skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Yeah, this does make the "read pointer from user input" case (which is actually sometimes useful) a bit weird

I think it works out quite reasonably and elegantly, actually.

If you can prove that an address wasn't leaked -- then you can assume the program behavior is independent of any pointer read from user input, and thus optimize as if the pointer wasn't read from user input.

Otherwise, you assume the address was leaked, and thus must act as if the target might overlap said address.

> however but it seems pretty obvious that ptr-to-int should probably be exposing at the very least

I don't think that's necessary, but it's certainly a valid way to write a compiler. (I say this because I don't think (void)(uintptr_t)ptr; should be considered exposing, for example.)
The search and replace they want researchers to do:

gender -> personality

transgender -> trans-identifying

pregnant person -> pregnant woman

pregnant people -> pregnant women

LGBT -> LGB (or LGB and T separately)

transsexual -> ??? presumably trans-identifying

non-binary -> ??? presumably something to do with personality

assigned male/female at birth -> male/female

biologically male/female -> male/female
The Python ecosystem is a sad mess.
I don't think the cost of such machine will ever be a better than $20/mo, though. Capital costs are too high.
Science found conclusions we did not liked, so it must not be science. Because we are so deeply disgusted by people that science studied.
It's not "not us and therefore evil". That's too simple. Instead it's "they are saying we're the problem which is evil, and others perhaps including my children, are starting to believe them, therefore a threat".

Conservatives really care about an order in things, to keep out chaos. Anything that reduces structure in society is suspicious, especially if it comes at you expense. Note that this holds for plenty of people who are way down on the power ladder.
We have a cable connection, and the cable modem can either act as a router or a bridge. We set it up as bridge, and connected an opnSense router to it.
Some people will love this idea, it fits with the big ol' simple fix so no worries, we'll just keep on keeping on ... Also somewhat NIMBY for most who don't want their tax money to help deal with the situation that might not be real ...

I'm greatly amused, it reads more like a movie plot or a good April fool's joke ... what could possibly go wrong. Drilling in depths over 3 miles of water isn't that easy. Also water is slightly absorbent hydraulically, but not that much to quell such a high energy blast.

Blasting a large channel in suitable coastal mainland material, (maybe along some strategic line into the country) results in a structure that could be used for shipping and moving the resulting rubble some distance out from the coastline to form a deep protective sea wall along the coast makes a lot more sense as it has more value. The wall would also for a narrow sea suitable for shipping and recreation, the wall additionally creating a secure border while it's undeveloped. Of course after some years, the first built parts of the wall once the bulk has weathered and settled, might be suitable for niche farming ventures or a nature reserve.

>Detonating a 81 Gt nuclear device could cause a global catastrophe if done improperly. Simply burying a nuclear device in a basalt deposit would cause this catastrophe. However, deep water is incredibly shock absorbant.[sic] By buring [sic] the nuclear device kilometers underground under kilometers of water, we can be certain that the explosion will first pulverize the rock then be contained by the water.

We propose burying this device beneath the Kerguelen Plateau in the Southern Ocean, 3-5 km into the basalt-rich seaﬂoor and 6-8 km below the water’s surface. Under these parameters, there is approximately 800 atm of pressure to absorb the energy. Additionally, nearby currents like the Antarctic Circumpolar Current can distribute the particles for accelerated carbon sequestration.

Additionally, the nuclear device should be designed to minimize its long-term radiation effects.To do this, a standard fission-fusion hydrogen bomb design is sufficient. The basalt should absorb and trap in the majority of the radiation to the local area.

Edit for the monkey at the keyboard.
It was evitable, Trump won by low margin. And the opposition toward Musk and Trump and generally republican fascism could be stronger rather then complacent.
gpt-4o, asked to produce swi-prolog code, gets the same result using a very similar code. gpt4-turbo can do it with slightly less nice code. gpt-3.5-turbo struggled to get the syntax correct but I think with some better prompting could manage it.

COT is defiantly optional. Although I am sure all LLM have seen this problem explained and solved in training data.
I built a Ruby library for feature flags that’s completely hardcoded.

In a rails app you have an ./app/plans folder with Ruby files, each command containing a class that represents each feature in a plan.

There’s code examples at https://github.com/rubymonolith/featureomatic if you want to have a look.

I’ve used it for a few apps now and it’s been pretty useful. When you do need plug a database into it, you can do so by having the class return the values from a database.
> How about we have people skilled in neuropsychology, psychometrics and cognitive psychology do what they are good at.

Disagree. The thing that we will eventually call AGI will not be human. No need to have human-specific evaluations unless you’re aiming for an artificial human and not just an artificial intelligence.
It’s just a waterfall of small features and improvements. Windows 10 stopped getting new features added 4 years ago and Windows 11 gets a major update at least yearly.

It’s not like Windows 10 is incompetent, after all, OSes are generally mature.

But it’s a collection of things where if you purchased a competitor or used a recent Linux desktop, you’d expect them to be there.

Little things like native support for 7zip, rar, and tar files.

Or tabs in file explorer.

Or under the hood improvements like variable refresh rate, DirectStorage, and more complete HDR support.

Those kinds of things you’d come from another OS released in 2025 and wonder why they are missing.

It would be like going to macOS Catalina. It wouldn’t immediately seem old but if you came from Sequoia you’d find a lot of little things missing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_11_version_history
Data-Oriented Exploits via Programming Language Synthesis [pdf]
It doesn't work under Netsurf, Dillo, Links, Lynx and who knows more. Congrats.
Is there a similar list for decentralized applications that run on those protocols?
http://cjcm.ijournals.net.cn/jslxxb/ch/reader/view_abstract....

Appears to be this, though different title:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095579972...
I agree that a raw autoregressive LLM model with just a single output is (almost necessarily) less capable than humans. Not only can we ponder (chain of thought style), we also have various means available to us to check our work – e.g. for a coding problem, we can write the code, see if it compiles and runs and passes our tests, and if it doesn't, we can look at the error messages, add debugging, try some changes, and do that iteratively until we hopefully reach a solution–or else we give up – which the constraint "single output" denies.

I don't think anyone is actually expecting "AGI" to be achieved by a model labouring under such extreme limitations as a single output autoregressive LLM is. If instead we are talking about an AI agent with not just chain of thought, but also function calling to invoke various tools (including to write and run code), the ability to store and retrieve information with a RAG, etc – well, current versions of that aren't "AGI" either, but it seems much more plausible that they might eventually evolve into it.

I don't think we need to invoke Turing or Gödel in order to make the point I just made, and I think doing so is more distracting with irrelevancies than actually enlightening.
It certainly comes across like people are discouraging others from even learning about it.

Just read through this thread and see how few people are saying anything like "you should still learn how cryptographic primitives work though". It's almost nothing but negativity and discouragement.
That's not actually true; it's an asymmetric problem. You're asking about impacting another orbiting object with nonzero relative velocity. That's not the symmetric question of transferring between two orbits A and B, both ways; it's the asymmetric question of going from orbit A to "some orbit that intercepts B at some point".

It's much less delta-v to go from the Oort cloud to Earth—to a highly-eccentric orbit that intercepts the Earth's orbit, without matching its velocity.
The thing that trips everyone is that you cannot explain the SQL outputs. In sequential code, you can step through and understand why the logic error produced erroneous output.

With SQL, it is a trial and error. When your query passes your sniff tests, you sign looks good to me, and you ship it to the world. Only to silently break shortly afterwards without any warning.

In enterprise, I am convinced at this point that all of the complex ETL jobs are vending wrong outputs. Just nobody has the tools to diagnose and fix the problems.
Nine (Seemingly Impossible C64 Demo)
He’s an illegal, but they don’t care because he’s “their/our” illegal.
You can sell the RSU tranche the day you get it though right? So it like cash. Unfortunately that also means for tax purposes.
Sure, I very much agree. My anecdotes contradict the previous anecdotes.

Is it QED? No, the best that can be hoped for is, "Hmm, that's interesting".
No, but if it affects someone in the state there's usually something to get them on.
Being a trans vegan doesn't automatically make you left wing. Nor does voting Democrat. Being progressive is a complex set of ideals, just as conservatism is a lot more than whatever the Republican party is doing today.
Many states assign judges through nonpartisan elections. I mean I do, more or less, agree with you but at the same time there's quite a lot of checks and balances - judges, appelates, constitutional review, and the final judge - juries. The entire government was intentionally designed to be mostly nonfunctional to prevent a tyranny of the majority (or minority). It's hard to really do things, and have them stick, unless there's pretty wide consensus.

I'd also add that the more simple laws add transparency. If a e.g. judge does something not in the apparent spirit of a older law, it's apparent to anybody with a mind. But when instead an offender (or judge) relies on a nuanced, if esoteric, interpretation to a loophole in section 274, subsection 74 paragraph 13a, nobody has any clue what's happening.

And if we're screwed either way, it'd be nice if people could at least visibly and explicitly see that they're being screwed.
> Why should US fund WHO ~5-6 times more than China [0] (and more than EU)

The base contributions are a function of GDP. The extra contributions are voluntary, and the US did it because it was in the US’ interests. It’s a founding error in the US foreign policy budget and was a good investment in terms of goodwill and data for American health research institutions.

WHO must focus where it is needed most. Public health is much better in the EU (and even in Europe, accounting for places like Belarus and Ukraine) than in China, and there are much fewer epidemics that emerge in Europe in general.

The whole idea is that if we limit the emergence of epidemics where they are likely to happen, we end up with fewer pandemics after these epidemics spread worldwide (which includes Europe and North America). The whole world is better without another COVID, Ebola, or Polio.

> only to have the WHO be controlled by China

This is bullshit. The WHO is not controlled by China any more than other UN institutions. What is certain, though, is that the US won’t have any say whatsoever once they are out.
Hopefully not much. They'll invent some jargon if necessary and move on. The issue with banning "woke ideology" in principle is that it isn't formally defined and doesn't mean anything. And to ban a thing first it has to exist in a detectable way.

My guess is there'll be a bit of flailing then everyone will default back to status quo. It isn't possible to implement incoherent policies and it isn't going to do anyone any favours in terms of image to pursue this. Might take 4 months, might take 4 years to blow over.
It can be fiber speeds! I had symmetric gigabit with MonkeyBrains for 3 years.
It just depend on the size of their install; I was in a relatively large apartment complex so they invested more in bigger(?) antennas.
ah okay. although I have used vim in it occasionally, but really just a short term thing. makes sense.
Nothing I’ve seen happen in the last few weeks bodes well for the USA. It really looks like planned destruction to me.

If you’re reason for being is “owning the libs” it must be a glorious time, but outside of that…
We wouldn’t know this if the information isn’t shared? So, aren’t you making a case for not removing this information?
apparently you were too generous: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3812509/us-government-...

>Musk appointees allegedly plugged their own email server into OPM network, breaking data security rules.

I can't believe a non-government official ca just walk into the OPM, demand to plug in some strange device, and kick out anyone who (was basically legally required) tried to stop them. What the hell is going on this week?
"What if, as ChatGPT laps up more and more of our text, it just gets closer and closer to human mediocrity, like the mediocre text it’s trained to predict?"

^- this
Science is not in the proving of it.

It’s in the disproving of it, and in the finding of the terms that help others understand the limits.

I dont know why it took me so long to come to that sentence. Yes, everyone can trot out their core examples that reinforce the point.

The research is motivated by these examples in the first place.
>The problem with rationalists/EA

i see 2 - superiority complex and lack of such an "irrational" thing like empathy. Basically they use crude logical-like looking constructions to excuse their own narcissism and related indulgences.
Cool! I've made an ESP32 powered RC tank on tracks, controlled with a PlayStation 4 controller over Bluetooth.

The basic software is very easy to start with, about 20 lines of C using a library for the Bluetooth controller. From there I've added features for easier control. Using two sticks for two tracks works at low speed, but the thing goes close to 20 km/h (I've used two drone motors for it) so then you need a different control method. I ended up with rpm limited direct track control using the "triggers" on the dual shock controller. And more intuitive left stick up/down for throttle, right stick left/right for steering for high speed operation. So now it drives like a normal RC car.

Video of the same 3d print model I used as a basis in action, you can see the speed best from 00:50 onwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mv_tDY89Zw
Conservatism barely exists in the US today.
> Framing transformer based models as pattern matchers makes all the sense in the world. Pattern matching is obviously vital to human problem solving skills too. Interesting to think about what structures human intelligence has that these models don't. For one, humans can integrate absolutely gargantuan amounts of information extremely efficiently.

What is also a benefit for humans, I think, is that people are typically much more selective. LLMs train to predict anything on the internet, so for example for finance that includes clickbait articles which have a lifetime of about 2 hours. Experts would probably reject any information in these articles and instead try to focus on high quality sources only.

Similarly, a math researcher will probably have read a completely set of sources throughout the life than, say, a lawyer.

I’m not sure it’s a fundamental difference, but current models do seem to not specialize from the start unlike humans. And that might be in the way of learning the best representations. I know from ice hockey for example, that you can see within 3 seconds whether someone played ice hockey from young age or not. Same with language. People can usually hear an accent within seconds. Relatedly, I've used OpenAI's text to speech a while back and the Dutch voice had an American accent. What this means is that even if you ask LLMs about Buffett's strategy, maybe they have a "clickbait accent" too. So with the current approach to training, the models might never reach absolute expert performance.
Stuff like what is happening around ziz, the zit, is all too common.
I have met and conversed with people out on the fringes of the intelectual edge,in protest camps and anarchist communes,etc,and they very much discuss and rationalise getting there murder on.....when not bieng all glowy about aliens...and rightious about gender(s), so many))
pronouns, and the rest, but since they play chess a lot, they are rational, right.
Guaranteed there will/is more of the same.
hard to nav to a diff color
If your thesis is that Trump is awful and will be ousted, and the general public, even the MAGA crowd, will recoil at the devastation he unleashed, I suppose at least it's all mercifully quick. At this rate the US might be in a major recession this year already, with healthcare in disarray and everything else too.

Not something to relish, but I suppose better than slogging it out for years. At least he's accelerating the timeline.

Of course the alternative is that he's here to stay, in which case the accelerated timeline means more damage.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>I'd still argue that the third optimization would be incorrect here

That's my take as well, to apply it more defensively, any writes cannot be proven in-bounds should be considered clobbering q's state.
Quick peek at the Chinese SDKs in DeepSeek's Android app
Direct link to the data without the blog:
https://appgoblin.info/apps/com.deepseek.chat/sdks

If you see anything I missed or have some info about the unknowns let me know what they are so I can add them in).
That's a really unfair take on op's effort
For a teaching tool, you can get the best of both worlds by simply restricting RISC-V to fewer registers. Something like: "Write this in RISC-V assembly, but only use registers 0..3, and 31 for the return address."
Another thing I'll add after having spent a few years in a religious cult:

It's all about the axioms. If you tweak the axioms you can use impeccable logic to build a completely incorrect framework that will appeal to otherwise intelligent(and often highly intelligent) people.

Also, people are always less rational than they are able to admit. The force of things like social connection can very easily warp the reasoning capabilities of the most devout rationalist(although they'll likely never admit that).
Tech Optimists: We’ve released an algorithm that makes it easier for you to find what you want.

Tech Capitalists: How do we make money by gaming it?

Tech Realists: All I can find is SEO-manipulated garbage.

Tech Optimists: We’ve released an LLM that makes it easier to find what you think you want.

Tech Realists: Ok, this is cool, but I’m not sure I can find anything that is verifiably not hallucinatory slop. Also it seems to have been trained on a lot of SEO-manipulated garbage.

Tech Capitalists: How do we make money by gaming it?
Given the costs involved in all the back and forth that a typical retraction involves, I can't see the journals wanting to deal with it.
Here in the UK, I'm using VirginMedia, but have been running my own router for ages. Unfortunately I still have to keep their router powered and connected to access the internet, but it has a "modem" mode where it just provides a dumb connection to one port and disabled WiFi.

My current router is a NanoPi r6c which is a marvelous piece of hardware - stick in an nvm drive and it's more than happy running a bunch of containers. (It's running FriendlyWRT at the moment though I think the next release of openWRT will support it).
> LGBT ideology

You sound like you like this digital book burning.
I agree that you could choose semantics such that as soon as you take the address of a object that any store anywhere could alias it, so it is no longer legal to ever cache the value unless you prove the store does not overlap.

But, the key thing here is that if the programmer wrote:

*(p+1) = 10;
print(q[0]);

It is entirely reasonable and legal for the compiler to optimize that to:

*(p+1) = 10;
print(0);

Because the abstract model says that stores to one object can not alias another object. You, as the programmer, are required to not author out-of-bounds stores and a good compiler could detect illegal constructs.

However, in this case, the optimizer transformed a legal, well-formed construct into a illegal construct and then optimized as if it was always a illegal construct. Focusing on directly preventing such transforms and why such transforms should be illegal (pointing out the legal -> illegal thing they enable) minimizes the changes needed to the model.
It’s also the driver for a great economy imo. Why can’t Russia and China build and innovate like the USA can?

Because they spend a lot of time censoring and covering things up.

RIP USA.
A Lighthouse for Dark Times
"biased government" = government that is biased

"bias government" = government that is about bias, in some way, e.g. obsessed about it
> in it mostly for the tax cuts

He’s in the Treasury. Not only can he see his companies’ competitors’ payments, he can see their payroll data. We’re a two weeks in and he has read only. It wouldn’t take that much work to issue a few billion dollars in payments and then wipe the slate such that it’s incredibly difficult for anyone to catch on for years.

We’re way past tax cuts. Thiel got played, plainly and simply. (His issue was China. Trump is soft on China. Hell, he’s beating up Canada more than China.) The billionaires in the government are the winners; those out, probably not.

(For what it’s worth, Thiel mostly sat out this election. This was more Andreessen’s deal.)
They will just blame Biden (and Obama).
Why exactly do you think that a model of gender created by child molester Dr. John Money describes biological reality? Have you never considered this?
Little is left of what (real) Conservatives were trying to conserve. Now they have to become radicals to shift things back.
Safest Country in the Western Hemisphere
You don't need an Apple developer account for Swift on server, Windows and Linux.

You need one only to ship apps on Apple platforms, but that's unrelated to Swift. It applies also to apps written in Objective-C, C/C++, and multi-platform language/frameworks like Dart/Flutter.
It seems a bit nonsense to me.

> The mugger argues back that for any low but strictly greater than 0 probability of being able to pay back a large amount of money (or pure utility) there exists a finite amount that makes it rational to take the bet.

This is a basic logic error. It ignores the very obvious fact that increasing the reward amount decreases the probability that it will be returned.

E.g. if the probability of the reward R being returned is (0.5/R) we get "a low by strictly greater than 0 probability", and for that probability there is a (different) finite reward that would make it rational to take the bet, but it's not R.

This is even simpler and more stupid than the "proofs" that 0=1. It does not change my opinion that philosophers (and lesswrong) are idiots.
At that point you’re still paying the opportunity cost by losing out on selling your surplus.
It works for a little bit. But it stops working very quickly once people is wallets get hit.