skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>We write our stuff down in volatile memory and mostly live on coasts that are going to be awfully wet in the next thousand years.

There are over 3,000 towns with a population over 10,000 people in the US. Any random Middle school or Highschool library in those towns would be more than enough to give a future society an excellent grasp of modern science and engineering. There are also over 3,000 colleges in the US, whose libraries would expect to give advanced understanding.

Just because we now have unfathomably more information digitally than Sumerians ever had doesn’t mean we also don’t have unfathomably more information printed as well. If one set of encyclopedias in one grandma’s basement is found, that is more condensed knowledge than was produced by thousands of years of early societies.
There is the Foldimate robot. I don't know how well it works. It doesn't seem to pair up socks.
(Deleted the web link, it might not be legitimate.)
The new capabilities of LLMs, and generally large foundation models, expands the range of what a computer program can do. Naturally, we will need to build all of those things with code. Which will be done by a combo of people with product ideas, engineers, and LLMs. There will be then specialization and competition on each new use-case. eg., who builds the best AI doctor etc.,.
Thats improv, not standup; granted, one must be agile either way.
Most ordinary objects have the property that the density of object mass has a very sharp gradient near some 2d surface that encloses a compact domain, and outside that is close to 0. However not identically 0, since eg the object is constantly releasing vapor of atoms of itself. If you zoom out enough out out of anything it looks like that, depending on how sharp you wish the gradient to be to call it a "surface".

For objects where the gradient at the boundary is not great relative to our size we would subjectively experience no surface when coming close eg to a cloud.

Does a galaxy have a "surface"? We can often also "clearly see" the edge of it...
in my experience corporate appathy in large companies is a near infinite resource but im probably still to optimistic.

it reminds me of a mysterious building no one knew the origin or purpose of. someone filled a form for poor cleaning then the message bounced around between a dozen cleaning companies who didn't have a contact for it. after decades a cleaning company filled a form because it didn't have a number and wasn't on the drawings.
> That's like saying, when I choose to watch a movie at the theaters, I am in fact allowing a corporate entity to dictate what I watch for the next two hours.

You absolutely are. That's the entire point of trailers.

EDIT: my reading comprehension is poor. Yes, you have to opt in to watching the movies and in this sense you're 100% correct that corporate money isn't dictating what you watch. I think it's a little different in that it's much easier to miss out on music whereas movies can spend more on advertising than they do on production.

I'm not saying this is even avoidable, either. It's just super depressing.
> Who's to say a quasar isn't just a lovely time clock for signals encoded in the noise

Apart from a) quasars are broad-spectrum, not narrow frequencies (at least I assume that is the case), and b) the power required is too large for a civilization to realistically be able to generate. Not to mention that all that power is overkill for intragalactic communication.

But it’s a good sci-fi idea!
Or the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode The Game [0]. Every time I watch that I get this eerie sensation that we're essentially giving our free will up to the masters of the games and social platforms we're addicted to.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_%28Star_Trek:_The_Nex...
The last time I was in Frankfurt was maybe 20 years ago. I suppose things have declined quite a bit since then.
Very cool! I've been playing around with exporting my twitter archive & visualizing it/finding semantic clusters/changes in my beliefs over time etc. There's a couple initiatives of people making their personal data publicly accessible/building tools on top of it:

[1] https://www.community-archive.org/
[2] https://www.openhumans.org/
> the only way you can be sure of what you're ordering from Amazon is to be looking at the site

Ah . . . an optimist!
The presumption that law has pre-empted us from understanding it, is completely preposterous; Y'all should just admit that your mental capacity is beneath us glorious lawmakers! (yea no they're dumb as nails)
The unsaid, "quiet part" about batteries is that they're a fire hazard. No matter how "safe" they are branded as, the failure mode is disastrous and life-threatening when they do fail. It's insane that those things are being sold and installed in homes at all. But then again this is in a country where installing solar power inverters in the attic of wooden houses was also a thing (no surprises as to what the outcome of a failure would be).

Proper solution is to pool them in a dedicated buildings so you still get the benefit of locality at the neighborhood level while containing the consequences of a failure and limiting them to property damage (vs potential loss of life), but that would use up land that can otherwise be used as a way to (literally) seek rent, so it cannot happen.
My favorite backfired backronym is definitely the CAN-SPAM act [1].

I get that it's a play on "canning something", but as a strong believer in nominative determinism, it comes as no surprise to me that companies in fact still can spam me.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003
Yup. I really liked that feature, but hey who cares about user preferences. the only thing that matter is engagement metrics. it's not like there's any real competition to YouTube you can run to. and the hunt for ad-blockers is getting fiercer.

my workaround to getting different topics separated have been to have multiple YouTube channels inside a single account, each with separate likes/sub channels/recommendations etc. one per Firefox container.
I've spent a lot of time in the US South (Georgia and Tennessee) and cannot say I heard people every using "y'all" in the singular.
100k out of 200 million (US)? Out of 5 billion (worldwide)?

The flu makes us lose five "generational cohorts" every year, then.
Super human isn't beating rando mech turk.

Their post has stem grad at nearly 100%
On the contrary, the pushback is critical because many employers are buying the hype from AI companies that AGI is imminent, that LLMs can replace professional humans, and that computers are about to eliminate all work (except VCs and CEOs apparently).

Every person that believes that LLMs are near sentient or actually do a good job at reasoning is one more person handing over their responsibilities to a zero-accountability highly flawed robot. We've already seen LLMs generate bad legal documents, bad academic papers, and extremely bad code. Similar technology is making bad decisions about who to arrest, who to give loans to, who to hire, who to bomb, and who to refuse heart surgery for. Overconfident humans employing this tech for these purposes have been bamboozled by the lies from OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, et al. It's crucial to call out overstatement and overhype about this tech wherever it crops up.
I think that's a function of the effort, expertise, and intent. I don't think it changes the genre. Smooth, big band, blues, etc - it's all still jazz.

A low effort watercolor by an amateur is still (an attempt at) art and remains a watercolor even if no one appreciates it.
We are slowly discovering that many of our wonderful inventions from 60-80-100 years ago have serious side effects.

Plastics, cars, planes, etc.

One could say that a balanced situation, where vested interests are put back in the box (close to impossible since it would mean fighting trillions of dollars), would mean that for example all 3 in the list above are used a lot less than we use them now, for example. And only used where truly appropriate.
I’m one of those people you describe, but never tried applying for dev jobs because of the very thing you’re describing about your colleagues.

This gives me hope that there are non-bright developers and I should just apply :]
I'm not a KSP pro, but I have tried and tried to fly into the sun and have yet to succeed. Even if I do my best to lose as much of the planet's orbital velocity as I can until I'm out of fuel, and I begin to fall towards the sun.... I still always miss and then just go into an elongated elliptical orbit. It's really hard.
That cost is for o3 low, o3 high goes into thousands per task.
> Some do, and that's fine too.

And those should learn something from Syd Barret's life

Could had been a millionaire rock star, women, expensive toys, children. He could had everything for the rest of his life. But he choose LSD. As a lot of people claim, LSD is a cool and harmless funny drug, right?.

His life instead was: living in his mum house since 24 Yo, with his brain like a car crash, and all the time in the world to think on his boy room about how he managed to mess up his life so badly.

So thanks, but no way.
I find myself hoping between o1 and Sonnet pretty frequently these days, and my personal observation is that the quality of output from o1 scales more directly to the quality of the prompting you're giving it.

In a way it almost feels like it's become too good at following instructions and simply just takes your direction more literally. It doesn't seem to take the initiative of going the extra mile of filling in the blanks from your lazy input (note: many would see this as a good thing). Claude on the other hand feels more intuitive in discerning intent from a lazy prompt, which I may be prone to offering it at times when I'm simply trying out ideas.

However, if I take the time to write up a well thought out prompt detailing my expectations, I find I much prefer the code o1 creates. It's smarter in its approach, offers clever ideas I wouldn't have thought of, and generally cleaner.

Or put another way, I can give Sonnet a lazy or detailed prompt and get a good result, while o1 will give me an excellent result with a well thought out prompt.

What this boils down to is I find myself using Sonnet while brainstorming ideas, or when I simply don't know how I want to approach a problem. I can pitch it a feature idea the same way a product owner might pitch an idea to an engineer, and then iterate through sensible and intuitive ways of looking at the problem. Once I get a handle on how I'd like to implement a solution, I type up a spec and hand it off to o1 to crank out the code I'd intend to implement.
> If AI takes over white collar work that's still half of the world's labor needs untouched.

I am continually baffled that people here throw this argument out and can't imagine the second-order effects. If white collar work is automated by AGI, all the RnD to solve robotics beyond imagination will happen in a flash. The top AI labs, the people smartest enough to make this technology, all are focusing on automating AGI Researchers and from there follows everything, obviously.
You should read about workers right in the gilded age, and see how good laissez-faire capitalism was. What do you think will happen when the only thing you can trade with the trillionaires, your labor, becomes worthless?
I mean considering the big breaththrough this year for o1/o3 seems to have been "models having internal thoughts might help reasoning", seems to everyone outside of the AI field was sort of a "duh" moment.

I'd hope we see more internal optimizations and improvements to the models. The idea that the big breakthrough being "don't spit out the first thought that pops into your head" seems obvious to everyone outside of the field, but guess what turns out it was a big improvement when the devs decided to add it.
The fact that there is a debate as to whether the Gaza actions constitute genocide does not in itself prove that they do or don't.
I believe Mozilla's funding comes from the search team at Google, not the browser team. (It's nominally compensation for including Google as the default search engine.) If anything, I'd be more concerned about Chrome, since it might be difficult for Google Search to fund Google Chrome to its current levels without raising arm's-length concerns (i.e. "is this a bona fide payment for services rendered?").
Can confirm, this works fabulously!
> verified easy for humans, harder for AI

Isn’t that the premise behind the CAPTCHA?
This. It is a rare and unique thing for the author to a) have the skills to put together such a presentation and b) take the time to do so. Thankyou.
I've never owned a C64 or played Elite, but the dedication shown to your hobby is inspiring, thanks for the effort, it's very cool.
> It pays to have empathy and just get on with it. People can be smart in their own ways

This x 10000.

When I started at a large Telco in 2015 people would print an email they had just sent me, walk over to my desk and say "Did you see this email I sent you?"

These people were ecstatic when the new phone book came out each year, and shocked when I declined to have one on my desk.

The company was pushing hard to install a fax line in every home and office (in 2018!), because of huge government subsidies, and so these people were toeing that line and were all about it.

All of that aside, they knew the ins and outs of the business better than anyone, and could explain why things were done the way they were done going back 30 years. Their knowledge and expertise was irreplaceable. Also they were extremely kind, friendly, thoughtful people. And that really matters when you're spending 40+ hours a week in an office.
For true AGI (whatever that means, lets say fully replicates human abilities), discussing "developers" only is a drop in the bucket compared to all knowledge work jobs which will be displaced.
While all of these should be done (well not the one-state solution, but nobody really considering it anyway), how do you think it will stop the terrorist attacks?
It is silly, the logic is the same: "Only a (world-altering) 'AGI' could do [test]" -> test is passed -> no (world-altering) 'AGI' -> conclude that [test] is not a sufficient test for (world-altering) 'AGI' -> chase new benchmark.

If you want to play games about how to define AGI go ahead. People have been claiming for years that we've already reached AGI and with every improvement they have to bizarrely claim anew that now we've really achieved AGI. But after a few months people realize it still doesn't do what you would expect of an AGI and so you chase some new benchmark ("just one more eval").

The fact is that there really hasn't been the type of world-altering impact that people generally associate with AGI and no reason to expect one.
I play piano as a hobby, and the funny thing is, if my hands are so cold that I can't zip up my jacket, there's no way I can play anything well. I know it's not quite zipping up jackets ;) but a human playing the piano does require a fast feedback loop.
At my first job, one of my responsibilities was to write the product manuals. My boss would set a timer next to me and instruct me to ctrl-S every time it went off.

Corrective action from having lost work too many times :-)
Took a bit of poking to figure out what the use case is. Doesn't seem to be mentioned in the README (usage section is empty) or the intro above. Looks like the main use case is speech-to-speech. Which makes sense since we're talking about embedded products, and text-to-speech (for example) wouldn't usually be relevant (because most embedded products don't have a keyboard interface). Congrats on the launch! Cool to see WebRTC applied to embedded space. Streaming speech-to-speech with WebRTC could make a lot of sense.
Wa-automate-Node.js: Node.js library for a high-level API to control WhatsApp
Addendum, CLU, Modula-3 and C++ checked exceptions, before Java got the blame.
The way people choose to define and classify is theirs and nobody else. They may be wrong, but they still do it and have the right to do so and to express it in respect the local laws.

In my previous job someone new asked me about my diet. I responded vegan and another colleague exclaimed : YOU’RE NOT VEGAN YOU GOT PETS!! (Two rabbits in whole garden free range with their own-dug-house). I’m not sure if he was right about the definition but fore sure that was correlated: my garden _is_ a (big) cage/prison/limit. However the way he said it triggered my defence mode[0] and it took me months to process the message.

Consider also cobalt associated with slavery. From the view of biologist and most vegans, humans are animals and then cobalt consumption problematic (it’s used in many tech, not just smartphones).

I also occasionally wash my hand in public places with probably animal sourced soap and yes it’s for convenience as for cobalt and my pets.

_Anyone_ allow themselves to slightly bend their ethics to not becoming mad. From the "only-good-meat" eater that don’t restrain for the (probably industrial) delicatessen slice during a wedding cocktail. To the vegan that use electronic devices or feed his cat with animal products.

I’m a rational guy and hate seing those irrational behaviors everywhere including myself, but pointing others wrongness is often inefficient to pass a message, if not counter productive.

[0] Here’s a masterpiece if you don’t know it yet: https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/conflict/media/gibb-defensive...

All those assertions said lol, I’m quite bad at communicating and the best behavior I found is to never ever engage myself a conversation about veganism or ethics, I just wait for questions and respond with neutral and concise terms. Often the interlocutor gets curious and ask more details and I believe there’s more chance he update his opinion by himself than me teaching him.
This is probably above your paygrade, and definitely outside of your role as an IC.

In this case, I'd suggest accepting that it's just your job as a relatively senior engineer to coach more junior people, even if it's the wrong thing for the company and its customers in the long term. And in this case, it's just your job to decompose work in extremely fine detail. But make sure you're rewarded for it.

It's your manager's job to decide whether this effort is worth it, or whether to cut the other person loose.

Talk about this stuff in your performance review and in 1:1s with your manager. Don't be a dick about it, and don't put others down. But talk about how you lead the team, how you do a lot of design work and work breakdowns. And how you also write a lot of code.

If you don't get rewarded for it, be open about that. Ask for the space to focus on technical work. And if that still doesn't work, find another job.

The people who are "transverse" are a bit trickier to deal with. If you're in a large enough company, you might have the ability to move around a bit (but it might require a bit of agitating). It's not easy, but try to position yourself away from these "experienced PMs".
You'd be surprised what the AVERAGE human fails to do that you think is easy, my mom can't fucking send an email without downloading a virus, i have a coworker that believes beyond a shadow of a doubt the world is flat.

The Average human is a lot dumber than people on hackernews and reddit seem to realize, shit the people on mturk are likely smarter than the AVERAGE person
how they changed or invalidated my password.

Probably just too many invalid login attempts.
I don't know why people always feel the need to gender these things. Highly educated female scientists generally find the same things challenging.
Italy fines OpenAI €15M after ChatGPT data privacy probe
For what it's worth, I'm much more impressed with the frontier math score.
Inefficiency can create a moat. If you can charge a lot for your product, you have ample cash for advertising, marketing, and lobbying, and can come out with many product variants. If you're the lowest cost producer, you don't have the margins to do that.

The current US auto industry is an example of that strategy.
So is the current iPhone.
It's not attestation per se that got me to move away from Apple. More the lock-in in general when it comes to Apple. And the opinionated design (use it as-is, few configuration options).

Every release macOS got more closed and removing features I cared about. At the same time introducing stuff that only works if you're all-in on Apple. Half the new features of every release didn't apply to me because I use so many different systems. I use every OS under the sun. So that didn't work for me. Because all Apple's cloud stuff works on Apple alone (with a handful of exceptions on windows).

The lock-in of passkeys was just one of the things that bothered me. Not really the attestation per se, I'm aware it doesn't currently have it though I wouldn't be surprised if they introduce it if passkeys actually take off.

But like I said, Apple does have hardware control over other features. They do have a secure element which is just like a TPM which blocks you from changing certain files on the system and if you disable system integrity protection they turn off some of the features of the OS, like the ability to use iOS apps on macOS. It's basically DRM. That was the other thing that bothered me. For example, I used to simply boot into recovery and make a 'dd' image of my laptop. I can't do that anymore on an Apple Silicon mac. I used to change my sshd_config to block password auth but since SIP the file got reverted back with every system updated and dumped on the desktop in a passive-agressive move. I just don't want Apple to have more control over my system than me.

This was really what got me to hate macOS, it's just not fit for purpose for me anymore. I have never liked opinionated design but in the beginning of macOS X my opinion was much more aligned with that of its developers.
Middle manager types are probably interested in their salary performance more than anything. "Real" management (more of their assets come from their ownership of the company than a salary) will override them if it's truthfully the best performing operating model for the company.
it's not hallucination, it's high fashion
We are certainly getting close! In 2010, watching PR2 fold some unseen towels is similar to watching paint dry [1], but we can now enjoy robots attain lazy student-level laundry folding in real-time, as demonstrated by π₀[2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo

[2] https://www.physicalintelligence.company/blog/pi0
Not in the same way as alcohol, weed or cigarettes. Not even close.
switch to a workplace that has higher standards. obviously that can't be done overnight, so in the interim, make sure to CYA (cover your a**) against the transgressions of the incompetent, including being as honest as you need to be in reviews. if assigned a stupid task, maybe try to divert it to one these stupid persons, or do it as quickly and lazily as possible (CYA).
And then you'd wonder if things like the bombing of Dresden count as genocide.

Yup, that's exactly what it was. A "mini" one, granted, perhaps 5 percent (if we count all the other terror bombings conducted by the Allies - Dresden was but one of many) the size of the vastly larger genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. But there's little point in arguing that that's what the deliberate targetting of civilian populations in Germany (both during and after the war, considering the mass expulsions that followed) did not effectively amount to a "mini" genocide, nonetheless.

And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide.

No, pointing out this fairly obvious fact does not, by any stretch, imply that "all war" is genocide.

Only the large-scale, deliberate targeting of civilian populations "with intent to destroy [them] as a group, in whole or in part", per the definition above.

That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content.

That's a valid point, and indeed the article should probably be flagged on that basis.