.

Even if they wanted to move to a profit based company, they could have negotiated deals with data holders like they would with third party software vendors they might need to use.

Instead, they ignored it all and it's the 'what-if' scenario of when open source software was first being introduced. I'm old enough to remember everyone saying "well companies will just take your work and sell it for themselves." This happed a few times, and its been fought out in the court. Infact so has production data like written articles, videos etc, there is a fair-use clause.
I'm not a lawyer, but even I know if the ingredient to your for-profit business ingredient is 'fair-use content' it's not fair use.

I like the idea of AI, I absolutely hate the execution. The race to the top and the mentatlity of 'ask for forgivness' really can't apply here.
Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be bad.
I've heard this story ever since I was a shit-eating Ron Paul voting right-libertarian. The whole "collectivist success requires ethnic purity" argument. I don't buy it. It is, inevitably, either an excuse to destroy functional collective institutions, an excuse to advocate for ethnic cleansing, or both.
I’m not sure, Austin is still pretty expensive.
The importance of "leftist" fascism is overplayed.

"Socialism" back then, much like "Human Rights" today, was generally associated with what is morally right. It was not an ideology of extremist groups. Fascism "evolved" from socialism same as everybody and their mother evolved from it.

And because of its dominance, everybody tried to exploit it, too. So you called your organisation "National Socialist Party" and your heads of propaganda copied the rhetoric.

Also, libertarian socialism was nowhere as developed as in Spanish society at that time. This is not the most surprising society to generate Mondragon.
I'm 100% fine with that. I had one interview where we ended up talking about the best data structures for a visual editor to store text files in-memory. It wasn't related to my day job at all, but I walked away feeling like I'd learned something, and the interviewer got to watch me reason my way through unknown territory to see how I handle such things. That was fun. I have no idea if I got the "right" answer or not, but it was at least defensible, and I stumbled across some ideas that he seemed to find unexpected and interesting. I ended up getting the job.

What made it enjoyable was me knowing that I wasn't expected to know the gory details of how text editor internals work.
Oh.. my best is 170. Thank you for fun before asleep.

I think this is a great result for the first game.