subject4056
subject4056 on Hacker News
Locations don't all have the same rent or minimum/prevailing wage. Not saying there isn't funny business but we shouldn't expect prices to be the same for locations with different costs.
Yeah. IME if things aren't working the way the docs say they're supposed to (i.e. when you need support) the agent is just totally useless. Sales too, if the happy path doesn't work you're not buying a plan from them. My suspicion is that they don't care if 0.5% of people ditch them because they're approximately the only game in town, and it's not worth their time to task a person with this.
You know I took the wrong conclusions from frog/rat developmental studies in space. As far as I can tell low gravity isn't known to be a killer, just that the whole process hasn't been studied (no mammal recorded to give birth in space).
As to whether or not that makes Mars hard, I think it doesn't matter how well you can control the climate if you can't have a second generation of people to live there.
Mars doesn't make a ton of sense as a backup earth because gravity there is too weak to carry a fetus to term. If we had the tech and the urgency to terraform mars, it would probably make more sense to put those resources into space stations where we could control the environment better (and less risk from losing any one station). Mars in this scenario is sort of like an offshore oil rig that people work on for some months at a time and then go back to their life in space (again provided we can't live on earth for some reason).
I expect lots of humans to not be able to make you laugh on command, so no it's probably not a good test
Among other reasons, if you turn temperature down to 0, llms stop working. Like they don't give natural language answers to natural language questions any more, they just halt immediately. Temperature gives the model wiggle room to emit something plausible sounding rather than clam up when presented an input that wasn't verbatim in the training data (such as the system prompt).
I don't think so. Primarily because if you can ask that question instead of just being dead, then it's not the fast takeoff.
On a less drastic note, if AI were autonomously cannibalizing the economy, you'd run into more things and go "huh I guess that's run by AI now" instead of "ah godammit why did they shove an LLM in this workflow".
I don't think adding 20 bytes to every response, which are never read in practice, will improve the energy efficiency of the internet. Not to be mean, there's just a lot of stuff in most responses that effectively nothing acts on.
We're not it's competition in the same way chimpanzees aren't our competition. Some fraction of us are interested in their well-being for aesthetic reasons, but a lot of the time this fraction loses to a not particularly powerful faction in direct competition for territory. And if there is any serious conflict of interest, there is no contest and the chimps lose. If we get lucky some fraction of superintelligence will look on us the way we look at ground apes, but that's far from a given.
I don't think it's right that Airbnb solved short term rentals - outside of a few dozens prestige markets that they monitor with humans, it's really a race to the bottom. Reputation at scale remains unsolved, and so it's still a market for lemons.
You could get healthcare from someone who doesn't have to go $100ks in debt first, and then expects to make more than you do. If no such person with that profile exists, then yeah you're stuck paying the rate of the system that trained and employs them.
At the end of the day, much like housing cannot be both affordable and a good investment, healthcare cannot be both affordable and a lucrative career. Avoid going to an MD if you can get the same care from someone else.
Kanban operates on a known product with a known manufacturing process. Many software products are undefined even at time of public release, and evolve continuously. "Deciding what to build", while explicitly highlighted in the agile software manifesto, is the weak link.
Put another way, lean manufacturing improves metrics for the margianal unit of goods. No one, customer or dev, is interested in the margianal unit of software.
I would guess not. An important feature of compilers is that they are guaranteed to emit code with certain properties in response to specific inputs (memory safety guarantees, asymptotic performance, calling convention, etc.). If they don't do that, you can file a bug report.
You cannot file a bug report against an LLM that it produced an unexpected output, because there is no expected output; The core feature of an LLM is that neither you nor the LLM developer knows what it will output for a wide range of inputs. I think there are a wide range of applications for which LLMs core value proposition of "no-one knows a priori what this tool will emit" is disqualifying.
Audio and video are encoded, compressed, and transmitted differently because of how humans audially/visually decode them. We fare better dropping late video frames than degrading their quality, where the opposite is true for audio. As we transmit the two as separate, asynchronous signals, it's unsurprising that they are frequently out of sync.
If you're concerned that you've made/found something dangerous, the most appropriate solution is to disclose it to people who can evaluate how dangerous it is, and work with them on next steps.
In your hypothetical, I would observe that Paul Christiano is close to being the person in the US government in charge of evaluating AI danger, and that he is currently involved with https://www.alignment.org/ who specifically consider issues of AI risk. I would humbly contact them and ask for guidance on how to proceed.
Be prepared to be dismissed as a crank. Remember that avoiding harm to others is more important than proving that you're right.
Not significantly. Humans are made up of matter already available at the earth's surface, so population increase alone effects neither the amount nor distribution of the earth's mass.
Technological civilization might at some point meaningfully shift the distribution of mass, but I don't think it has up to this point.
You ought to begin by getting really good citations on each of those figures. If you or the source you got them from had any confusion about how to arrive at those numbers, any results you get from them will likely be meaningless.
Hopefully in doing so you will start to notice the missing pieces of info and can ask more targeted questions to get better results.
In order for passive investing to produce returns, stocks need to be regularly priced. Active trading produces the prices.
Active traders are trying to beat one-another, but at an institutional level the point isn't to beat the market, but to make the market.
People are more impressed by things they cannot do than by things they can. The vast majority of people in the industrialized world are functional writers; the portion who are competent performers is much lower.
While professional writers may be quite skilled, the gap between what they do and what the median adult does seems traversal. The psychic distance is much larger for other creative endeavors.
Focus on something you expect AI not to exceed professional humans at in the next couple of decades. If you're convinced there's no such thing, then I wouldn't worry so much about career choice.
For a concrete answer in tech, have a look at AI development itself. Keep abreast of what OpenAI and their competitors identify as open problems and orient your academic career towards working in them. The object level questions will change while you're in school; the goal is an "intercept trajectory" where what you study just before you graduate is the state of the art.
Alternatively, highly regulated professions (medicine, law, civil engineering to name a few) are likely to continue to employ bright humans long after AI can do the job just because no-one will be allowed to use AI there.
A script is a type of program, they're not two separate classes of things.
I think classically a script is a program whose subunits are each complete programs ('commands') that operate on a shared environment, with shell scripting being the central example. The definition has since been expanded by way of analogy to include basically any interpreted program which may have side effects on its execution environment.
I tried a language with which I am unfamiliar, and do not think I could learn anything this way.
It was fun to practice with a language I'm functional with, but not a conversation.
I asked the thing if it was GPT-3 and it changed the subject to a very eliza-like prompt.
What's worked well for us is to adopt the framing that both of our time is equally morally valuable, if not equally financially valuable. One hour of my life spend doing work for pay is worth one our of her life spent doing work for pay.
We've operationalized this as:
1. Determine how much we want/need to spend on joint things (groceries, mortgage, vacation fund, etc)., call this B for budget.
2. Look at how much we're each making, M for me and H for her.
3. Find the fraction of our money X (which is roughly speaking equivalent to fraction of hours worked in our case) Such that XM + XH = B
4. We each contribute our respective portion to a joint account, and pay for all joint things out of the joint account.
5. We each keep the rest of our money in our own accounts, to do with whatever we like.
You might need to add a couple of terms to account for different work schedules.
Knowing that we're both contributing equal _effort_ to everything makes the inequalities (I contribute more to shared stuff, but also have a bigger personal discretionary budget) not seem like such an issue.
Beware survivor bias here. No-one regrets what they did well, but misses what they gave up to do well.
A very viable route is to spend the next 5 years maximizing your money and career. At 28 it is unlikely you'll regret options. (On that note, if you come from money, taking risks is the way to maximize your options).
I don't know if you have people (to talk to, rely upon, etc.). Most humans need to have people, if you don't have them then you should find some. In my experience this requires low level engagement over a long period of time, so there's no reason not to start early.
Tried to load game in firefox, rejected saying I need to run in desktop Chrome.
I was promised cyberpunk but what I got was a technologically mediated entertainment experience I couldn't participate in because I lacked the required proprietary software.
Was not dissapointed.
It sounds like your team's culture is built around a small dev team with a high level of autonomy and trust, which hasn't scaled to a larger org. Now's the time to establish a new culture.
Unless you are Milton from Office Space, you're not the only one on your team blocked by process (If you are, Amazon has great deals on bulk accelerants). Put out some feelers for others in the same situation. Junior team members are fertile waters. Schedule a twice-weekly recurring meeting to review one another's contributions. With discipline you can review two twenty line changes in an hour. Homework is unlikely to work here, or you wouldn't be posting this. In short order you will not only be pushing changes, but establishing yourself as someone who Gets Stuff Done.
Above all, don't sit at your desk and weep bitterly that nothing is merged. Stand up for doing things; either your team will improve, or you won't need someone else to tell you it's time to move on.