skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's cool to see this posted here. Refrigerator has been around for a number of years, but it doesn't get much press. It was originally developed as part of my work getting production Ruby web applications to run in chroot environments, where you cannot load libraries after chrooting (for more details, see https://code.jeremyevans.net/presentations/rubyhack2018/inde...). This allows you to emulate that type of chroot restriction without superuser access. It also allows you to detect monkey patches of core classes in libraries.

Note that it doesn't prevent or discourage monkey-patching, it just requires that you apply your monkey-patches before freezing the core classes. The idea here is similar to OpenBSD's pledge, where startup and runtime are considered different phases of an application's lifecycle. After startup, you limit what the runtime can do. With refrigerator, you freeze the core classes at the end of startup. So monkey patches are allowed during startup, but not at runtime.
Octopus DNA tells scientists that total collapse of Antarctic ice sheet is close
Computer security is a solved problem for systems with a fully-specified set of capabilities, usage patterns, and legal operations. You follow the Principle of Least Privilege, build in defense in depth, use capabilities, and never expose anything that the user doesn't have a reason to access.

The problem is that the constraints this imposes on the system usually do not line up with the constraints that the market will pay for. It's very common for customers to change their mind; decide they need to hack around access protections; add new users with new roles that are some hybrid of current access; ask for new features; not think through who should have access to new features; want to enable serendipity where untrusted users discover new use-cases and new markets for their product; and so on. It's also very common for them to ignore security as a differentiator when making their purchase decision, figuring that if there's a breach, somebody else will pay for it, or they'll be long gone from the company and unable to be blamed for it. So the market ends up bypassing the secure solutions that exist and choosing to buy insecure systems that can offer the features they want right now.

When security is absolutely critical, like in military or certain financial applications, it's pretty easy to achieve. There are companies like Galois that specialize in "high assurance systems". But they are expensive for their feature set, and so the general public would rather buy from cheaper and more insecure options.
pipewire-jack won't work with a program that links libjack statically. Pipewire preloads its own .so and hijacks those library calls.
And of course, as processors improve this becomes more and more the case.
How did they get Apple to respond??
Advantage/Disadvantages of Zig and Rust
> Thorium is more abundant than uranium

I don't disagree. What I said is that uranium is __also__ abundant.

> Thorium must not be enriched and it cannot be enriched like uranium

You're right. I was trying to use language that people would generally understand. Mixing breeding and enriching. They are quite similar words, differing in protons. Enrich = changing isotope (adding/subtracting neutrons), breeding = changing atoms (adding/subtracting protons). I thought this would be fine, sorry. Yes, you are right.

> The extraction of uranium 233 from thorium ... is a process orders of magnitude simpler

You are oversimplifying things. There's plenty of "simple chemical separation processes" that are very expensive. And sure, you can get 233 from this and use it for weapons but you still want some other elements if you're going to build a weapon. There's a lot to this and acidburn would be the better person to explain all that nuance.
I use DxO PhotoLab, which came with perpetual license. I paid ~$100 for PhotoLab 1 and ~$70 for an upgrade to PhotoLab 4, and haven't upgraded since. I thought it was well worth it.

(I plan to upgrade to a newer version eventually, but thought I would upgrade my computer first)
The author actually found three days a week to be the sweet spot that worked best for them, and four on occasion.

> For me, that means being in the office three or four days a week. Three is my baseline; fewer than that, and I start missing out on the energy and focus I mentioned earlier. Occasionally, I’ll add an extra day if I need more face-to-face time with teammates or fewer distractions at home.
"freezer" was my originally desired name for this gem, but it was already taken.
This reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Soup

stone->your ingredients->soup

LLM->your prompts->solution
Yep, anthropic has to comply with that.
Cryptocurrency, at least PoW, the point is indeed to be the most wasteful — a literal Dyson swarm powered Bitcoin would provide exactly the same utility as the BTC network already had in 2010.

LLMs (and the image, sound, and movie generating models) are more coincidentally power-hogs — people are at least trying to make them better at fixed compute, and lower compute at fixed quality.
In spite of all this progress, I can't find LLMs that solve simple tasks like:

Here is my resume. Make it look nice (some design hints).

They can spit html and css, but not Google doc.

On the other hand, Google results are dominated by SEO spam. You can probably find one usable result on page 10.

The problem is not technology. It's a business model that can support the humans feeding data into the LLM.
Us skeptics believe that valuation prices in some form of regulatory capture or other non-market factor.

The non-skeptical interpretation is that it's a threshold function, a flat-out race with an unambiguous finish line. If someone actually hit self-improving AGI first there's an argument that no one would ever catch up.
It's justified if AGI is possible. If AGI is possible, then the entire human economy stops making sense as far as money goes, and 'owning' part of OpenAI gives you power.

That is of course, assuming AGI is possible and exponential, and that marketshare goes to a single entity instead of a set of entities. Lots of big assumptions. Seems like we're heading towards a slow-lackluster singularity though.
I wonder if anyone has ever made an ORM adapter that works with Google Sheets as its "Database"?
Sunny, given this investment objective, what would you consider a good (and transparent) benchmark? Thanks for sharing this.
Blatant misinformation. This is not what that says…
It's a bit of a clickbaity article, but I do agree with this part:

> Those micro-interactions—stopping to chat in the kitchen, taking a quick walk for coffee, or eating lunch with others—are impossible to replicate when working from home. These moments, while small, feel meaningful to me.

You can schedule coffee chats, etc., but in my experience, it's nigh impossible to make room for these kinds of interactions remotely. The only time this sort of things happens is when I'm pairing with someone, and once we're done - or before we start - we just hang out and shoot the shit for awhile. But this almost exclusively happens with people I already know well; it doesn't give much room to meet new people or establish any relationship outside of your team.
I would prefer to open my grades if it meant fewer asinine technical interviews
Been in the Mac ecosystem since 2008, love it, but there is, and always has been, a tendency to talk about inevitabilities from scaling bespoke, extremely expensive configurations, and with LLMs, there's heavy eliding of what the user experience is, beyond noting response generation speed in tokens/s.

They run on a laptop, yes - you might squeeze up to 10 token/sec out of a kinda sorta GPT-4 if you paid $5K plus for an Apple laptop in the last 18 months.

And that's after you spent 2 minutes watching 1000 token* prompt prefill at 10 tokens/sec.

Usually it'd be obvious this'd trickle down, things always do, right?

But...Apple infamously has been stuck on 8GB of RAM in even $1500 base models for years. I have 0 idea why, but my intuition is RAM was ~doubling capacity at same cost every 3 years till early 2010s, then it mostly stalled out post 2015.

And regardless of any of the above, this absolutely melts your battery. Like, your 16 hr battery life becomes 40 minutes, no exaggeration.

I don't know why prefill (loading in your prompt) is so slow for local LLMs, but it is. I assume if you have a bunch of servers there's some caching you can do that works across all prompts.

I expect the local LLM community to be roughly the same size it is today 5 years from now.

* ~3 pages / ~750 words; what I expect is a conservative average for prompt size when coding
I've written two DSLs (one with a team) and I'd consider them both successful. They solved the problem and no one cursed them out. I think the most important factor is they were both small.

They were very similar. I even reused the code. One was writing rules to validate giant forms, the other was writing rules to for decisions based on form responses.

Ok, just ranting on DSLs. Good DSLs take someone from can't to can. A DSL that's meant to save time is way less likely to be useful because it's very likely to not save you time.

In both of my DSLs, it's that we needed to get complex domain behavior into the program. So you either need to teach a programmer the domain, partner a programmer with a domain expert, or teach a domain expert how to program.

Putting the power in the hands of the domain expert is attractive when there's a lot of work to be done. It frees up programmers to do other things and tightens the feedback loop. If it's a deep domain, it's not like you want to send your programmer to school to learn how to do this. If it's shallow, you can probably have someone cheaper do it.

A DSL comes with a lot of cognitive overhead. If the other option is learning a full programming language, this becomes more reasonable.

A time saving DSL is where someone already knows how to write code, they just want to write less of it. This is generally not as good because the savings are marginal. Then when some programmer wants to change something, they have to learn/remember this whole DSL instead of more straightforward code.

Actually, this makes a simpler rule of thumb. A DSL for programmers is less likely to be a good idea than a DSL for non-programmers.
(as an Indian, who has studied a lot about Indian history)

> A few tens of thousands of British troops

A lot of Indians happily joined British army because of the (relatively) better pay and better treatment.

> slaughtered by the hundreds of millions of Indians

But those were all divided into hundreds of kingdoms. In fact, a lot of Indian kings and princes preferred being a vassal of the English crown because the alternative was much worse (being imprisoned or killed by Indian rivals). Read about almost any major Indian wars/battles in the 18th century involving English and you will find a lot of neutral Indian parties, or the ones actively fighting on England's behalf.

> any half decent uprising would have been successful

Indian subcontinent suffered from a "coordination problem". Gandhi is admired because he played the biggest role in bringing a lot of them together. Of course, he couldn't bring everyone along (eg. Jinnah and Muslims), and there were a lot of other great leaders who also contributed (Patel, Tilak, Bose etc) towards uniting all the Indians, but none could attain Gandhi's stature.
One of main uses of H1B is to offshore jobs. Bring in people on the H1B, get them trained, then send them back 'home'. Disney and many other companies have done this. Just look at the leaderboard and see how many offshoring companies are there.

Instead of H1B, we should provide green cards to people who want to come here and start a new life. This would put workers on a better footing in employment than H1B.

The government we pay for should not be enabling the offshoring of jobs.
Named after pope Silvester I., who happened to die on 31.12. .. somewhere around 300 AD I think
How many days have passed since he last doxxed the wrong person by accident?
interesting idea

a doodle-roulette? a blank canvas that randomly pairs two bored people and gives them crayons to jam :)

or like a global townsquare but for graffiti -- all are welcome at once on an infinite ever changing canvas
Exif watermark by the generators would solve 90% of the problem in one fell swoop because lazy people won't remove it
What would this safe API look like? The only thing I can think of would be to have the kernel allocate memory in the process and return that pointer, rather than having the caller provide a buffer. Performance would be painful. Is there a faster way that preserves safety?
That does not seem to be correct. The documentation indicates APC [1] can only occur from a waiting/blocking state. So, the program is in a consistent state and can only be on a few known instructions, unlike signals. As such, most functions should be safe to call.

This is more like select() sometimes calling a user-supplied function in addition to checking for I/O.

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sync/asynchr...
Spookily good at writing code? LLMs frequently hallucinate broken nonsense shit when I use them.

Recognize what they do well (generate simple code in popular languages) while acknowledging where they are weak (non-trivial algorithms, any novel code situation the LLM hasn't seen before, less popular languages).
Or let’s just reinvent a new database
Something not mentioned is AI generated music. Suno's development this year is impressive. Unclear what this will mean for music artists over next few years.
157 billion implies about a 1% chance at dominating a 1.5 trillion market. Seems reasonable.
> what justifies this

People are buying shares at $x because they believe they will be able to sell them for more later. I don’t think there’s a whole to more to it than that.
Related (and hilarious): https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/thenightwatc...

> What is despair? I have known it—hear my song. Despair is
when you’re debugging a kernel driver and you look at a memory dump and you see that a pointer has a value of 7. THERE IS
NO HARDWARE ARCHITECTURE THAT IS ALIGNED ON
7. Furthermore, 7 IS TOO SMALL AND ONLY EVIL CODE
WOULD TRY TO ACCESS SMALL NUMBER MEMORY.
Misaligned, small-number memory accesses have stolen
decades from my life.

All James Mickens' USENIX articles are fun (for a very specific subset of computer scientist - the kind that would comment on this thread). https://mickens.seas.harvard.edu/wisdom-james-mickens
Sorry but the "lazy is bad" crowd is ludditism in another form, and it's telling that a whole lot of very smart people were passionate defenders of being lazy!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Use_of_Human_Beings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventing_the_Future:_Postcapi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Be_Lazy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Praise_of_Idleness_and_Othe... (That's Bertrand Russell)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonjour_paresse

AI systems are literally the most amazing technology on earth for this exact reason. I am so glad that it is destroying the minds of time thieves world-wide!
That's absolutely not what the paper says and it's irresponsible to publish this sort of alarmist nonsense (yes, we should be alarmed and things are bad, but this paper provides little to no information about any proximal events).
That's fine if they have the same liability as doctors when they decide what gets done.
It seems like a casino on steroids. The problem is when storytelling is never the past, actual or future truth. The interesting thing is: if this really could work in a decentralized way, there is no one to blame for illegal activity. Indeed in the real world the prosecutors act on the actual servers and actors running them, like in the torrent cases.
It doesn't matter how good the generated text is: it is still slop if the recipient didn't request it and no human has reviewed it.
Problems I no longer have by using Server-side rendering
If AGI is possible, then the entire human economy stops making sense as far as money goes, and 'owning' part of OpenAI gives you power.

That's if AGI is possible and not easily replicated. If AGI can be copied and/or re-developed like other software then the value of owning OpenAI stock is more like owning stock in copper producers or other commodity sector companies. (It might even be a poorer investment. Even AGI can't create copper atoms, so owners of real physical resources could be in a better position in a post-human-labor world.)
Methane is also worth burning to lessen the GHG impact since we produce so much of it as a byproduct of both resource extraction and waste disposal anyway.
This app looks exactly like one I had used in the past. Took me a while to find it: https://www.notes-foss.com/

Even the logo is almost identical.

Is this the same project? Looks like two separate GitHub repos by the same author. Why two similar projects/websites?
On the contrary, it's more like studying medicine and then remaining in medical research in a purely academic (non-clinical) setting.
And if their adjustment conflicts with the body shop, but it turns out the body shop was right and I die as a result? Who gets that liability? That's what I'm talking about. You can make adjustments, but you are practicing medicine when you do so.
Discover my curated list of top GitHub repositories in 2024! From web development tools to productivity apps, explore must-have resources for tech enthusiasts and professionals. Perfect for kicking off 2025 with the best tools and solutions.
10%, no?
Registration Data Access Protocol
Aging is not a single thing that can be cured. No one even agrees on what aging is.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03936-8

But there's nothing stopping aging related research. Ethics committees allow scientists to conduct experiments as long as those meet proper privacy and safety standards. Nothing is being blocked over concerns about displacing human medical staff so I can't imagine where you're coming up with that type of conspiracy theory.

Even if all rules and regulations were removed there will be no radical improvements to human lifespan in your lifetime. This is fine. You are expendable.
One strata in that assumption-heap to call out explicitly: Assuming LLMs are an enabling route to AGI and not a dead-end or supplemental feature.
I agree, and also use Fi

But, I worry about what happens if I somehow get locked out of the account…
It was never the case. In my experience, we can partition people into three groups: (a) "Why would anyone do that?"; (b) "What's wrong with doing that?"; (c) "People obviously do that." People from groups a and b tend to consider members of group c "sensitive", because members of group a don't recognise members of group b (considering them members of group a, if they even think about it) so believe group c are overreacting to imagined slights, and members of group b don't care because they don't think group c's objections should be sustained. Members of group c can usually distinguish between members of groups a and b, but it's such an uphill battle to convert members of group a into members of group c that it's rarely worth doing. (Members of group c often find it hard to empathise with members of group a, because "how can anyone be that obtuse?" – and members of group a often consider it the responsibility of group c members to do all the work of teaching them, because "you're the one with the extraordinary claim: that requires you to provide extraordinary evidence".)

I try to be a member of group (d): "I suspect that might be a problem, so why don't we talk about that?". This behaviour is very annoying, but it's clearly better than groups a, b or c. (In practice, though, I'm usually a member of group a, occasionally a member of c, and probably group b about loads of stuff I've never thought about.)
> humiliating criminals

More widely, the US "justice" system is wild and much more concerned with vengeance than actual justice. What criminals? We have someone who was indicted. The guy might be completely innocent, but his name will forever be plastered around the internet as a "criminal" to be humiliated.

In other developed countries, there is a presumption of innocence which also applies publicly. You're kept (pseudo) anonymous until sentencing, to make sure no innocent people get labeled as criminals.
If AGI is possible then that too becomes a commodity and we experience a massive round of deflation in the cost of everything not intrinsically rare. Land, food, rare materials, energy, and anything requiring human labor is expensive and everything else is almost free.

I don't see how OpenAI wouldn't crash and burn here. Given the history of models it would be at most a year before you'd have open AGI, then the horse is out of the barn and the horse begins to self-improve. Pretty soon the horse is a unicorn, then it's a Satyr, and so on.

(I am a near-term AGI skeptic BTW, but I could be wrong.)

OpenAI's valuation is a mixture of hype speculation and the "golden boy" cult around Sam Altman. In the latter sense it's similar to the golden boy cults around Elon Musk and (politically) Donald Trump. To some extent these cults work because they are self-fulfilling feedback loops: these people raise tons of capital (economic or political) because everyone knows they're going to raise tons of capital so they raise tons of capital.
"Let's just sync the data" is the reason why rough days exist, as far as I'm concerned. I've run into so many systems that were designed for "internet scale" or whatever that add queues, event processing, etc., when the natural range is so far below that threshold. These teams are either naive or, at worst, taking advantage of non-engineering management and funneling money toward playing with these problems for the fun of it.
By that definition machine to machine communication that happens "organically" (like how humans do it, where they sometimes strike up conversations unprompted with each other) is "slop".

You're not seeing how the future of the world will develop.
Did you try learning HOW to get good code out of them?

As with all things LLM there's a whole lot of undocumented and under appreciated depth to getting decent results.

Code hallucinations are also the least damaging type of hallucinations, because you get fact checking for free: if you run the code and get an error you know there's a problem.

A lot of the time I find pasting that error message back into the LLM gets me a revision that fixes the problem.
Well, AGI would make the brainy information worker part of the economy obsolete. Well still need the jobs that interact with the physical world for quite a while. So… all us HN types should get ready to work the mines or pick vegetables
I don't think openai's valuation comes from a data center bet -- rather, I'd suppose, investors think it has a first-mover advantage on model quality that it can (maybe?) attract some buy-out interest or otherwise use in yet-to-be-specified product lines.

However, it has been clear for a long time that meta are just demolishing any competitor's moats, driving the whole megacorp AI competition to razor thin margins.

It's a very welcome strategy from a consumer pov, but -- it has to be said -- genius from a business pov. By deciding that no one will win, it can prevent anyone leapfrogging them at a relatively cheap price.