skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The issue is not just scaling compute, but scaling it in a rate that meets the increase in complexity of the problems that are not currently solved. If that is O(n) then what you say probably stands. If that is eg O(n^8) or exponential etc, then there is no hope to actually get good enough scaling by just increasing compute in a normal rate. Then AI technology will still be improving, but improving to a halt, practically stagnating.

o3 will be interesting if it offers indeed a novel technology to handle problem solving, something that is able to learn from few novel examples efficiently and adapt. That's what intelligence actually is. Maybe this is the case. If, on the other hand, it is a smart way to pair CoT within an evaluation loop (as the author hints as possibility) then it is probable that, while this _can_ handle a class of problems that current LLMs cannot, it is not really this kind of learning, meaning that it will not be able to scale to more complex, real world tasks with a problem space that is too large and thus less amenable to such a technique. It is still interesting, because having a good enough evaluator may be very important step, but it would mean that we are not yet there.

We will learn soon enough I suppose.
longevity for the AIs
I'll sound like a total douche bag - but I thought they were incredibly obvious - which I think is the point of them.

What took me longer was figuring out how the question was arranged, i.e. left input, right output, 3 examples each
That's true. My thoughts are that at a more junior/mid-level, many of the problems assigned to engineers are smaller and more well-defined. They also involve a lower depth compared to projects at a senior levels or above. I can imagine these tasks are more along the lines of what O3 or similar AIs will excel at.

I'm interested in where junior/mid-level engineers should target their learnings to adapt to these areas.
Soon enough we'll have the best of both worlds. High taxes, stripped out NHS then American style medical and bankruptcy.

Can't wait for people to moan about it on LBC.
Here's my prices for tomorrow for those who are interested. They publish an API for this too which I have loaded into a spreadsheet for my own entertainment

https://imgur.com/a/Z3yCNow
>Achieving human-level performance in the ARC benchmark, as well as top human performance in GPQA, Codeforce, AIME, and Frontier Math strongly suggests the model can potentially solve any problem at the human level if it possesses essential knowledge about it.

The article notes, "o3 still fails on some very easy tasks". What explains these failures if o3 can solve "any problem" at the human level? Do these failed cases require some essential knowledge that has eluded the massive OpenAI training set?
Some do, and that's fine too.
I really read this title wrong
Physics has obviously had Kuhnian revolutions since Newton, the emergence of relativity and quantum mechanics being two obvious examples.
Researching GitHub Copilot and the nature of work for open source maintainers
Quote from the creators of the AGI-ARC benchmark: "Passing ARC-AGI does not equate achieving AGI, and, as a matter of fact, I don't think o3 is AGI yet. o3 still fails on some very easy tasks, indicating fundamental differences with human intelligence."
Having no Shorts would be a huge plus imho
I really like that they include reference levels for an average STEM grad and an average worker for Mechanical Turk. So for $350k worth of compute you can have slightly better performance than a menial wage worker, but slightly worse performance than a college grad. Right now humans win on value, but AI is catching up.
> Why would anyone value this randomly invented money?

Because they can use it to pay for goods?

Your notion is that almost everyone is going to be out of a job and thus have nothing. Okay, so I'm one of those people and I need this house built. But I'm not making any money because of AI or whatever. Maybe someone else needs someone to drive their aging relative around and they're a good builder.

If
1. neither of those people have jobs or income because of AI
2. AI isn't provisioning services for basically free,

then it makes sense for them to do an exchange of labor - even with AI (if that AI is not providing services to everyone). The original reason for having money and exchanging it still exists.
Why the pop quiz? You’re not my professor, or even my TA. Just say what you mean.
That is the sales pitch, the error rate on the overcharging side is infinitely larger than that of mechanical meters. Not a fun lottery to win.
It depends on how you want to measure your safety when driven in one of these?

Do you want them to beat a drunk driver, or an average, non-impaired human? If you got into a cab and cab driver was obviously drunk, would you ride along or get out asap?

By "letting" them compare to an "average" (skewed by impaired drivers' incidents), we are letting them appear much better than an average, non-impaired driver, whereas they might be, or might not be (numbers clearly suggest they'd still beat them, but not by this much).
I think gaming the benchmarks is encouraged in the ARC AGI context. If you look at the public test cases you'll see they test a ton of pretty abstract concepts - space, colour, basic laws of physics like gravity/magnetism, movement, identity and lots of other stuff (highly recommend exploring them). Getting an AI to do well at all, regardless of whether it was gamed or not, is the whole challenge!
Well it all depends on how hard you want to cheat. If you know nothing about the topic you basically hack the format of the essay.

If you know something you can prompt to insert some errors into logic or different perspective. Effectively making it somewhat your work too

I don't think most common LLMs are deterministic. Especially if you work on the prompt. That is not just ask Write a synopsis of Romeo and Juliet.

Out of curiosity I tried following

> Write a synopsis of Romeo and Juliet
> Rewrite it in style of a teenager, insert some slight grammar errors
> Write in as if teenager was trying to sound formal
> more formal
> make a different take, more edgy and judgemental

I have no idea how one would combat that.

> Maybe we just work with a large collection of output.

yes, But how do you get that large collection from a single student who uses non-default prompts?

Though I wonder, are we not fighting kids using calculators in a math class?
NixOS packaging request if anybody would like to contribute: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/366543
> If someone truly loves their partner, wouldn't they be happy that their partner is getting more of what they need? Even if that is more sex?

I feel like this kind of weird idea is due to a fallacy of replacing the actual human experience of love with a sort of rationalized version that has no boundaries or preferences or anything like that. The answer is... no? yes? if you want to? You can love someone and still care about what they do or don't do, and if it's a healthy relationship they'll respect those boundaries, or compromise if necessary, and you'll be respecting theirs also. It definitely does not mean "everything is permitted", unless that's what your personal boundaries are---which means that's what a relationship is to you.

The optimal form of monogamy is whatever the two people in the relationship want it to be. Sometimes that's 100% seeking the happiness of their partner (I think that's a delusional fantasy though). Sometimes it's two people coexisting and just having each other's back. The whole point is that each person finds a relationship that gets what they need. Not what some idealized version of a person that they aspire to be would need.

And my money's on no, most people do not want a relationship where their partner has sex with whoever they want, because it is also a fallacy that sex is a physical need rather than emotional one. In fact it has a lot to do with emotions, safety, power, compassion, etc, and those are all things that are (often) tied into a relationship, especially as you get older.
Every AI Copyright Lawsuit in the US, Visualized
More like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

Most people are incompetent at what they do. That includes managers at software companies.
Ok, we've downcased the AM above.
I love the dictation (STT) app from the same (FUTO) creator. It has completely replaced any other dictation solutions on my phone & it is fully offline!
The question is: How to become a senior when there is no place to be a junior? Will future SWE need to do the 10k hours as a hobby? Will AI speed up or slow down learning?
Found what I was thinking of [1]

Part of my misremembering is I was thinking of smaller/iot usecase which, alongside the 10GB VRAM requirements for the large multilingual model, felt infeasible -shrug-

[1] https://git.acelerex.com/automation/opcua.ts/-/project_membe...
Ask HN: How do you work with people who are "not quite smart"?
Hey,

This is a touchy subject, and that might be a lack of awareness or empathy from my part. But trust that it comes from a genuine willingness of making things better for everyone.

We all work with people who we find "not as good", have different ways or work ethics. After being told for decades that this is usually a problem with communication or point of view, I had somewhat internalized the idea. And it is often true, but what I've realized as of late, is that there's a category of people who are not just working a different way, but are - to put it bluntly - plainly not smart.

What I'm talking about is people below average when it comes to understanding concepts, or conceptualizing altogether. Their intuition is always twisted and wrong. Completely lack critical feedback. Work needs to be decomposed for them in extremely precise steps if you want anything to happen. The type of person where you know anything assigned to them will be badly done. When you open a document or code written by them, you do it with the anticipation that it's gonna be bad in novel ways. And despite all of your efforts to try and coach them, seem to make no progress (where the same coach/coaching on others works).

And I know there might be other causes for that, maybe something that happens in their life, lack of interest in the task or motivation overall. But I think I can make a clear distinction between someone who doesn't give a crap, and someone who does but is not equipped to achieve the task at hand.

Some of them are direct colleagues whom I can provide feedback about - but then what do you tell them/their manager? "It's very hard to explain you concepts, you should work on conceptualization"?

Some of them are transverse. I don't even know what to do about these people. An "experienced" PM who systematically gives you hot garbage, apart from pointing the lack of research and the absence of evidence-based reasoning, how do you tell someone "what you gave me is plain dumb, and that's not just a difference of opinion in how we should approach this product/feature, it's inconsistent and pure shit"?

I'm not in a management position, I can't "just fire them". Plus I don't want to go and tell them "you're just not equipped for your job you should find another". It's quite disheartening, does anyone have techniques they've used? Am I just missing something?
Have you tried informing YouTube that you are not interested in Joe Rogan? There are several places and ways to do so in the application, and they seem to have worked for me.
Can someone explain what this is? The page has almost no information (on mobile) and I don't want to install just to find out.
There's nothing new about that. That's the whole schtick the populist far right has had forever.

Look up Lyndon LaRouche, or hell Mussolini & Hitler. They start from what seems like legitimate concerns and often from what seems like a pro working class agenda, but ultimately the purpose is more power to the Market and more power to people themselves or people like themselves, and usually there's this huge socially regressive aspect to it especially attacking minorities, huge amounts of anti-Semitism, yada yada yada

Hitler has a whole part of Mein Kampf where he talks about a communist trade union protest and how his explicit goal is to capture that same anti-establishment anger and form of organizing but direct it in the service of the Nation and the Leader. Hence keeping around the "socialist" symbolism in the NAZI name and symbolism long after they murdered any actual "socialists" in the party.
As an aside, I'm a little miffed that the benchmark calls out "AGI" in the name, but then heavily cautions that it's necessary but insufficient for AGI.

> ARC-AGI serves as a critical benchmark for detecting such breakthroughs, highlighting generalization power in a way that saturated or less demanding benchmarks cannot. However, it is important to note that ARC-AGI is not an acid test for AGI
Friday before holidays, Ramp opts-in all customers to automatic renewal
Email notice sent Friday Dec 20, 2024 requiring 30 days notice to cancel. Addendum link also intentionally not hyperlinked in email notice.

—

We are writing to inform you of a change to our subscription terms. To ensure a smooth transition, we have updated our Subscription Addendum (available at https://ramp.com/legal/subscription-addendum) to implement a new process for customers on annual plans to cancel automatic renewal on Ramp subscription plans.

Key changes:
To request cancellation, you must give written notice to your account manager.
Cancellation requests must be submitted at least 30 days before your next renewal date.
The changes above will take effect on December 13, 2024. If you have any questions, please contact your account manager.

Best,
The Ramp Team
ARC has two test sets that are not posted on the Internet. One is kept completely private and never shared. It is used when testing open source models and the models are run locally with no internet access. The other test set is used when testing closed source models that are only available as APIs. So it could be leaked in theory, but it is still not posted on the internet and can't be in any web crawls.

You could argue that the models can get an advantage by looking at the training set which is on the internet. But all of the tasks are unique and generalizing from the training set to the test set is the whole point of the benchmark. So it's not a serious objection.
There’s this https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.05481v9
2012 – The Talented Ms. Hornstein: How Shirls Fooled the Valley
Lawyer for Luigi Mangione says dueling charges 'highly unusual'
It’s in this telegram server:

https://t.me/AabyssTeam/239
I encounter "spicy auto complete" style comments far more often than techbro AI-everything comments and its frankly getting boring.

I've been doing AI things for about 20+ years and llms are wild. We've gone from specialized things being pretty bad as those jobs to general purpose things better at that and everything else. The idea you could make and API call with "is this sarcasm?" and get a better than chance guess is incredible.
Diff is 40 years old: can it be improved?
People here focus on Python, but to me, a bioinformatician, conda is much more, it provides 99.99% of the tools I need. Like bwa, samtools, rsem, salmon, fastqc, R. And many, many obscure tools.
yeah this is a feature not a bug lol
This was true early in the war, but Gaza's health ministry has long since shifted to collecting reports of deaths from "reliable media sources". One source of data is a Google form which they set up in March. There are also reports claiming that GHM has counted natural deaths in their figures, which I don't think GHM has really denied (their releases don't say much about methodology). And of course they include militant deaths.
I tried years ago, I don't think I got it working, ended up using Rhasspy/voice2json instead (TIL: the creator of both is now the Voice Eng Lead for Home Assistant).

Looks like the GitHub is still somewhat active, although their roadmap links to a dead Trello: https://github.com/leon-ai/leon
"Short of a more clever way what GP is saying is the goalposts must keep being moved until it's not so obvious the thing isn't AGI, not that the average human gets a certain score which is worse."

Best way of stating that I've heard.

The Goal Post must keep moving, until we understand enough what is happening.

I usually poo-poo the goal post moving, but this makes sense.
Notably absent from those stats is nitrous oxide, which has had a resurgence in popularity lately.

https://archive.is/wRa3Q
Hard to tell, they are all new now, eventually they will all be old. Then we will know what it really costs.
https://archive.ph/ObYDN
I always thought, thank goodness for video games because without them I would probably be a drunk or something similarly physically harmful. I guess the world is just now catching up :-D
> The existing parking infrastructure is not going away because of self-driving cars. The exact same argument could've been applied to the car sharing programs that already exist.

Why would the existing infrastructure not continue to change? We are redeveloping parking lots today. Car and ride shares did reduce parking needs.

> People that own cars are not going to leave their cars for a robo-taxi, in the same way that they are not getting rid of their cars in favor of a ZipCar membership.

Building codes for parking spaces are constantly changing here and consider transit availability and car ownership. If self-driving vehicles (including expanded public transit) are available that will further reduce the requirements.

Self-driving vehicles (even cars) put downward pressure on parking needs.

> Do you know that picture showing people standing on the street to show the density of the different methods of transportation? What do you think needs a larger parking footprint? I'd guess that even if autonomous cars got to a remarkable 10% idle rate, they would still require more space than buses.

Why are you so obsessed with the car form factor? I don’t see how a robotaxi needs any more parking than a taxi. A self-driving bus needs as much space as a conventional bus today.

> Guess what companies will do when they realize that their customers do not want to wait 10 minutes for their ride to come pick them up at home? That's right, they will get lots of parking spots close to the urban/suburban city centers.

That’s not how busses, taxis or Ubers work. Ubers are not dispatched from a hub on every call. Demand is predicted and capacity is dispatched accordingly. As demand goes up dispatched capacity utilization goes up. More vehicles can be dispatched when demand approaches dispatched capacity.

This problem is the same no matter what form the driver takes. Taxis, ride shares, and busses already do capacity planning. Robot drivers just remove the human driver complexity from the equation.

Robotaxis (like busses and taxis) can use denser parking structures in their depots because they don’t have to deal with the limitations of the public, or even humans.
This looks cool. Sort of a FreeTube with plugins?
Humans can take the test here to see what the questions are like: https://arcprize.org/play
This is a truism
While true, I haven't yet seen an authenticator app that let's you just dump the topt code yet...
The weird thing about the phenomenon you mention is only after the field of software engineering has plateaued 15 years ago, as you mentioned, that this insane demand for engineers did arise, with corresponding insane salaries.

It's a very strange thing I've never understood.
Yeah I agree that wasn't particularly mind blowing to me and seems fairly in line with what existing SOTA models can do. Especially since they did it in steps. Maybe I'm missing something.
Presumably it's related to increased conservatism in gen Z males: https://www.axios.com/2024/09/28/gen-z-men-conservative-poll . Conservatives generally have more negative attitudes to drug use.
The study is about today and certainly has plenty of factual data in there, and their safety record is amazing.

But they are purporting to make this the standard for comparing SDVs and HDVs, and explicitly want this report to influence policy. They say as much in the report.
I've spent tons of time evaluating o1-preview on SWEBench-Verified.

For one, I speculate OpenAI is using a very basic agent harness to get the results they've published on SWEBench. I believe there is a fair amount of headroom to improve results above what they published, using the same models.

For two, some of the instances, even in SWEBench-Verified, require a bit of "going above and beyond" to get right. One example is an instance where the user states that a TypeError isn't properly handled. The developer who fixed it handled the TypeError but also handled a ValueError, and the golden test checks for both. I don't know how many instances fall in this category, but I suspect its more than on a simpler benchmark like MATH.
By all means, if this is the goal, AI is a success.

I understand that in this forum too many people are invested in putting lipstick on this particular pig.
Heat pumps are something like 5-6x as efficient as resistive electric heaters. So no surprise that your bill would be lower.

Of course, heating an entire house with (non-heat-pump) electric heat in a cold climate is kind of crazy. Natural gas is way way cheaper. But I've seen it in old houses here in the Upper Midwest, so it's not _too_ out of the ordinary.
I'll add:

I guess the way this usually manifests is not that a person gives reasons at all, but rather that they seem to give too many reasons. Like offhandedly saying "I feel like doing this" is normal. But going on about the reasons, making sure they're very clear and crisp and agreed upon by everybody is more like the aberrant/degraded thing I'm talking about.
"This year alone, thousands of JavaScript vulnerabilities were reported"
What people always leave out is that society will bend to the abilities of the new technology. Planes can't land in your backyard so we built airports. We didn't abandon planes.
That's high EFFICIENCY. High efficiency = low compute.
My YouTube recommendations are like 80% RC planes
Well they got 75.7% at $17/task. Did you see that?
This guy is wrong, which is why he isn't citing any legal authority.

As anyone who has gone to law school will tell you, you can only acquire the title that the seller has. If seller stole the goods, he doesn't have any title, so he can't transfer title to a subsequent buyer. See, e.g. UCC § 2-403

There are exceptions when it comes to those who have voidable title (thieves do not have voidable title).

There are also cases where courts have more or less created exceptions close to those OP has described. For example, if Best Buy receives some stolen merchandise and sells it to good faith purchasers, courts have held that the victim needs to pursue the thief/Best Buy, not the end purchaser.

But generally, OP is wrong: if you buy a stolen bike at a flea market, you don't get title and the owner can get the bike back. Think of the policy implications if the rule was as OP claims. All thieves would have to do is immediately sell stolen goods and the owners could never get them back. That would be absurd.
One possibility is that it may not yet have sufficient experience and real-world feedback for resolving coding issues in professional repos, as this involves multiple steps and very diverse actions (or branching factor, in AI terms). They have committed to not training on API usage, which limits their ability to directly acquire training data from it. However, their upcoming agentic efforts may address this gap in training data.
>I never mentioned you once and none of this is specific or particular to you.

Who were you referring to in this statement?

>than the person accusing me is even aware exists
would a solar sail be a feasible - albeit long time scale - method of getting the delta-v to decrease the orbit? Just point it retrograde and wait a long time?
As I said , they're not minimal. What are you comparing it to exactly.