skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you think you can run a business with 10 high-skilled employees on $40,000 of revenue per month, boy, have I got news for you :-)

Similarly, if you think 1000 B2B SaaS subscriptions is an easy-to-achieve number, I'd wager a bet you haven't run a B2B SaaS business.

Roughly, the calculation is: at $40/month, a single subscription brings in $480/year. That means you can safely afford to spend roughly one hour of support on a subscription PER YEAR. If you spend more than 2h, you are definitely in the red. And you will get support requests, of all kinds: the ones you expect, and then all the stuff about lost passwords, inability to log in, network problems, lost invoices, requests to change the billing period, requests for invoices from last year for a customer that has since canceled and been deleted, data export/import, etc.

People who haven't run a business routinely underestimate the costs of running a business and imagine that these numbers mean that business owners are buying yachts and private jets. People who have run a business realize that it's much more difficult to make ends meet than it seems.
They have to preface their articles with "This isn’t a rant against AI." because there are a lot of rants against AI out there, such as your comment.
"Low hiring, low firing" economy not great for Gen Z
Learning to Learn the coursera course is always recommended
My on-the-ground experience visiting Portland, Seattle, and LA in just the last few years showed me all I needed to know. I'm not being hyperbolic. Compared to the rest of the country, it's not even a contest.
I was thinking that as well until I read the caption on the graph, which I might still take issue with, but which was also a bit more nuanced since it was trying to visualize someone else's viewpoint.
"Substantially similar" is the standard, not "exact duplicate".
If the book is the compiled work, then the source of a book is the author's creative process. And certainly that isn't open to all simply by purchasing the book.

But less obtusely: you don't copyright a book--which is why knowledge, language, literature should not be closed source. We'd have to find a different model to support authors than trying to prevent people from copying books. Patreon style models where you subscribe and get behind the scenes access to the creative process, additional content, early access, etc. seem to work well as do sponsorship models like YT where the more viewers you draw the more you get paid, rather than a fixed fee per individual to watch a video. And, simply pay-what-you-want based models where everyone understands they can contribute in a way that matches the value to them and their means also work. One of the strongest arguments for piracy is that the pirate would never have paid $700 for Photoshop in the first place so the value "lost" isn't real and never would have been realized by the author(s). (Note this argument doesn't work for petty theft of physical property because the thief deprives the owner of tangible property.)
"This aspect of Microsoft hasn't changed." Now that is quite a dig, but I am going to have to completely agree, until they got Coulter but after that it is pretty much Microshaft.
I believe it's because AI hatred is quite trendy now. It's true though, memes were always copyright infringement; it's just that no one bothered to sue for it.
Yeah this would be my instinct even if someone somehow got a leaked TPM root EK and spoofed it with a bootkit. Your timings/latency/variance are still going to be different from a hardware chip, almost certainly. Yes you might be able to measure this and attempt to replay it but that gets hard, then you have to figure out e.g. how can you pin your hypervisor/mock TPM to a core so timings don't vary under load, etc. It's getting measurably harder to write good cheating software at this point.
Well, but that API Gateway x Lambda x DynamoDB combo will not answer support E-mails, will it?

Especially with B2B, it's easy to underestimate the support load for non-technical issues.
>In practice most LLM systems use this distribution (along with a “temperature” multiplier) to make a weighted random choice among the tokens

In other words, LLMs are not deterministic in just about any real setting. What you said there only compounds with MoE architectures, variable test-time compute allocation, and o3-like sampling.
what you're saying in short is that the US economy has changed from Manufacture-based to Service-based, just like China.

People don't realize this but China is moving toward Service-based, naturally, as they raised their standard of living, thus education.

What's missing is not raising tax on Income but taxing Wealth: the super rich has their wealth sitting and growing unproductively (house appreciating is not productive, buying farm lands and rent it to other farmer isn't productive). Holding Limited version of a Ferrari isn't productive. Feel free to find other Assets.

Once the super rich completed their journey in this world, they will inherit billions to their kids, whose productivity output does not match the wealth they inherited, again, not productive.

Tax their Wealth.
How about this version?

https://levenspiel.com/elephants/

Can't find the source though
Hey, are you using some tool like the unmaintained migra https://github.com/djrobstep/migra (perhaps using this tool https://github.com/blainehansen/postgres_migrator) or pg-schema-diff https://github.com/stripe/pg-schema-diff or maybe this other unrelated pg-schema-diff https://github.com/zombodb/pg-schema-diff anything like it?

Is it open source?

I mean, I see you say

> We then use a schema diff tool, like migra, to figure out the necessary updates to views and functions when generating the migration file.

But "like migra" is very nonspecific. I guess you are not using migra itself
Very interesting work.

Flate2 is an odd crate so I'm not too surprised to hear there's issues with it.

It seems unusual to rely on an FFI for something that isn't extremely intricate, broad, or brittle like syscalls / drivers / runtimes, I'd think that one zlib implementation would be as good as another, but maybe I'm naive.

Thankfully crates makes it pretty plain who would see fit to build on top of that.
Because "rant" is irrational, and the author wants to be seen as staking out a rational opposition.

Of course, every ranter wants to be seen that way, and so a protest that something isn't a rant against X is generally a sign that it absolutely is a rant against X that the author is pre-emptively defending.
Yes, opposition to gay marriage was so mainstream that even Barack Obama campaigned supporting Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act. Even in the Democratic primaries, as late as 2008, being pro gay marriage was seen as a liability.
The tax on capital ought to be less than the tax on labor. Capital gains taxes should be much higher. Losses should not be tax deductible for individuals. Capital should be taxed when moved out of the country.
> as for Spotify: https://bit.ly/samson_music

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here - that this website is comparable to Spotify? Even if you are talking about just the "core experience", this example supports the opposite argument that you are trying to make.
Amazon? Google? Meta? Tencent? etc etc etc
Yeah I don't even play videogames but this sounds more appealing to me than the game itself. Like I did a little bit of anticheat bypass stuff with some buddies a while back just because it was fun to beat the anticheat guys. We used it a bit and one guy dropped it on a forum after a bit just to cause some chaos and to get some laughs, but I don't think any of us were especially interested in sitting down and trying to use it for real. Breaking systems is a really enjoyable game.

Now what I do not get is why people just fork over a few hundred bucks for someone else's cheating solution. You aren't winning anything, you aren't breaking anything, you're just copy-pasting someone else's work. Not doing it yourself sort of removes that appeal. The game you're playing is supposed to be against the anticheat guys and by buying someone else's solution you're not actually playing that game at all. Regular players aren't really a fun target.
Timur Kuran writes about this idea (preference falsification) in "Private Truths, Public Lies".

He explains that its this idea that had kept the Soviet Union (this bad idea/system) from dying sooner. People thought it was the system of oppression but in reality it was people who hated the system showed approval. https://youtu.be/xzjqjU2FOwA?si=aTG0GnJKVDoK_-qb&t=819

"Accordingly, for all the hardships of life under communism, they remained politically submissive for years on end." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification
What unit tests do you use for nn modules and how do you come up with them?
I think "resource curse" countries are a great surrogate for studying possible future AGI-induced economic and political phenomena. A country like the UAE (oil) or Botswana (diamonds) essentially has an economic equivalent to AGI: they control a small, extremely productive utility (an oilfield or a mine instead of a server farm), and the wealth generated by that utility is far in excess of what those countries' leaders need to maintain power. Sure, you hire foreign labor and trade for resources instead of having your AGI supply those things, but the end result is the same.
Cloning? Bioweapons? Ever larger nuclear stockpiles? The world has collectively agreed not to do something more than once. AI would be easier to control than any of the above. GPUs can't be dug out of the ground.
I don't get it.

Isn't the goal to prevent someone from hacking into your email account and reading your email? If someone already hacked I to Alice's email account, and pretends to be her to access the decryption key (which they can do because they can prove they have control of the account - which is all key access requires), then they can decrypt the message.

Seems pretty pointless, unless I'm missing a key point (perfectly possible)
> Disney would say that you can’t.

Disney won't have any control. I can already generate images and videos locally on my hardware.

Maybe they'll try to stop distribution? There will be quite a lot of people making these, though.
Its kind of funny that everyone is harping this way or that way about IP.

This is a kind of strange comment for me to read. Because imby tone it sounds like a rebuttal? But by content, it agrees with a core thing I said about myself:

> and as someone who thinks IP is itself incredibly ripping off humanity & should be vastly scoped down, it's important to me to not rest my arguments on IP violations

What's just such a nightmare to me is that the tech is so normative. So horribly normative. This article shows that AI again and again reproduced only the known, only the already imagined. Its not that it's IP theft that rubs me so so wrong, it's that it's entirely bankrupt & uncreative, so very stuck. All this power! And yet!

You speak at what disgusts me yourself!

> When are we allowed to remix, recreate and expand on this like humanity has done

The machine could be imagining all kinds of Indianas. Of all different remixed recreated expanded forms. But this pictures are 100% anything but that. They're Indiana frozen in Carbonite. They are the driest saddest prison of the past. And call into question the validity of AI entirely, show something greviously missing.
Try being a drummer!
I know that's what is happening, and they are fully within their rights to do so when I use a permissive license. If people are using a permissive license and then getting upset that others are 'stealing without giving back', well, then they chose the wrong license in the first place.
Sorry, no repair. Didn't really affect function though.
from previous thread, a lot of good suggestions.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33797862
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33224904
Go back to my comment further up. When has he ever publicly or privately demonstrated that he understands economics? He repeatedly insists that exporters pay tariffs. He says a trade deficit means we're being robbed. His list of misapprehensions on basic ideas is very long. Absent evidence to the contrary, one can only conclude he knows nothing about economics. Maybe he studied it 50 years ago and maybe he didn't. He has not demonstrated an iota of fluency since entering politics.
It reduces notification display latency because they can be displayed directly by the system services managing push, without having to wait for an opportune time to fire up a service worker process. It does still allow customizing the notification with code, but even in that case, having the declarative notification as a fallback improves reliability.
I worked in AIX PS/2 development when it was in Danbury, CT. I think ver 1.3 came out after I left the group but I thought AIX PS/2 only ran on micro channel machines though maybe that changed by ver 1.3.
edit: just read the wikipedia page and indeed ver 1.3 did later introduce support for non PS/2 hardware though it wasn't in the initial 1.3 release.
It’s common practice to put your preferences and tips/advice into a readme solely for the LLM to consume to learn about what you want it to do.

So you’d set things like code standards (and hopefully enforce them via feedback tools), guides for writing certain architectures, etc. Then when you have the LLM start working it will first read that readme to “learn” how you want it to generally behave.

I’ve found that I typically edit this file as time goes on as a way to add semi-permanent feedback into the system. Even if your context window gets too large when you restart the LLM will start at that readme to prime itself.

That’s the closest analogy I can think of.
Give AI its own virtual world to live in where the problems it solves are encodings of the higher order problems we present and you shouldn't have to worry about this stuff.
I think the productivity gains of dynamic typed languages were real, and based on two things: dynamic typing (can) provide certain safety properties trivially, and dynamic typing neatly kills off the utterly inadequate type systems found in mainstream languages when they were launched (the 90s, mostly).

You'll notice the type systems being bolted onto dynamic languages or found in serious attempts at new languages are radically different than the type systems being rejected by the likes of javascript, python, ruby and perl.
Specs peaked years ago. I don't want anything new phones have to offer, other than maybe a screen that isn't cracked, or a newer battery, etc. New Androids are a downgrade in functional hardware features and software customization compared to older flagships. I don't need a screen that folds, built-in AI, or a marginally better camera with heavier post processing.

When the day comes that I'm forced into buying a new phone again, I'm with the others above. I'm not getting an overpriced Google branded iPhone clone sold by an ad company. I'd rather finally make the move to get an actual iPhone or go back to dumb phones.
Being mission focused can help in this regard. Knowing what you are trying to do and why you are trying to do it can guide you when to break the rules. This requires you to understand the business/organization and how the organization works. If a rule was set up to protect the company from breaking the law, you do not break those rules (unless you work in finance). If a rule was set up because someone with bad judgment did something dumb in the past which caused a snafu, make sure you aren’t being dumb.

If you aren’t sure if you are being dumb or not, you are probably dumb. If you are sure you are not dumb, you are probably dumb. If you think you may not be dumb, you may in fact not be dumb.
A creative shakedown.
Cool project. Every time one of these projects comes up, I'm always somewhat disappointed it isn't an open source / postgres version of GCP Cloud Tasks.

All I ever want is a queue where I submit a message and then it hits an HTTP endpoint with that message as POST. It is such a better system than dedicated long running worker listeners, because then you can just scale your HTTP workers as needed. Pairs extremely well with autoscaling Cloud Functions, but could be anything really.

I also find that DAGs tend to get ugly really fast because it generally involves logic. I'd prefer that logic to not be tied into the queue implementation because it becomes harder to unit test. Much easier reason about if you have the HTTP endpoint create a new task, if it needs to.
> taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show

That's not how legislatures work. It's like saying, 'take Senator Jones off the HHS committee because they are anti-vaccine' - the people in Senator Jones' state are entitled to representation with complete disregard for whether others like their Senator. Legislatures work with power as it is, not as how we want it to be.

> for what little the UN does

People on the right repeat it, but repetition doesn't make it fact. What do you know, specifically, about what the UN does (about human rights, if that's what you mean). The foundations for international law, which is powerful and effective though imperfect - like domestic law, but lacking the same enforcement mechanisms.

> [China and Mexico]

If everyone stopped doing all business with anyone in a country that does bad things, there would be no business or trade. Trade enriches the US, and has lifted billions out of poverty - including in China and Mexico.

Putting them back into poverty is just reckless. You need to come up with a better solution to your leaky roof than burning down the house.
Fortunately for me, both young and boomer alike are capable of having bad takes.
Disregarding the (common!) assumption that AGI will consist of one monolithic LLM instead of dozens of specialized ones, I think your comment fails to invoke an accurate, consistent picture of creativity/"truly new" cognition.

To borrow Chomsky's framework: what makes humans unique and special is our ability to produce an infinite range of outputs that nonetheless conform to a set of linguistic rules. When viewed in this light, human creativity necessarily depends on the "linguistic rules" part of that; without a framework of meaning to work within, we would just be generating entropy, not meaningful expressions.

Obviously this applies most directly to external language, but I hope it's clear how it indirectly applies to internal cognition and--as we're discussing here--visual art.

TL;DR: LLMs are definitely creative, otherwise they wouldn't be able to produce semantically-meaningful, context-appropriate language in the first place. For a more empirical argument, just ask yourself how a machine that can generate a poem or illustration depicting [CHARACTER_X] in [PLACE_Y] doing [ACTIVITY_Z] in [STYLE_S] without being creative!

[1] Covered in the famous Chomsky v. Foucault debate, for the curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8
TFA makes the point pretty clear IMHO: they aren’t opposed to AI, they’re opposed to over-reliance on AI.
There are so few books on early Microsoft, and they're all so fascinating. One I like is Microsoft: First Generation. One I think is humorous, but not that informative, is Barbarians Led by Bill Gates.
Analysis of the WireGuard Protocol [pdf] (2019)
I think this is the link.
https://images.gatesnotes.com/12514eb8-7b51-008e-41a9-512542...

It's 100 MB and 157 pages.
Take down defamatory content on ANI article: High court to Wikipedia
That does not seem obvious at all. Fan art and referencing is a thing, and there are plenty of examples of AI creating characters that do not exist anywhere in the training dataset.
I think the missing secret sauce is an equivalent to neuroplasticity. Human brains are constantly being rewired and optimized at every level: synapses and their channels undergo long term potentiation and depression, new connections are formed and useless ones pruned, and the whole system can sometimes remap functions to different parts of the brain when another suffers catastrophic damage. I don’t know enough about the matrix multiplication operations that power LLMs, but it’s hard to imagine how that kind of organic reorganization would be possible with GPUs matmul. It’d require some sort of advanced “self aware” profile guided optimization and not just trial and error noodling with Torch ops or CUDA kernels.

I assume that thanks to the universal approximation theorem it’s theoretically possible to emulate the physical mechanism, but at what hardware and training cost? I’ve done back of the napkin math on this before [1] and the number of “parameters” in the brain is at least 2-4 orders of magnitude more than state of the art models. But that’s just the current weights, what about the history that actually enables the plasticity? Channel threshold potentials are also continuous rather than discreet and emulating them might require the full fp64 so I’m not sure how we’re even going to get to the memory requirements in the next decade, let alone whether any architecture on the horizon can emulate neuroplasticity.

Then there’s the whole problem of a true physical feedback loop with which the AI can run experiments to learn against external reward functions and the core survival reward function at the core of evolution might itself be critical but that’s getting deep into the research and philosophy on the nature of intelligence.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40313672
Proton provided user information in 10,368 requests in 2024
Thanks to the authors for doing this wonderful piece of work and sharing it with credibility. I wish people see the possibilities here. But we are after all humans. It is hard to imagine our own downfall.

Based on each individual's vantage point, these events might looks closer or farther than mentioned here. but I have to agree nothing is off the table at this point.

The current coding capabilities of AI Agents are hard to downplay. I can only imagine the chain reaction of this creation ability to accelerate every other function.

I have to say one thing though: The scenario in this site downplays the amount of resistance that people will put up - not because they are worried about alignment, but because they are politically motivated by parties who are driven by their own personal motives.
> My passion is robotics and engineering, and manufacturing covers both of those readily.

That's completely different than working on an assembly line.

> Some people do enjoy assembly line work

Who? How many? I don't think I've ever heard it (though I'm sure someone must). Do you like it? Why don't you work on assembly line.

> would say a large amount of people want a reliable job with minimal mental overhead

That's an ignorant, condescending description of assembly line work. You'll need some evidence of this great mass of people, "I would say" isn't evidence.

> Tons of opportunity for people to do the jobs they love for good pay and benefits, if we could get more manufacturing into the US.

That's not the case - American companies can't find enough people with those skills as it is; there is no need for more of those jobs.
The main questions I have with using LLMs for this purpose in a business setting are:

1. Is the company providing the model willing to indemnify _your_ company when using code generation? I know GitHub Copilot will do this with the models they provide on their hardware, but if you’re using Claude Code or Cursor with random models do they provide equal guarantees? If not I wonder if it’s only a matter of time before that landmine explodes.

2. In the US, AFAICT, software that is mostly generated by non-humans is not copyrightable. This is not an issue if you’re creating code snippets from an LLM, but if you’re generating an entire project this way then none or only small parts of the code base you generate would then be copyrightable. Do you still own the IP if it’s not copyrightable? What if someone exfiltrates your software? Do you have no or little remedy?