skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Iran has recently seen Israel dominating them completely - in the skies far into Israel.

As far as I understand, in addition to the main targets, Israel also knocked out a good number of the air defense systems Iran had at the time.

Given russia can't even replace their own losses of sam systems I personally doubt that they are sending much to Iran.
> And no users which are facing a LLM today have been trained on next token prediction when they were babies.

That's conjecture actually, see predictive coding. Note that "tokens" don't have to be language tokens.
> I don't think 100.0% accuracy is a reasonable requirement for anything.

It is for some things: it's a matter of serenity of the mind, of trust even.

I don't want my water pipe to leak (yes, physically, it's never closed at 0%, but as far as I am concerned, as far as my water bill is concerned, when the faucet is closed, it's 100% closed - or, it's up for repair).

I don't want my pencil to draw 2% away from where my hand goes: I want it to be the exact result of what I do, imperfections included, because that's what matters to me: what's my own making (that's why I really despise drawing/painting tools that _automatically_ smooth lines and brushes: I need this to be an option).

Nobody will consider a "sorry I'm late, my phone AI gave me almost the good address for the appointment" as anything else than a loose excuse. And nobody will trust their phone AI ever after a failed interview.

I may tolerate a text generator to screw up things or meddle with my input, but only because/if/when I use it in that perspective: as kind of a dice/spaghetti thrower, as a toy, not as something I would depend on.

> it feels a mistake to rule it out as "useless" when a huge number of people are already making use of it.

Popularity is unrelated as to how each person will appreciate those tools for themselves.

1/ if you can tolerate the failure margin of the tools you use (and the consequences that come with it), of course it may be of use to you.

2/ if you feel you cannot _trust_ the machine that listen to you, stores your data, and drives some of your life, it is more than useless, it's literally cruft, it's a burden, given all the care and worry (and the cost) that goes around it.
I agree with all of this, and frankly it has me terrified for the future of humanity. With enough AI and automation you don't even need other humans, just the resources to hoard more means of production. The only rational argument I have for how we get somewhere else, is eventually once we start hitting the end game of resource accumulation someone's going to start launching nukes and the destruction of technology will send us back to a time when other humans actually mattered. A bit optimistic, I know.
rivers don't think and water doesn't have strategies, yet you can build intricate logic-gated tools using the power of water. Those types of systems are inherently interpretable because you can just look at how they work. They're not black boxes.

LLMs are black boxes, and if anything, interpretability systems show us what the heck is going on inside them. Especially useful when half the world is using these already, and we have no idea how t hey work
Did you really make it as a rapper? Do you have a Spotify or Soundcloud or wat?
Are you making a claim about evolution here?
Looking at the notebooks at the LOC, I don’t see enough detail to constitute construction plans of the Flyer.

And these remained in Orville’s hands until after his death in 1949 and mostly the documents from 1903 are attributed to Orville’s hand.

Likewise, the Flyer was restored by Orville for display and money many years later during the period of time when Langley was credited as first. [1]

Finally, the Smithsonian is prohibited from crediting anyone else by the terms of sale for its purchase of Orville’s restoration. [2]

Basically, we have Orville’s word for everything and a contract that contractually incentivizes the Smithsonian to take it as gospel.

Again, thanks for inspiring me to go beyond the national myth and look at the Wrights critically.

[1] https://www.loc.gov/collections/wilbur-and-orville-wright-pa...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer#After_Kitty_Haw...
No excuse. It’s results that matter, not process. Defining who she was would have meant being proactive and saying something like “trans folks should be able to use the bathroom but sports leagues can decide who plays”
This was fascinating, thank you.
FYI I'm sure you're aware, Svelte has one of the best migration guides ever [1].

It's too large to be a Cursor rule though. But, if you dump it into Google Gemini (which is phenomenal at large context windows) it will write you a solid condensed version.

[1] https://svelte.dev/docs/svelte/v5-migration-guide
Those higher property taxes will be passed on directly to the renters.
100 years ago rooming houses housed a large fraction of the population. They've been zoned out of existence. Let them come back.
> Claude writes text one word at a time. Is it only focusing on predicting the next word or does it ever plan ahead?

When a LLM outputs a word, it commits to that word, without knowing what the next word is going to be. Commits meaning once it settles on that token, it will not backtrack.

That is kind of weird. Why would you do that, and how would you be sure?

People can sort of do that too. Sometimes?

Say you're asked to describe a 2D scene in which a blue triangle partially occludes a red circle.

Without thinking about the relationship of the objects at all, you know that your first word is going to be "The" so you can output that token into your answer. And then that the sentence will need a subject which is going to be "blue", "triangle". You can commit to the tokens "The blue triangle" just from knowing that you are talking about a 2D scene with a blue triangle in it, without considering how it relates to anything else, like the red circle. You can perhaps commit to the next token "is", if you have a way to express any possible relationship using the word "to be", such as "the blue circle is partially covering the red circle".

I don't think this analogy necessarily fits what LLMs are doing.
The Quintessentially American Story of Indian Pizza
Is this something that could help people write code using my framework (tscircuit) more easily? I'm confused how I could add docs/recommend users to use Continue with a custom tscircuit assistant
If you disallow control characters so that you can use them as delimiters, then CSV itself becomes a "binary" data format - or to put it another way, you lose the ability to nest CSV.

It isn't good enough to say "but people don't/won't/shouldn't do that", because it will just happen regardless. I've seen nested CSV in real-life data.

Compare to the zero-terminated strings used by C, one legacy of which is that PostgreSQL doesn't quite support UTF-8 properly, because it can't handle a 0 byte in a string, because 0 is "special" in C.
Any type of action has a reaction. Iran can target US military bases all around Middle East. They can damage tankers passing the Persian Gulf causing havoc to worldwide markets.
https://archive.ph/uxQpu
It seems like an even bigger risk to not migrate.
You don't need RL for the conclusion "trained to predict next token => only things one token ahead" to be wrong. After all, the LLM is predicting that next token from something - a context, that's many tokens long. Human text isn't arbitrary and random, there are statistical patterns in our speech, writing, thinking, that span words, sentences, paragraphs - and even for next token prediction, predicting correctly means learning those same patterns. It's not hard to imagine the model generating token N is already thinking about tokens N+1 thru N+100, by virtue of statistical patterns of preceding hundred tokens changing with each subsequent token choice.
I was told by a lawyer who does eviction cases that most jury members in SF are renters. My guess is that most who show up for jury duty also vote. There are consequences in theory for shirking jury duty, but my experience (from the early 1990s) was that the risk of actually incurring any consequences is very low.
The point I'm trying to make is that "each word following the last" is a limitation of the medium, not the speaker.

Language expects/requires words in order. Both people and LLMs produce that.

If you want to get into the nitty-gritty, people are perfectly capable of doing multiple things simultaneously as well, using:

- interrupts to handle task-switching (simulated multitasking)

- independent subconscious actions (real multitasking)

- superpositions of multiple goals (??)
Now imagine working with the double hires mode with vertical interleaving that has already been discussed and horizontal interleaving between the main memory and bank switched memory to the higher 64K of extended RAM.
We used to, but with the Reagan deregulation in the 80's, corporations seized control. Ketchup is a veggie according to their rules, so pizza is now "healthy"
Density in CA is bad because we don't build up. If we built up, there would be enough customers for you to not need to go to Whole Foods and instead be able to hit up a smaller grocer on your block without getting in a car. Traffic is bad because we don't have density we have sprawl
So curious if this added a trick to your debugging toolbox?
I tried using nushell and had it as my default myshell for weeks but eventually it had too little familiarity and I settled on fish. So I’m probably not going to try this shell as my default shell. I think it’s going to be an uphill battle for them to get much adoption.

Maybe the sandboxing will be nice and they can provide it in a way that isn’t tied to a particular shell. However sandboxing on a shell command level is too coarse grained for some things.
I can already guess without looking that the sandbox is excellent except that oops there's a few edge cases that were MUST FIX, so, we had to cut a small hole in it. The people who understand how difficult this is to do properly built the actual sandbox which will be fine, the ragged hole cut in it (and exploited) was implemented by somebody for whom the sandbox is just another annoying thing they need to work around to get their job done and they don't care that they made it worthless.
I agree with your points over all, but lacking a complete "rational argument", I'd just like to outline a few ideas that I'm still working on, and while not a complete fulfillment of your desire for a map from here to there, might be a starting place for ideas. Like you, I see the seeds of a potentially dark future--but maybe it isn't our fate just yet.

I'd start with changing what and how we measure. A move away from single-dimension variables like GDP and simplistic closed-form calculations like the Black-Scholes formula and all it led us to believe.

If we agree simple-but-wrong metrics are bad, then we can (I believe) move towards simulations--not "my simulation" nor "your simulation", but ways to talk about beliefs and outcomes. I think the future will involve AI-assisted computable discussions, where multiple variables and the ability to dynamically incorporate or exclude assumptions from opposing perspectives will lead us to some shared agreement and mutually beneficial outcomes (while allowing for many areas where people will continue to disagree).

I'd propose next that we continue to raise the prominence of evidence showing how cooperation is often better than competition. Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom spent her life identifying systems and methods of cooperation. She proposes, "We are neither trapped in inexorable tragedies [e.g. of the commons] nor free of moral responsibility."

Robert Axelrod ran simulations on the iterated prisoner's dilemma and concluded, "forgiveness, cooperation, and reputation" are a stable strategy in most real-world conditions.

Strong ideologies that promote extreme individualism, marketed as scientifically sound, deserve great skepticism IMO, and should be treated with the same wariness as two missionaries knocking on your door.
Not surprising.

This is the kind of behavior that college incentivizes, and also the hiring process is one-sided to the point where qualified people get left in the dust every time.

Why would we somehow expect anything different, when you literally cannot complete college without engaging in this type of behavior?

Honestly, I don't think its this guys fault insofar as he's just doing what Columbia taught him to do.

Its time we start looking closely at the education system, and begin the gutting of the things that don't further society's interests.
I’ve also seen this happen in NYS. Tenants do the craziest shit (selling showers to crackheads and discovering a near thousand dollar water bill was one of the tamer tales), fight tooth and nail to stay, and leave the place uninhabitable when they finally are forced to go.

Unfortunately the local mom and pop landlords get wrecked by this while only the big corporate landlords have the resources and scale to weather these situations.
PostgreSQL – aio: Add io_method=io_uring
mailing list: Andres Freund https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/o2dtdrlc2xqpjycsfuvv7u...
(.pdf) https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/content/uploadFiles/public... ("Long-chain alkanes preserved in a Martian mudstone")
If old people -- literally or spiritually -- don't voluntarily get out of the way then they must be pushed out forcibly.

It won't be pretty I'm afraid; not much else we can do however.
The comic strip character was acting all knowledgeable by quoting Shakespeare as saying "yes" when the character meant "sí", but misspelling Shakespeare's name as "Chespier", something like misspelling it "Shaespier" in English.
> To identify which ultra-processed foods should be eliminated from school offerings, scientists will consider whether a product includes additives that are banned elsewhere, whether it has been linked to health harms, whether it has been show to contribute to food addiction, and whether it contains excessive fat, sugar or salt, California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, said on the call.

Should make it a rule for people to read the post instead of merely the title.
I am in agreement with you that LLMs are lifeless regurgitation machines; what I'm implying isn't too far from how children learn/interact. One of the first concepts we teach children is word association to objects and once they've learned the term, they use it to describe whatever electrical signals are firing in their brain that made them decide "apple". If the difference is that LLMs use numerical representations to determine those "firings" in its decision making process, then would the numerical representations of an fMRI scanner hooked to a human be equivalent?

Of course not, because humans > robots. BUT, that does not discount the fact that humans learn through methods like memorization, which have their own reinforcement learning patterns. Many of the cognitive science* concepts have similar LLM infrastructure equivalents as well - "Mind Palace" is similar to RAG, the different relationships we have with others is akin to LLM role-playing, one/few-shot prompting is like templates.

I've recently been thinking about what types of discussions we'll have around AI in about 20 years - a new generation of young adults will leaving school, where we are currently introducing them to AI tutor avatars. Combined with things like Neuro-sama, the AI driven Twitch streamer, I'm curious about how the NEXT generation will perceive AI since they've grown up with it. This isn't a Futurama Marilyn Monroe Bot fantasy, its sort of a reality (whether I agree with it or not).
Again, this isn't accurrate. Please see my other comment on why the filesystem is not mounted by multiple hosts.
Sort of.

We don’t precisely know the most fundamental workings of a living cell.

Our understanding of the fundamental physics of the universe has some hold.

But for LLMs and statistical models in general, we do know precisely what the fundamental pieces do. We know what processor instructions are being executed.

We could, given enough research, have absolutely perfect understanding of what is happening in a given model and why.

Idk if we’ll be able to do that in the physical sciences.
How is me being untouchable as long I pay on time a hell?
This is a super helpful breakdown and really helps me understand how the RL step is different than the initial training step. I didn't realize the reward was delayed until the end of the response for the RL step. Having the reward for this step be dependent on the coherent thought rather than a coherent word now seems like an obvious and critical part of how this works.
I absolutely adored Johnathan Strange and Mr. Norrel, I don't read a _ton_ of fiction, but somehow stumbled into it and recommend it to anyone who will listen.

But I couldn't get into Piranesi at all. The first few chapters never seem to actually go anywhere. It got terrific reviews so maybe it's just too abstract for me.
Much more succinct description than mine :-)
On a purely numbers basis the older generation of homeowners far outnumber the young. It's going to take a good while before the balance of power can be shifted. Democracy has the longterm tools for sure, just not for another twenty years or so.

Hopefully over time yimby can take hold in some pockets and gradually expand out from those strongholds.
> Yes we did build steam engines before understanding thermodynamics but we still understood what it did (heat, pressure, movement, etc.)

We only understood in the broadest sense. It took a long process of iteration before we could create steam engines that were efficient enough to start an Industrial Revolution. At the beginning they were so inefficient that they could only pump water from the same coal mine they got their fuel from, and subject to frequent boiler explosions besides.
True. People use completely unjustified anthropomorphised terminology for marketing reasons and it bothers me a lot. I think it actually holds back understanding how it works. "Hallucinate" is the worst - it's an error and undesired result, not a person having a psychotic episode
It's far less nice to accuse people of lying without any evidence. If someone is wrong, say so. But there's no reason to call people liars.
I was just looking at the school I grew up going to.

https://www.lodi.k12.wi.us/our-families/food-service

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1742572951/lodik12wi...

My mom works there and she says they are making a lot of the stuff themselves, like the casseroles and bakes, chili and soup, tacos, pizza, etc.

Glean what you can from these images on the site I guess too?

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/f_auto,q_auto,t_image...

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/f_auto,q_auto,t_image...
> Bonus, she couldn’t think of anything she would do differently than Biden when asked in an interview, tanking her perception as a leader.

I have no idea how movement Democrats convince themselves to make up a platform for Harris, often from whole cloth, although usually from some vague, unenforceable statement or general platitude repeated at a few speeches. Instead they blame people for attaching policies to her; either conservatives attaching policies that she articulated clearly in past statements and campaigns, or Democrats attaching Biden's policies to her (which, nonetheless, were all perfect and he was the greatest president in a generation.)

People asked her point blank whether she still had policies that she articulated in the past. She refused to answer, and would just give some memorized speech (that someone else obviously wrote.) People asked her whether any of Biden's policies were wrong. She said none that she could recall, like a person carefully lying on the witness stand. She relied on media surrogates to make up policies that she could possibly have, and spent a lot of her campaign denying that things that her surrogates said could be her policies were her policies.

The only thing we knew for sure about Harris is that Israel, crypto, and big tech were in. We could get that from Trump.

Harris lost because she wasn't willing to alienate a single donor, and would never be.
>I didn't see much concern about Ukraine leading to WW3 until Trump allowed peace talks to start.

Trump has regularly used WW3 rhetoric about Ukraine:

2022: https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-warns-world-war-3-accide...

2023: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-world-war-iowa-waterlo...

2024: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
So, what if it were you in that position? What if your income was reduced and now the Government increases the property tax so you can no longer afford to pay for it? And let's add in the Government has a large tax on capital gains, which will kick in if you sell that property, and now you can't afford a new property somewhere else?
Why would you deploy B-2s outside of the country? Does Diego Garcia even have the required climate controlled hangars to store the planes? Point of these planes was take them off from the US and have them return to the US.

If we're using them for Yemen, wouldn't the b-1b be better and cheaper. Much lower operating costs and almost double the payload?
Not sure how long it will take them to accept responsibility in this case or at least confirm but Oracle has always played the denying game, it looks like their favorite business practice.
Used to in the USA. when I was in school lunches were all made from scratch from a full time kitchen staff. Guessing today the MBAs have figured out how to reduce costs by automating and centralizing food production so that schools only need to heat-up lunches and thus reducing tax burden.

America has highly developed industrial food manufacturing and supply lines and a public willing to accept it. Just different values about how food is made, priced, and brought to market.
Because copper is no longer a good enough conductor when it it is used in very thin layers, the latest and densest CMOS fabrication processes have begun to replace copper with other metals for the first 2 metal layers, which are the thinnest.

It is not known with certainty what metals are currently used by Intel or TSMC, though cobalt and ruthenium have been considered as the most promising choices.

There has been a lot of speculation about whether the choice of cobalt for the thinnest metal layers has been an important cause of Intel's woes with their "10 nm" CMOS fabrication process.

While there were chances for this hypothesis to be true, the actual reasons for Intel's failure to achieve the predicted clock frequencies and fabrication yields with their "10 nm" processes remain unknown, because Intel has never published any information about this.

Whichever was the reason, eventually Intel has succeeded to fix this fabrication process, even if only around 5 years later than in their initial plan, after rebranding it in "Intel 7", at least from the point of view of the achievable performances, which have culminated in Raptor Lake Refresh, though perhaps Intel's incapacity of predicting accurately the reliability behavior as a function of the supply voltage, as demonstrated in many failures of Raptor Lake/Alder Lake CPUs, may indicate that they have never succeeded to understand the exact characteristics of this fabrication process.
You can do all of those in chrome
There are three categories: tax minimisation (structuring legitimately to minimise tax), tax avoidance (structuring legitimately but artificially to avoid taxes) and tax evasion (lying to evade tax).

Tax minimisation is fine. Tax avoidance is, in sensible countries, not illegal but ineffective: tax avoidance arrangements are void for tax purposes. Tax evasion is a serious crime.

Avoidance is not using the system as it was designed. It is using the system as it was not intended, creating totally artificial structures just for tax reasons. In a sensible society the taxman can just say "clearly artificial so I will ignore this" and if you disagree, well, see you in court.