skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not necessarily 'exponential' (more superlinear) in capabilities (yet) but rather in parameters/training data/compute/costs, which may sometimes be confused for the other.

[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/exponential-growth-of-par...

[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/exponential-growth-of-dat...

[2]: https://epoch.ai/blog/trends-in-training-dataset-sizes

[3]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/exponential-growth-of-com...

[4]: https://blog.tebs-lab.com/p/not-exponential-growth
When it was released, the part about “war-mongering Americans”, and the apparent association with the war (was Ride of the Valkyries about the Vietnam War?).

The author, himself, said it was not about the Vietnam War. You can wish as hard as you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War. You just insist on making that association, even though the lyrics explicitly talk about other crises.
Automated entrance monitoring of honey bee foraging with open-source wireless
TodayOnChain: Crypto News Aggregator for Blockchain, Web3 and Cryptocurrencies
So ... is a restaurant considered a small business? Where do you draw the line on initial investment?
You don't have to use ports, FreeBSD has supported pre-compiled binary packages since 2014.

https://klarasystems.com/articles/a-quick-look-at-the-histor...
Bugs will escalate from syntax errors to business logic errors ("one customer was charged twice"). There won't be anything to copy/paste, no AI will be able to fix these errors and no human will touch this codebase with a long pole.
I dream of a world in which more investment is put into creating better programming languages and runtime environments than trying to use LLMs as a way of coping with the complexities of current systems.
The Possibility of Armageddon
If you drop all pretenses and use a photocopier to steal code directly instead of performing an elaborate laundering step, you will not have these issues.
Why do you wish you had worked harder?
consider a different remote access option i.e. sunshine + moonlight instead of using steam remote play
Do we really want this? As soon as possible, employers will fire software engineers and replace them with AI. I’m positive they will not care about what AI can do, only how many salaries they can eliminate and still achieve the same results. You and I will not be the inheritors of AI.
> It's a bit crazy to think AI capabilities will improve exponentially. I am a very reasonable person, so I just think they'll improve some amount proportional to their current level.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qLe4PPginLZxZg5dP/almost-all...
It’s not just the CIA

https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-selec...

The house oversight committee investigated for 2 years and came to this conclusion. The CIA is falling in line with the rest of the government.

>The single most thorough review of the pandemic conducted to date

>The FIVE strongest arguments in favor of the “lab leak” theory include:

>The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.

>Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.

>Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research at inadequate biosafety levels.

>Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with a COVID-like virus in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.

>By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced.
That’s an optimization, and does not mean that the general rule is not valid.

If that happens to be a bottleneck and you can do better, you should definitely do it in code locally. But these are two ifs that need to evaluate to true
The KBD Element
more literate voters -> more words -> word frequency patterns contain ideas that the model then knows.

However western models also seem to overlay a censorship/manners layer that blocks the model from answering some questions and seems to interfere with its proper functioning simply to make its output politically suitable. One example is to ask for a c program that will crash the linux kernel.
i assume lichess has time based puzzles so people can be failing the puzzles because they are trying to optimize how many puzzles they solve rather than making no mistakes. also, i suspect lichess puzzle ratings probably do not match with
lichess chess ratings (sure, they probably correlate but i suspect there could easily be a +200 average difference or something like that between them) . i can solve puzzles consistently at least 1000 rating higher on chess.com than my chess.com rapid rating. also, if you know these puzzles are mate in 1 then they are much easier. i'm guessing you didn't know when you initially solved them but i think its much harder for other people to judge the difficulty of these puzzles if they know the solution is mate in 1.
What choice do they have? If they shot the enterprise down, they got nothing.
This is so cool!!! Thanks for sharing the setup as well.
Slightly unrelated, but in the interest of those who are with one of the banks that charge fees, which bank is it that you use? Would you generally recommend them?
Building a subway system after the city is so dense that it will be ridden by “enough” people is exactly the wrong way to create livable urban spaces.

Building a subway is the solution to inducing density, not responding to it.
People need to justify their role. As such they change things around or add complexity, even if user benefit is questionable. And why wouldn't you add some planned obsolescence for good measure?
We're gonna be taking the machines word for it sooner than we want to.

Either that or we will have to severely retard progress to human pace.
Do you understand the political changes in the US? The model and the pipelines are oss. The gates are opened
When you see how VC-funded AI startups market their products ("eliminate artists/editors/paralegals"), it's not surprising that they wouldn't be happy with dividends from a profitable business that employs people. Better to throw the money into a "moonshot" company that perennially loses money until BigCo buys them out to acquire their IP and fire everybody.
'Grossly irresponsible': health experts urge US to control bird flu
This is net-negative in my opinion. The only saving counter to this is that we, the people can also use AI to read and digest the AI-generated legislations and respond using an AI.
Chances are the investors who put in all that capital would rather invest it in the team that has the ability to make the most of it. Deepseek calls into question whether OpenAI, Anthropic or Google are as world class as everyone thought a few days ago.
Interested to know your bank if I may
it’s kinda obvious. The people that already like him would defend it and justify the act and the people that dislike him would do the opposite. I guess he might have lost a small % of people liking him here but I would not bet it to be much
“and still achieve the same results”.

That is the part that won’t actually happen, at least pretty quickly.
One thing I think would have helped the author: write a spec first.

Seriously. It seems stupid. But AI works a lot better with a written spec.

The incredible thing is that the AI can actually be an excellent resource for writing the spec. And it will actually produce better code when you feed the spec back into said AI!

The current generation of AI seems to have fooled a lot of people into thinking that somehow you can jump straight to coding. (Well, you can, and it will probably work if you want to make something small or limited in scope.) Not so!

But, on the bright side, it’s just as good at design as code if you ask the right questions!

I say this having used 4 and 4o extensively in this manner. Just started using sonnet3.5 in this way in the last month or so, and it is amazing at this.
That list would be interesting. The realy hard part is implimentation. Proving, scaleability and ability to fit into a standard package/voltage unit. Bonus points if it can be manufactured useing existing machinery.And another new concern
is waste disposal, which will be highlighted by the existing competetors who have a complete world wide recycling infrastructure in place.
The prospect of true solid state battery storage, in the form of "supper caps", shows promice. And is keeping everyone aware that bieng the developer of the very best forgetten orphan technology is realy realy not the thing worth pushing for.
Would be battery magnates, are like spiders in a jar.
Not that any of that is detering development of new ideas, as the market for stored energy is truely vast, and growing.
But early adopters and investors will have to do there own research.
I find it funny that commenters on HN actually think their having past or current experience working at a FAANG is some sort of signal for two reasons.

On HN especially, that’s really nothing novel, many of us have (including me) and the only thing that it takes to get into one as a software engineer is memorizing the solution to coding problems.

When I’m hiring - mostly for green field initiatives - coming from BigTech is usually a negative signal for me.
From that article:

> ARC-AGI is a benchmark that’s designed to be simple for humans but excruciatingly difficult for AI. In other words, when AI crushes this benchmark, it’s able to do what humans do.

That's a misunderstanding of what ARC-AGI means. Here's what ARC-AGI creator François Chollet has to say: https://bsky.app/profile/fchollet.bsky.social/post/3les3izgd...

> I don't think people really appreciate how simple ARC-AGI-1 was, and what solving it really means.

> It was designed as the simplest, most basic assessment of fluid intelligence possible. Failure to pass signifies a near-total inability to adapt or problem-solve in unfamiliar situations.

> Passing it means your system exhibits non-zero fluid intelligence -- you're finally looking at something that isn't pure memorized skill. But it says rather little about how intelligent your system is, or how close to human intelligence it is.
But that doesn't mean your commoditization has to win. Just that you pushed the field towards commoditization... So I'm not sure why Meta would "panic" here, it doesn't have to be them that builds the best commoditized model.
Last commit 9 months ago
I bet we're going to get some interesting artefacts inserted into laws if this becomes common.
It was a nice gesture.
Programs are communication between 2 loosely coupled audiences -- the humans who have to maintain / modify the code and the computer that gets to run the code.

Human language, used to convey ideas to other humans, is imprecise. It's fine that it's imprecise because the media (humans) have both good error correction and a reasonable set of global defaults.

Computer languages require enormous precision because they're some mechanical translation to a set of machine code runtime.

Perhaps you can train an LLM on lots of code, and it'll find semantic relationships between some clever code it's been trained on to and your specific request. Perhaps not, and it'll just give a dumb answer or an incorrect answer, (ideally some code copilot will actually try running the candidate answer code against your specific ask?) -- but once the answer gets complex you run into the "it's much harder to debug code than write it, so don't write code that's almost too complex for you to understand" problem.

At work, I constantly have to remind people "don't use math data structures for identities" "but int is smaller" "Are you ever going to want the 95th percentile customerID?" "no that's silly" "then it isn't a number". Or I get to constantly remind people "a string with lots of curly braces and quotes isn't necessarily json; if you're not using a serialized API and just sending bytes to stdout someone else has to parse it" "but I'm using a logging library" "does anything else ever send stuff to stdout while your logging library is running?" "oh yes, we're going to open a ticket to debug that." So I'm not optimistic that running code written by a machine is long-term viable.

That said -- there are situations where machine generated code works -- I think it's been a long time since anyone manually drew masks for etching dies when making CPUs.
Yes, because employers will also be replaced by AI. Technology penetration won’t stop at some arbitrary boundary, it will go all the way through to logical conclusion. We have a chance at qualitatively better world, but we’ll need to act and push for new economic systems - when the time comes.
1. Raw speed on modern CPUs means taking advantage of data locality more than anything else. Even concurrency. Cache misses will cost you a few hundred cycles, far too much to make up for with concurrency in most cases.

2. Of course given a sufficiently large array, iterating over it with 16 processors is faster than with 1. Arrays still dominate other data structures for raw performance here.

3. Concurrency doesn’t just mean multi threading. SIMD instructions can perform simultaneous operations on multiple operands in your array. Can’t do this with a linked list.
Maybe I read too much science fiction, but my first thought when speaking about "true AI" isn't the worry that a lot of us will get fired, it's the worry that we'll have created an army of digital slaves.
It seems there is a battle of two opposite view-points. One is that LLMs are just dumb autocompletes with no ability to understand anything. Another is that LLMs can already right now be substitutes for programmers.
I personally thing it is neither, but for experts who know what they are doing it is a massive time saver. I.e. in cases you know what code you want to write, but it's tedious, LLMs can do for you. Also LLMs are great in cases where you are less familiar with a new API, language, but have generally good understanding of programming.

Despite my broadly positive view on usefulness of LLMs, I do not think they are good enough (yet) to build a full system from scratch without an expert supervisor. This should not IMO be used as a 'proof' they are dumb autocompleters.
> As soon as your situation exceeds textbook level, I’ve found them to always be a waste of my time

Doubly so. A very knowledgeable and helpful tutor would say ”you’re asking for advanced or detailed guidance. I don’t know the specifics, but I can point you to some places that you’d be able to find these answers on your own”.

What the AI does is continue its babbling confidently while being incredibly wrong and non-sensical, like a person suffering a stroke or concussion where the mannerisms are normal but they don’t remember their name. It seems completely unable to judge its own knowledge (probably because it is).
Probably certain subreddits like /r/neutralpolitics
The 1993 movie Super Mario Bros. already did that to me.
See also: almost every bespoke internal app written in FoxPro, VB, Excel with VBScript, etc
I think that's a poor excuse. Screen resolutions are higher now but our machines are also orders of magnitude more powerful.
The only time Article 5 was called, was by America

30 years after this was written, so not relevant.

Who are now being threatened by the new administration.

50 years after this was written, so not relevant.
That’s a bucket list museum destination for me.

They have one of the SBD Dauntless dive bombers at the museum that sunk a Japanese carrier at Midway. Still has holes in it from AA fire if I recall correctly.
Assuming you are US citizen, you should be worried about USG, not CCP. CCP having your data could rarely hurt you, unlike your own government. So gemini, chatgpt and so are more dangerous for you in a way.
I’ve been to the Midway twice and it’s the first time I hear the story. Must have overlooked an exposition or something. I also wonder why they didn’t bring the bird dog over to San Diego? I mean they have the F14 from the USS Enterprise who needed to land on the midway still on the flight deck.

Other than that. What an amazing story. I love the part that the captain didn’t care if he would not only loose his job but also get court marshaled for loss of material.
Never believe the snake oil sellers
Silicon Valley is not capitalism, it's financier-ism. It isn't about finding a gap in the market and providing a profitable service, but bandwagoning behind the latest trends so as to chase "scalability" and later using financial/political muscle to weaken regulations so as to better "disrupt" the market. Profits? That's a problem for whoever they manage to dump their shares on.
No, when I'm talking to someone I'm generally not randomly associating and dumping whatever I come up with, I typically have something I want to say.
I think that by the time AI can genuinely replace software engineers, a lot else in society will change.

It's hard to predict what it will look like. I could write both utopian and dystopian narratives and I can pretty much guarantee they'll both be wrong. Not "in the middle" but something unexpected, the way nobody predicted cat videos or doomscrolling.

But you are almost certainly right that we will not be the inheritors.
They are working on a new version that will include 4G.
Thinking back on it I've used Github nearly since the early 10s. Today I find myself wondering how the fuck I get a list of all issues for a project. For fifteen odd years I've been able to clear the search box of the "is:open" and "is:whateverfuckingelse" bits and just get a list.

Now? Whatever UI update they've just pushed isn't reflected in the documentation. I can't think of anything that's been improved since GH decided to reinvent text rendering (and poorly at that) and then double down on it.

Upon further inspection it sort of works if I log in. It behaves differently at least. Ugh.
I think fullstory.com does this or something very like it. Not affiliated, just friends with some folks who work there.
Terrible idea.
Popularity doesn’t demonstrate anything
Both, come on
Having had an inside view of a YC startup that went from seed to C, I can tell you that code quality means a lot less than one would think when it comes to the early days of a startup.

The biggest risk to a startup is that you get the business model wrong or you don't ship code, even if it's the code is buggy and messy.
T-shirts are made in Bangladesh while code is still being made by extremely well compensated professionals in developed countries. That's despite code being easier to transport internationally than clothes. It's hard to say that it's worked yet.
I'm sure they build the investing deal where they get all the money and the founders get a token amount.
The project is still in early stages. More and more people are getting involved, including people with some expertise.
MasterCard saying there was not a risk to their system after being shown how it could have been just shows how inadequate their concern for security is.

Having worked with payment gateways, most people would be appaled at the sloppy code, documentation, and setup of the systems their payment methods are running through.

It's just amazing that more exploitation isn't happening (though a lot of financial cybercrime never gets busted), and a good chunk of security is probably only reliant on the conscience of coders.
Most SaaS apps today can be done by gluing together popular APIs (e.g. Stripe, Shopify, etc.).

No better or worse than hiring cheap offshore contractors to do the same, IMO.
A project like this will have many considerations that don't fit into a Hacker News comment. I'd be surprised if a full analysis was less than 200 pages of detailed hard work, including performing actual research to answer questions such as "what exactly is the impact of a surface magnetic field of 0.34 teslas on the local water flow?" and "is marine life impacted by the local magnetic field exceeding Earth's natural field within about 10 km?"

I would be surprised if the very slow shift to Earth's poles has any impact, but yes, that too, even if only to rule it out.

Temperature, however, isn't one of those questions. Deep water has a near-constant temperature, and even if it didn't, solving for this is already well-studied for continuously welded railways.

Likewise, because it's underwater, we can make them in neutrally buoyant sections. Could even make them as two parallel and closely-spaced tracks, so it can built as an underwater railway that delivers its own power and transport during its own construction.

> due to the very real possibilty of another technology bieng adopted and implimented first.

Not hugely likely, IMO.

Long term I can see an argument for doing this as an orbital ring — basically the same idea but make it about π*200km longer so it can be 100km above ground everywhere, spin it so fast it's slightly above orbital speed, magnetically levitate hoops around it that are tethered to the ground and transmit power.

Buuuuut orbital rings are only at technology readiness level 2, so nowhere near ready to consider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch

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

(For example, an orbital ring has to be build by thickening rather than lengthening to be affordable: it was conceived as a non-rocket launch mechanism, and bootstrapping it by having a thin version lift the material for making it thicker and stronger was a big part of the pricing when it was originally conceived).

Whereas a big fat metal wire is at the level of "do sufficient geological and biological surveys to make sure there's an actual route, and accept that the answer may in fact be 'no'" — we *definitely* know how to build a big fat wire (or many smaller wires). We just don't know if we *should*.
I have an idea, which might sound extremely strange, but hear me out. Do not use AI to write laws.
It might be a dumb question, but if HN was alive in the 1930s, at what point did it start talking about things? Is there a point in the 1930s or 1940s when it needed to voice some concern? I don't think we are anywhere near that point. I am generally curious about the question, as I struggle with this answer as a person. I hate the constant troll/media cycles we are stuck in, but at what point should I be concerned?
If you include a clustered index/primary key on every query, you might be right, but in practice there's no benefit to include any other params if you have the pk, the catch all query is easy to modify into something that supports batches AND single values (which is where it really gets bad for parameter sniffing) and that's what I usually see in production causing problems.
This only works if there is an error message. Do you instruct the AI to fill in the code with asserts and not implemented exceptions?
Return-to-office policies: What we learned from BBC Panorama
It can be useful to back-check various claims, more as an information retrieval tool. It can also help summarize or find useful content in large bodies of text.
They exist in separate pieces; I've not seen it integrated into one loop yet.

Code gen -> show the AI an example of how it's supposed to work -> error -> code gen -> AI tries it again by itself -> Code gen
> If that is true I believe that Witold Pilecki will live forever.

I'm a bit pessimistic here. As the last remnants of the generation that lived through WWII die of old age, people are starting to forget the lessons of that time period, and humanity risks repeating the same mistakes again. The fact now we have billionaires doing the Nazi salute in public, and how the events in Gaza for the past years were reminiscent of what happened in WWII Warsaw ghetto are evidence of this.
I see this and conclude the opposite that they were adhering to the principle. Basically AI writes the buggy code that is upsetting you.

Similar experience trying to use GenAIScript, btw, and peering inside the box the code and product is pretty well incomprehensible.