skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Someone asked if true intelligence requires a foundation of prior knowledge. This is the way I think about it.

I = E / K

where I is the intelligence of the system, E is the effectiveness of the system, and K is the prior knowledge.

For example, a math problem is given to two students, each solving the problem with the same effectiveness (both get the correct answer in the same amount of time). However, student A happens to have more prior knowledge of math than student B. In this case, the intelligence of B is greater than the intelligence of A, even though they have the same effectiveness. B was able to "figure out" the math, without using any of the "tricks" that A already knew.

Now back to the question of whether or not prior knowledge is required. As K approaches 0, intelligence approaches infinity. But when K=0, intelligence is undefined. Tada! I think that answers the question.

Most LLM benchmarks simply measure effectiveness, not intelligence. I conceptualize LLMs as a person with a photographic memory and a low IQ of 85, who was given 100 billion years to learn everything humans have ever created.

IK = E

low intelligence * vast knowledge = reasonable effectiveness
Third: Spotify has been involved again and again in various outright criminal enterprises like money laundering. Organized crime is rising strongly in Sweden, we don't need Spotify to back them.
LLMs are probabilistic string blenders pulling pieces up from their training set, which unfortunately comes from us, humans.

The superset of the LLM knowledge pool is human knowledge. They can't go beyond the boundaries of their training set.

I'll not go into how humans have other processes which can alter their and collective human knowledge, but the rabbit hole starts with "emotions, opposable thumbs, language, communication and other senses".
"these almost identical tracks were attributed to different artists and composers" doesn't sound like real musicians making real music to me.

And honestly I don't want anyone making cheaper music directly for spotify. I want an even playing field where everyone gets the same rates. (But preferably with a way to kick out spammers.)
Maybe I am old, but I am surprised people use Spotify any other way.

I think I never even clicked on anything on the app front page. I only ever go to library or playlist tab.
There are two types of "group buy". The one that you illustrated, but also one not only focused on saving bucks but also helping small, independent makers/producers to sell their usually more sustainable or more private product (which is also usually more expensive due to the lack of economies of scale).
I remember pulling some YouTube video from the browser's cache, it being there as a complete file and just needing to be renamed. I suspect that was Flash though.
I bet they're pushing towards "slop" because they don't want to pay that much to the record label parasites which have been extorting a lot of money out of them.

And I think that's the core of the "problem" here - one group of rentseekers being angry at another because they don't get enough of their cut.
Can anyone recommend a book or other resource for a lay person to understand this?
EBS Volume Usage Exporter
If I believe insurance is well-priced, the cost ought to be pretty close to the value it’s providing me, maybe cheaper if the insurance industry has some advantage like good rate of return or higher if they are uncompetitive. That makes me indifferent to whether I have insurance in a lot of areas. Therefore, I’m not spending a lot of time purchasing insurance. Nothing against the industry.

Given I’m unable to produce the probabilities necessary to compute the Kelly criterion, I can’t use that to make the decision. Instead, I have to use dumb heuristics like “I need liability insurance to get rid of my risk of ruin” or “I can easily afford to replace my car, but my passion is parking underneath dead trees during storms, so I should pay for comprehensive coverage.”

In either case I have no idea how to compute the probabilities, but I’m still pretty sure I made the right decision.
> yeah, they're available by search if you know what to look for; that's the same as asking the store employee if they carry X, as opposed to seeing it as you browse the aisle

Most people aren't browsing Spotify as if they were browsing the store. They're browsing the promotional magazine of the store - and that one is very selective indeed, focusing on what the store wants to promote at any given moment. Which is OK, too - promotional magazine is where the best deals are anyway.

The problem is people confusing promotion with discovery. Advertising and promotional materials are stupid way of doing discovery. They're literally meant to do the opposite of giving you a broad and clear picture of things.

(It's the same thing like if you browse for stuff on Amazon and think you're doing discovery. You're not, you're just setting yourself up for wasting money.)
Seems like an over-long LinkedIn post.

So, can I conclude that unsuccessful people start when or after they feel ready? Or never start at all? Or that unsuccessful people also start before they feel ready but don’t get lucky like Branson? From a sample of one outlier, and a story told in a way to arrive at a preconceived thesis, can I learn anything?

“Successful” doesn’t describe a property of a person. It describes an attempt to do something that succeeds and maybe pays off in ways not originally imagined. Branson certainly shows qualities like daring and savvy. He also has some failures in his history that he takes in stride, an admirable trait. But this single example of someone who tried hard and got lucky doesn’t give me any insights that will let me achieve the same success.
YouTube wants you to pay for rubbish quality uploads by their users. You want to listen to an album and put on the playlist, track 3 was a single so you get a mono recording of the rock video complete with theatrical dialog that makes no sense to listen to when you want to listen and not watch. Is that playlist actually the list for the album? Maybe not but even if it is, how many tracks are missing because of copyright claims or similar?

YouTube does nothing but rely on the crowd for quality and it’s rubbish.

But sure, I’m sympathetic when they ask me to pay for “premium” - I’m sure it’s a premium rate.
Develop Effective E-Commerce Strategies with Web Data Extraction
The US often does unlawful things.
They have two sets, a fully private one where the models run isolated and the semi-private one where they run models accessed over the internet.
The Christmas story of one tube station's 'Mind the Gap' voice (2019)
Sure. Both Spotify and the Music Industry are just trying to maximize their profits.

The term “slop” is deliberate—music that sounds bad. Now, if Spotify manages to make music that is better than the music that they can get from the Music Industry? Good for them. I’m a music listener. I just want good music.
Hum, If we hypothesize that drugs abuse could be ruled in part by genetics (some people are more prone to became addict than other), then the drug epidemics from 70's, 80's and 90's should had pruned a lot of this genes from the population.

The current teen not doing drugs are mostly the sons of the former teen not being killed by drugs on its 20's (because they didn't do drugs, or were able to quit drugs before it was too late).

I wonder if an effect of the Fentanyl epidemic could be traced in the genetic makeup of the future USA population, when the children of all the young that died (obviously) never appear in the population pyramid.
This sounds like a sensible advice too. I never tried it myself though.
So article seriously and scientifically states:

"Our programs compilation (AI) gave 90% of correct answers in test 1. We expect that in test 2 quality of answers will degenerate to below random monkey pushing buttons levels. Now more money is needed to prove we hit blind alley."

Hurray ! Put limited version of that on everybody phones !
Outrage as Elon Musk claims 'only AfD can save Germany'
This is not replacing artists with ai which is what is being discussed.

Spotify replaced artists with ai, they have no need to pay labels to do it.
Yeah that's what's wild about it. Those prices are so high despite the fact that Brits use so much gas
They do have different prices, too. And the supermarkets try to nudge people to buy the higher priced variants for greater revenue.

The underlying problem that makes it tempting to promote cheap music is the flat rate.
Close Reading Archive
I love a good database of very specific turns of phrase.

Hat-tip to my English professor (from 2 decades ago!), Scott Newstok, for launching this. IIRC, his undergraduate degree was in Mathematics—I’m sure he’d have made as fine a CS prof as English.
Good cop-out, don't actually address OP's argument and just attack their character.
Is Bandcamp evil now then?
I like the notion, implied in the article, that AGI won't be verified by any single benchmark, but by our collective inability to come up with benchmarks that defeat some eventual AI system. This matches the cat-and-mouse game we've been seeing for a while, where benchmarks have to constantly adapt to better models.

I guess you can say the same thing for the Turing Test. Simple chat bots beat it ages ago in specific settings, but the bar is much higher now that the average person is familiar with their limitations.

If/once we have an AGI, it will probably take weeks to months to really convince ourselves that it is one.
Disclosure aside, would you say their own brand doesn't influence the original brand at all? It still hurts them
> The brain is predisposed to learn those skills.

Learning to walk doesn't seem to be particularly easy, having observed the process with my own children. No easier than riding a bike or skating, for which our brains are probably not 'predisposed'.
UK Gov Open Consultation: Copyright and Artificial Intelligence
The alarming thing in this little sub thread is that I am not wholly certain that none of you are joking. That is where we are now.
> if we asked an LLM to produce an image of a "human woman photorealistic" it produces result

Large language models don't do that. You'd want an image model.

Or did you mean "multi-model AI system" rather than "LLM"?
Can something like `C2Rust` then use this to generate formally correct code?

Also, is much of the authors did manual or was it run through something to produce the Rust code? If so, where is the code that generates Rust, I do not see any links to any source repos.
How does https://github.com/microsoft/markitdown compare to pandoc?

Ah, now I see it's all in https://github.com/microsoft/markitdown/blob/main/src/markit... – beautifulsoup for htmlish stuff, pdfminer for pdf's, docx via mammoth. (And compared to pandoc, it only outputs markdown and has way fewer options.)

On a similar note, pandoc now can run completely browser-side, very bare-bones demo at https://tweag.github.io/pandoc-wasm/ (try -f html -t markdown and type in some html)
"that doesn't seem like a security problem when out of date"

When spotify has access to your filesystem and the spotify app would get hacked and owned by another party due to an unfixed security hole, your filesystem still would get owned. (or are all android apps really sandboxed nowdays? I doubt it)
The next logical step after AI-slop music from Spotify would be for device manufacturers to cut out one more middleman, and provide their own locally-generated on-device AI-slop music as a feature of their devices.
Literally Amazon marketplace.
How’s that not true for just about any country?
What is formally verified C? Why isn't there more of it?
If you never click on anything of a front page, that's a good tell that you are exactly not the average user.
It’s just absolutely dreadful. Using it on desktop is a laggy mess. I mean this quite literally what do the 10,000 people do?
As I'm sure you must know, Hamas are not Jihadists. Though even if they were, it would not justify US-backed Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people.
From what I understand, although methanol is usually present in small amounts when fermenting things, even when distilling you never really concentrate enough of it to be a problem unless you are specifically trying to produce and distill methanol. That doesn't mean they are good spirits, just not deadly. The idea that moonshine might accidentally be methanol and kill you is just prohibition propaganda to shift alcohol deaths away from the government purposefully tainting alcohols to prevent/punish people from drinking it and onto the illegal bootleggers who were providing safe drinking spirits. Methanol is always a purposefully added substance at some point if it is anywhere near poisonous levels. To produce it you don't ferment anything first, you just heat up wood until it decomposes from heat and distill off the oils and alcohols and tars that come off like how they break down coal into gases and oils. But for non-consumption purposes adding methanol to ethanol may have desirable benefits for the application, and isn't just there to poison people to prevent consumption. Sometimes it might just be cheaper than regular ethanol if you are just going to burn it.
People like to listen to the music of their youth, record labels would still be needed for many decades to come to provide a comprehensive streaming catalog.

Any service without the biggest music acts of ~1970 to 2020 isn’t going to go far.
TL;DR: If fentanyl could be evenly dispersed in cocaine at a tiny percentage of the weight, there’s a theoretical reason for a dealer to add it. However, it’s likely rare and more often accidental.

I agree with kstrauser—most cases of fentanyl in cocaine are likely due to contamination from preparing multiple drugs in the same space. Accidental fentanyl poisonings usually involve people using other downers, like heroin or counterfeit benzos, rather than cocaine.

That said, there’s a theoretical motive for intentionally adding fentanyl to cocaine. While cocaine is highly mentally addictive, it doesn’t cause the same physical dependence as opiates. A low, undetectable dose of fentanyl could enhance the high and subtly increase physical dependence, potentially leading to more frequent use. It’s an unethical but plausible strategy for some dealers.

Regarding cost, fentanyl is cheaper than it might seem. While per-gram prices for cocaine and fentanyl are similar, fentanyl’s potency makes it far more economical in effective doses. A gram of fentanyl can be diluted across hundreds of grams of cocaine, making it cost-effective for someone aiming to enhance or manipulate their product.

The real challenges are:
1. Mixing: Distributing fentanyl evenly in cocaine is extremely difficult without specialized equipment. Uneven mixing could make some doses dangerously potent.
2. User safety: Even tiny, “safe” doses can become deadly when combined with alcohol, benzos, or other opiates, all of which are common among cocaine users.

In short, the risk and complexity of mixing fentanyl properly likely outweigh the benefits for most dealers. But that doesn’t rule out less ethical or less cautious individuals attempting it.

(I first wrote a too-lengthy reply of ~800 words as I'm too sleepy to write well atm, so I got ChatGPT to condense it which got rid of 70% - https://pastebin.com/raw/khm2VFxN )
Of all the options, how did you decide on the most user hostile one?
There should be no difference with usual botnet owner/ransomware gangs and such companies. Management should go to prison for good 20-30 years for that and being extradited worldwide. Considering that ransomware gangs are probably less harmful to the society than guys who hack journalists and politicians, putting their lifes at literal risks, not just their pockets.

There should be no "legal" hacking of someone's devices apart from extraction of data from already convicted people in public court with the right to defend themselves
Yep, I aways liked encyclopedia. Wiki is good too :)

What I would like to have in the future is SO answering-peoples accessible in real time via IRC. They have real answers NOW. They are even pedantic about their stuff !
So buy some hardware from China, like eg banana pi, drop your Linux or bsd router distribution of choice on it.

But yes you’d need to know something about which distribution, ideally listen to someone’s actual experience.

This was the hope that started this thread. It still does work sometimes around here but surely not this time at all.
A printed version of the English Wikipedia, in the style of Britannica would occupy over 3,500 volumes. I think survival in this case is more like clinging on.
I love Wikipedia but I’ve been more and more annoyed at it lately: more spam, more thinly veiled advertising, more political slant. And as always articles turn into a long list of facts and lack a coherent story and writing style.

Going back to EB has been very refreshing: high quality, concise, thought out articles. You can actually read them in one shot and it’s enjoyable.

Of course EB has its problems and I’m afraid that it’s in that spot where it’s still reaping the benefits of a hundred years of serious investment and prestige but is quickly declining in coverage of more recent changes.
No, because the price tells me that the fonts have almost no value. I will never need 5,000 fonts, or even 50 fonts.

Sorry for the harsh reply, but you asked.

You should assure buyers that you have the rights to sell the fonts. And describe the “curation” because who wants to plow through thousands of fonts looking for a few useful instances?

I would pay a lot more — $50 or more — for one or two really good fonts. A $1 grab bag sounds like a waste of time, unlikely to include any quality fonts.
A PI test is quite controversial. Personally, I consider it pseudoscience at best and trash from incompetent MBA managers at worst. At its core, the test tries to force complex human behaviors into predefined categories and doesn't care about nuances or reasons or any temporary influences behind these behaviors. That alone already disqualified this test as anything reliable or scientific.

And then when looking at who is publishing all the "science" behind the PI tests, I mostly found the company that is selling it. That literally made the entire thing worthless in my opinion. If we believe the salemen from big corpo, then sugar is good for your health, cigarette doesn't cause cancer, lead in gas is safe, etc.

And the fact that anyone with a brain can easily manipulate their own answer by not being honest with what they think is the final nail for me. Others said this doesn't happen, but I took a look at the test once and with some self suggestion effort, I could completely change how the test ranked me. So to me, whoever say they need to run this test to evaluate their candidate is an absolute incompetent buffoon to me.
If they are paying musicians to create what is essentially “filler” and using this filler to lower their per song streaming costs, they’re simultaneously denying real artists, producing real music, an opportunity to appear in the stream. For listeners that care, this represents a reduction in the quality of their content, and aligns the platform towards pure profit, as opposed to being an ecosystem where working artists can try and carve out a living.
> o3 fixes the fundamental limitation of the LLM paradigm – the inability to recombine knowledge at test time

I don't understand this mindset. We have all experienced that LLMs can produce words never spoken before. Thus there is recombination of knowledge at play. We might not be satisfied with the depth/complexity of the combination, but there isn't any reason to believe something fundamental is missing. Given more compute and enough recursiveness we should be able to reach any kind of result from the LLM.

The linked article says that LLMs are like a collection of vector programs. It has always been my thinking that computations in vector space are easy to make turing complete if we just have an eigenvector representation figured out.
> climate change is one of the most difficult and worst problems of our time.

Slightly surprised to see this view here.

I can think of half a dozen more serious problems off hand (e.g. population aging, institutional scar tissue, dysgenics, nuclear proliferation, pandemic risks, AI itself) along most axes I can think of (raw $ cost, QALYs, even X-risk).
There are so many “so what?” responses to this that I can’t help wondering what an analogous situation would be for programmers?

Maybe something like “I don’t see the problem with this app being buggy and almost unusable - I just like having nice icons on my HomeScreen. I don’t see anything unethical about this [MEGA-CORP] fixing the market with their own cheap and poor quality programmers - most people don’t care if their apps work anyway”.
Is it really a surprise it gets implemented when all browser development outside of Webkit is financed by Google Ads revenue?
>> I want an even playing field where everyone gets the same rates.

So no freedom for artists that want to market themselves with higher or lower rates? Should the Taylor Swifts of the world not be free to negotiate higher rates? Should not the upstart be able to accept a lower rate in hopes that doing so will get their music more recommended/played by the service?
Walking is indeed a complex skill. Yet some animals walk minutes after birth. Human babies are most likely born premature due to the large brain and related physical constraints.

Young children learn to bike or skate at an older age after they have acquired basic physical skills.

Check out the reference to Core Knowledge above. There are things young infants know or are predisposed to know from birth.
They were bought by Epic Games and then Songtradr. There were layoffs, and the company is not recognizing the union of the employees.

It hasn’t changed yet, it’s still good, but it’s scary for the future.
See also Lustmord, Detritus, Rafael Anton Irisarri, Poppy Ackroyd, Moon Ate the Dark
Perhaps SCXML or Xstate?
The problem is:

Step 1: create a music service and get on-board as many musicians as possible with attractive rates and the promise of a future with big audiences and less intermediaries

Step 2: the business grows because you have many famous/good artists in your catalogue

Step 3: Congrats, you are now the #1 musical service in the world! Many people associate "music streaming" with your brand. You get a lot of "musical normies" as customers in the process.

Step 4: start lowering royalties you give to musicians. They will stay anyway because you are the #1 brand and bring listeners

Step 5: add your own music to places where normies just listen to music, without caring who the hell the author is. So, you have to pay less revenue to the rest of artists, because they are now getting less listenings, even if the royalty per listening stays exactly the same.
Then focus on brokering deals with the zillions of independent artists out there. I worked at Grooveshark (a long time ago), and this was a big part of our strategy, and it showed a lot of potential.
That movie was awesome. I remember the first time I saw the trailer in an actual movie theater. It was mindblowing.

“Have you ever jacked-in, wire-tripped..”

“Santa Claus of the subconscious”

https://youtu.be/8RoOs-S_JVI
I don't think humans ever do that. They research/read and ask other humans.
It weighs half a ton. Getting it to even 10% of the speed of light would take more energy than is produced by the world in a year.
> If so, where is the code that generates Rust, I do not see any links to any source repos.

The paper states that these developments will be released under open source licenses after the review process is completed, i.e. most likely, after the paper is formally published.
> I want an even playing field where everyone gets the same rates.

The owners of Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift’s music are not going to agree to this deal.
Interesting formulation! it captures the intuition of the "smartness" when solving a problem. However, what about asking good questions or proposing conjectures?