skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your implication is that we have unlimited compute and therefore know that LLMs are stalled.

Have you considered that compute might be the reason why LLMs are stalled at the moment?

What made LLMs possible in the first place? Right, compute! Transformer Model is 8 years old, technically GPT4 could have been released 5 years ago. What stopped it? Simple, the compute being way too low.

Nvidia has improved compute by 1000x in the past 8 years but what if training GPT5 takes 6-12 months for 1 run based on what OpenAI tries to do?

What we see right now is that pre-training has reached the limits of Hopper and Big Tech is waiting for Blackwell. Blackwell will easily be 10x faster in cluster training (don't look on chip performance only) and since Big Tech intends to build 10x larger GPU clusters then they will have 100x compute systems.

Let's see then how it turns out.

The limit on training is time. If you want to make something new and improve then you should limit training time because nobody will wait 5-6 months for results anymore.

It was fine for OpenAI years ago to take months to years for new frontier models. But today the expectations are higher.

There is a reason why Blackwell is fully sold out for the year. AI research is totally starved for compute.

The best thing for Nvidia is also that while AI research companies compete with each other, they all try to get Nvidia AI HW.
I think that’s correct, but it would be a more useful comment if you gave a few examples and explained the correct thinking.
You can Save for later any message…
The working paper version of this isn't paywalled https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/izaizadps/dp13725.htm
Anthropic are the only (?) heavy users of Amazon's chips. Or maybe they aren't heavy users. It's hard to say, they use NVIDIA too. Amazon is a big investor.
Does this mean SBA loan origination in recent hurricane and wildfire areas is suspended?

Not a good time to be a federally funded research and development corporation (NASA JPL, Fermi National Accelerator, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, NCAR, Oak Ridge, SLAC, etc)
What a crazy fever dream. Absolutely surreal.

> The Trump administration's Interior Department said on Friday it had officially changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and the Alaskan peak Denali, the tallest mountain in North America, to Mount McKinley.

Somehow renaming Denali is even dumber. No one even cared about "Mount McKinley".
I don't think they actually ever review anything.

I've reported nazi content a number of times and it never violated the policy.
A MR tech colleague was scanning a cadaver one night after hours for someone’s research project (possibly on ultra short TE imaging). She finished a scan then reviewed it. They were moving and the images suffered from motion artifact. Presumably defrosting or something.

She wasn’t ok with this.
I'm not talking about 1) professional journalism or 2) sports. I'm talking about casual family day-to-day stuff.
Well for me it’s my morning commute read. Let’s see how often during the day this comes back up.
Amazfit watches.
The article isn't wrong about captivity/freedom, although alphas are certainly thing.

Hierarchies are naturally born out of confrontations and how they're settled, and captivity (ie scarcity) breeds confrontations. If two separate entities have opposing wants which cannot be satisfied simultaneously (ie are mutually exclusive), how do you determine who get's what they want? Well, naturally some kind of fight happens. Which either involves displays of intimidation, threats, arguments, or acts of violence (ie aggression).

Naturally, living organisms value life and consider risks which threaten their livelihood, and so, these situations are always an assessment of wants, such as "is my want for the last piece of food, greater than my want to avoid fighting my opponent?" Or, "Am I willing to risk dying for this? Do I need this food, do I need to fight this opponent or can I get food elsewhere before dying of starvation?".

As so, animals typically use violence as a last resort for settling disputes, unless the risks are so low as to be play (ie you're certain to win). It should therefore not be surprising that captive animals (or animals backed into a corner) feel obligated to fight, as they have few alternatives to avoid confrontation. Whereas, non-captive animals, by being more free, are better able to avoid a direct confrontation, and therefore exhibit less acts of aggression.

An alpha, just happens to be those who win disputes repeatedly, and opponents or potential opponents have learned to be intimidated by them, and so cede disputes to them when they arise without fighting. A hierarchy is thus naturally formed from repeated disputes.
According to Wikipedia, no.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_ranks_of_the_United_K...

There were ranks of Lieutenant and Detective Lieutenant, but only in Scotland and only until about 1950.
> DeepSeek should increase Nvidia’s demand due to Jevon’s Paradox.

How exactly? From what I’ve read the full model can run on MacBook M1 sort of hardware just fine. And this is their first release, I’d expect it to get more efficient and maybe domain specific models can be run on much lower grade hardware sort of raspberry pi sort.
How to Make Your Message Stick: The Art of Repetition
What was your workflow for doing that? Just going back and forth in a chat, or a more integrated experience in a dedicated editor?
not the reader though
Yet it interesting how much of what we consider "human nature" is just us reacting to the cages we put ourselves in?
At the moment "no one" is on mastodon. The folk there are the few, and are likely a self-selecting group that are resistant to spam or scams. Therefore you don't see (much) spam or scams there.

Of course should it become popular (side note; it wont) such that my mom and her friends are on it, then the spammers and scammers will come too. And since my mom is in my social graph a lot of that will become visible to me.

Enjoy mastodon now. The quality is high because the group is small and the barrier to entry us high. Hope it never catches on, because all "forums" become crap when the eternal September arrives.
> Perhaps postgres allows listening to the replication log with lower latency?

Yes, I think that's what the "logical decoding" referred to. Postgres can emit a "logical" version of the WAL (something with a stable spec writtten down so that other services can stream and decode it). My understanding was that "logical replication" was designed for low latency situations like creating read replicas.

I haven't heard of the logical log being preserved for "years back" but that's an interesting case...
I don't think this is true, there's a limit to how "good" the average person needs their AI to be — assuming the average person purposefully uses much AI at all (thinking of people like my mother here).
> Laws that regulate how people can be treated by employers have always been a balance between _some_ people having it worse (ex, their jobs not being available) so that the _vast_ majority of people have it better.

Not all of them. For example, a law that requires companies that agree to pay workers for services rendered to actually pay them has no obvious mechanism to destroy jobs and may even create jobs as people become willing to do work when they otherwise wouldn't have trusted the employer to pay them with no enforcement mechanism.

The types of rules you're talking about are typically lobbied for by specific groups to gain advantage for themselves at the expense not of the employer but of their competition for employment, i.e. other workers. For example, the passage of minimum wage laws came about during the Jim Crow era because what white workers wanted from discrimination was to prevent black workers from "taking their jobs" but what the discrimination was actually causing was for the black workers to accept lower pay and then receive the jobs anyway. The law was motivated by the desire to prohibit the latter and thereby cause the black workers to lose their jobs because then the discrimination would manifest in the hiring decision rather than the wages.

This is the same category of thing which is happening with Uber, except that the groups aren't black people and white people, they're part-time Uber drivers and full-time ones. The full-time ones want the part-time ones out of the market, so they keep lobbying for laws to make casual acceptance of fares more burdensome.

> The same things is true of things like safety regulations. It costs more to be safe, and you have to charge more or hire less if you're going to have them. But overall, society is better for them (even though some people no longer have jobs).

The premise of safety regulations is that people are busy and don't have time to read through statistical studies to determine if a more expensive product is worth the cost because it's sufficiently safer, so the government should do the evaluation and then require the ones that are worth the cost.

The problem is the government doesn't require the ones that are worth the cost, they require that ones whose manufacturers or other interest groups have the best lobbyists even when they're not worth the cost, and then net-negative rules accumulate over time. Soon you have a thicket of rules where the vast majority aren't worth the cost, and a tiny minority that are but are mostly things the market would have demanded even without the mandate. This is a big reason why, for example, it's so expensive to build housing in the US and high rents are causing homelessness, preventing family formation and transferring wealth from working people to landlords.

Notice also the scam here: New "safety standards" are passed but they don't apply to existing buildings, so people continue living in the existing buildings (which by this logic are unsafe) because now newer buildings have been made prohibitively expensive. This benefits landlords, not safety, but attempts to remove the rules are met with claims of impacting safety.
I think both copyright law and AI consumption of copyrighted material can coexist peacefully. I can learn from what I read and then process that information to create my own novel works, and I think that's what LLMs are doing too.

If LLMs were just doing data compression and then spitting out what they memorized then that would violate copyright, but that's now how it works.
There is a nuance between "secret" as used in "top secret" and secret as in "secretary". The later means more private than hidden from view. This is a secret location because the general public is not allowed to visit.
> Do we use alpha male gorillas to explain the concept?

We should use chimpanzees. The popular definition evolved pretty much indepdenently of the science, unfortunately [1].

Management texts have tried toning this down, particularly in the gender-equality years. At its nonsensical limit one wound up with alpha = leader, which is tautologically useless as a tool for explaining leadership.

The term probably belongs in a bin. There are deep social lessons we can learn from observing chimpanzees. (Or even wolves.) But they're not going to condense into a single term, certainly not one that's been through the 4chan and partisan ringers. Even among chimpanzees, we see a variety of tactics used to achieve dominance, including groups of chimps banding together to topple a leader.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_and_beta_male
This seems pretty interesting! "Someone" to talk to is a really great way to keep users engaged. However when I tried learning French (and I'm an absolute beginner), it didn't explain me starting with the basics of French. It just started with some french sentences I couldn't follow. And when I asked it to explain simple words one by one, it just couldn't! But really appreciate the work you have done. And all the best!
Alas, this is also an example of the "bullshit asymmetry principle", where just one sentence of evil nonsense from the insincere (i.e.: "it doesn't count for children of illegal aliens") incurs a disproportionate amount of effort to carefully cage and debunk.
proposal is closed and accepted by Go team. [~sigh]

you can still leave comments in discussion issue: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/48429
> That articles says females do the hunting and getting food for the male while males only handle territory.That articles says females do the hunting and getting food for the male while males only handle territory.*

That's a myth.

Male lions do hunt. When hunting alone and not as "heavy support" for the females, they use different strategies than the females, and do it in a different environment. I read an article from a researcher about that in particular, can't remember any context to find it quickly though.

There are many (scientific and casual) articles like that though:

- https://singita.com/archive/wildlife/wildlife-mythbusters-ta...

- https://medium.com/@shelldonwells/do-male-lions-hunt-e9f5ea5...
Only meaningful if code+data deterministically reproduce the weights.

At that point, the weights are just the cached output. Which has value since it's costly to produce from code+data.
Thanks for the feedback. I definitely agree, difficulty progression needs work :)
This all sounds to me very close to the event-sourcing/CQRS/DDD area of thinking. In which case you look at it in two parts:

- Event firing: Here is where you fire an event saying that the thing has happened (i.e. item_added_to_cart, not add_item_to_cart). Crucially, this event states the thing has happened. This isn't a request, it is a past-tense statement of fact, which is oddly important. It is therefore at this point where you must do the validation.

- Event handing: Here you receive information about an event that has already happened. You don't get to argue about it, it has happened. So you either have to handle it, or accept you have an incomplete view of reality. So perhaps you have to accept that the cart can have more than 10 items in some circumstances, in which case you prompt the use to correct the problem before checking out.

In fact, this is typically how it goes with this kind of eventual-consistency. First fire the event that is as valid as possible. Then when handing an 'invalid' event accept that its just got to happen (cart has 11 items now), then prompt the user fix it (if there is one).

Not sure how helpful this is here, but thought it a useful perspective.
This kind of thing only works if your whole universe belongs to your database.

Transactions and conditional-updates work smoothly if it's your customer browsing your shop in your database - up to a point.

But I usually end up with partner integrations where those techniques don't work. For instance, partners will just tell you true facts about what happened - a customer quit, or a product was removed from the catalogue. Your system can't reject these just because your Db can't or won't accept that state change.
Oh yes, I am firmly on Team China here because US companies got too greedy. Meta is an exception here though and they also propelled AI development massively.

DeepSeek is awesome. Any AI task yet implemented in our business can be run from my local PC with just the smaller models. And my PC is fairly crappy to begin with.

OpenAI looks quite silly with their "we have to close everything".
I have moved to Instapaper and I am happy with it. I only use it to queue up offline articles for my iPad so I can't speak about recommendations. However I like that it's not so pushy about recommendations.
> Looks interesting, but I'm skeptical that a book can feasibly stay up to date with the speed of development.

The basic structure of the base models has not really changed since the first GPT launched in 2018. You still have to understand gradient descent, tokenization, embeddings, self-attention, MLPs, supervised fine tuning, RLHF etc for the foreseeable future.

Adding RL based CoT training would be a relatively straightforward addendum to a new edition, and it's an application of long established methods like PPO.

All "generations" of models are presented as revolutionary -- and results-wise they maybe are -- but technically they are usually quite incremental "tweaks" to the previous architecture.

Even more "radical" departures like state space models are closely related to same basic techniques and architectures.
Thanks! Any ideas for puzzles you'd enjoy solving? Love the idea, but it can't think of many actual puzzles that make sense in this context...
Mindfulmoments
Elephants live in complex, matriarchal family groups and demonstrate extraordinary empathy
When you browse without a Pihole and a blocker, it does.
There's no excuse for Facebook's behavior, but... Who savvy enough to use Linux also uses Facebook?
> Merely taking the photos is quick, but sorting through them is slow and mind-bogglingly boring.

I said this in another comment, but after a typical shooting it takes about 10 seconds - not more - to sort through everything. We don't take hundreds of pictures...

The alternative is taking only one picture and calling it a day - whether you made an ugly face or not. A couple of times I've asked people to take a picture of somebody else and me, and sometimes they only take one picture and either me or that person makes an ugly face... If he pressed the button 4 times I'm sure there would have been a fine picture.
It's either intentional, which would be puzzling and unsettling, or it's a bug which has gone unnoticed. In any case it is proof that big tech is in no shape to take on the responsibility for moderating discourse on the internet. This reminds me of the bug that falls into a typewriter in the beginning of the movie "Brazil" which causes a spelling error and the arrest and execution of a random innocent person. Granted, this type of automated banning without any ability to involve a real human is not costing any lives (yet), but I am increasingly worried about how big tech is becoming a Kafkaesque lawnmower. One thing is to deliberately censor speech that you do not like, another is to design a system where innocent and important speech is silently censored and noone in charge even notices.
Sounds like a horrible place to work.

(That said, I offer my gratitude for the perseverance it took to get this done)
What do you understand those conditions to be?
Don't worry, you won't be able to afford it.
I think that was NFC. The problem was, iPhone generated a random UID for all other cards, while this one was fixed.
I miss the days when interfaces didn't have to be light white on white or dark black on black. When people thought about contrast and things looked interesting. Discord is my go-to example with this. Before the dark/light craze, their sidebar had a dark background and the chat was a white background. It was great and provided contrast and delineation between different parts of the app. When they added "dark mode", they changed it to be light gray and white, making everything worse. Luckily they added an option to bring back the previous theme, albeit buried in the accessibility section.

This whole "dark mode" thing only happened because Apple removed all color and affordances from their interface in iOS 7, and then Mac OS later. They set computer interface design back decades with that decision.

For people complaining about "light mode", please just turn down your brightness. Your screen does not need to be at 10,000 nits when you are anywhere but in direct sunlight.
>How exactly? From what I’ve read the full model can run on MacBook M1 sort of hardware just fine.

No you can't. Unless you run their 1.5b model quantized. Almost useless.

Their full model, Deepseek V3 has 671B parameters. Not even remotely close to being able to run well on consumer hardware.
Can't prompting be automated?
Is this what the Web was like in the beginning? Something exciting and fascinating every week?
The US has always had a mindset of "abundance for us and allies, scorched earth for anyone who dares to oppose us". But players profiting while helping build up American abundance is OK, but that's about it - as soon as you're challenging US power (not necessarily directly, but just by being as successful as the USA at something), that becomes a huge problem and you need to either swear fealty or be stopped.

The USA has never once had friendly relationships with a large power, perhaps with the very special case of the USSR alliance during WWII (and not a second after it). The European powers and Canada are extremely US friendly and support US policies (at the head of state level) in almost everything. Relations with China were good while China was a weak and poor state, acting as almost slave labor for the USA - not great now that they are rising up. Relations with Russia were good for a brief window after the fall of the USSR, while Eltsyn seemed to be "our guy", but quickly soured when it became clear he would not dance to their tune (not to sya that he was a good man or that his disputes with US intentions were good - Russia would have probably been in a better state if it had allied itself more with the USA, rather than becoming the belligerent territorial authoritarian oligarchy that it has).
Jurisprudence, I hope! A huge heap of detailed cases, formal codes, decisions made and explained in detail, commented, overturned, etc. Especially civil cases.

Also, probably, medicine, especially diagnostic. Large amounts of well-documented cases, a fair amount of repeatability, apparently non-random mechanisms behind, so statistical models should actually detect useful correlations. Can use more formalized tokens from lab tests, etc.
El Dorado will be AGI with Humanoid robots and actual real pick-axes
the timescales were larger
I am using it like stack overflow in the sense that I’m solving a problem and I’m using it to answer questions when I’m in an unfamiliar or non-obvious place in the problem space.

If I have a question about a first order language or framework feature or pattern, it works great. If I have a question about a second order problem, like an interaction between language or framework features, or a logical inconsistency in feature behavior, then it usually has no idea what’s going on, unless it turns out to be a really common problem such as something that would come up when working through a tutorial.

For code completion, I’ve just turned it off. It saves time on boilerplate typing for sure, but the actual content pieces are so consistently wrong that on balance I find it distracting.

Maybe I have a weird programming style that doesn’t mesh well with the broader code training corpus, not sure. Or maybe a lot of people spend more time in the part of problem-space that intersects with tutorial-space? I am not very junior these days.

That being said I definitely do use LLMs to engage with tutorial type content. For that it is useful. And outside of software it is quite a bit better for interfacing with Wikipedia type content. Except for the part where it lies to your face. But it will get better! Extrapolating never hurt anyone.
A note for the author in case they are reading: "i.e." means "that is", "e.g." means "for example". You should be able to substitute these meanings and find the sentence makes sense. In all cases here you wanted "e.g.".
I suspect that the report button doesn't actually cause any human to be involved in the process.
Reservoir sampling as in the stuff that's used in ReSTIR for graphics?

It's funny to me where statistics ends up sometimes.
The idea that brains keep going / can be kept going after death was pretty central to PKD's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubik
Yeah except throwing shit together for an internal react ui is now a pleasant couple hours instead of painful couple days.