biofunsf

In your old comment (which i remembering seeing at time), you seem to recommend scrapy.io and highlight its benefits without disclosing that you're behind it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46088621

seems like the "they" you meant was really "I".

genuine question: What is the interpretation of the law such that ICE operations are wholly unlawful, and the military should broadly disobey an order to support/protect ICE operations?

While there's certainly many instances where ICE breaks the law, what would be the rationale for the military wholly refusing to support ICE performing their stated duty of enforcing immigration law? (besides more specific orders like "disperse these legal protesters" which could be disobeyed for more narrow reasons, because peaceful protesting is legal)

I might missing some context. Just to check my understanding: HMC and Bun aren't a good match anymore because Bun devs use LLM/AI tooling more than HMC? Basically to really level up a system is incompatible these tools? (IYHO)

Thank you! I appreciated how you wrote up this clarifying.

Was this really a Trump campaign promise? Can't find it online credible and genuinely curious. Also tried here https://archive.ph/76zVk

Does the author provide the actual PoC code anywhere? I want to do some testing for mitigations. I see the example code but it seems incomplete.

Realistically what are the risks?

It depends. Some antibiotics pass the BBB easier than others. Some are used especially when passage through the BBB is desired.

Aren’t viruses much harder to detect than bacteria? Viruses are generally smaller and are completely inert without a host cell. Bacteria, besides be larger, also have their own metabolic processes and distinct structures you can do things like grow them in a laboratory culture until the colony is much obvious.

Your comment makes it sound like bacteria are harder to detect but if we’re already identifying viruses, locating bacteria seems easier.

(Though some viruses are bigger than the smallest bacteria, like Mycoplasma at 200nm, viruses are generally smaller)

What makes a hypothetical brain microbiome so hard to find? I would think that once you’re doing microscopy on brain slices that a biome would show you quite fast. But if you’re still optimistic after a negative search I assume there must be many reasons why a brain microbiome could exist but still be hard to detect.

When something seems obvious to me but scientists in the field disagree, I usually take this a sign I need to improve my own understanding.

He foresees great platforms all around the ocean, harvesting energy from magma holes and using it to produce low-carbon synthetic fuels that could be shipped to shore.

This sounds like an energy storage solution as well? Where would the low carbon mass come for such a fuel production scheme? Haven’t heard this idea for energy storage/transport before.

I feel quite strongly that LLMs are not a fad. Something like LLMs will be useful tools to people decades from now. Especially given that a whole generation of students is now using/relying on them for course work.

Even if we want to call them sophisticated autocomplete, why would I ever switch back to a dumb autocomplete?

I think by most definitions LLMs can definitely create new things.

As much as I can create new things by cobbling together open source projects and answers on stack overflow at least.

I don't think the author is saying the content LLMs produce is "democratic".

They're just saying that they're democratic in the sense that anyone can run them and they have a strong open-source community behind them.

I build "brushes" for refactoring my code every day.

Anyone know what the author means by brushes?

Also any recommendations for non-Copilot IDE LLM integrations? I've tried a couple but they felt far behind Copilot in terms of quality and smooth IDE integration.

This seems a pedantic point. In the “not legal” sense I agree since that seems part of a real coup. But it certainly was a “surprise ousting of the current leadership”, which I mean when I say coup.

What I’d really like to understand is why the board felt like they had to this as a surprise coup, and not a slower more dignified firing.

If they gave Altman 1 weeks notice and let him save face in the media, what would they have lost? Is there a fear Altman would take all the best engineers on the way out?

To zoom in on one part of the post:

Emotion & Empathy

PRIMER: seems to show a level of empathy and emotional understanding.

ChatGPT: can recognize and respond to emotional cues in the text, but it doesn't "feel" emotions in the way humans do. Its responses are based on patterns in the data it was trained on.

Isn't the fictional PRIMER also just responding to patterns in whatever data it was trained on? Sure it's fictional so there's no real answer, but I think it's interesting that the a̶u̶t̶h̶o̶r̶ ChatGPT seems to imply that the Primer's emotions are more real than ChatGPT's own. I would have assumed that the Primer also doesn't "feel" emotions in any human way, but it's just far more sophisticated than ChatGPT.

edit: Oops I misattributed this to the author but it was ChatGPT generated, which is more interesting! ChatGPT is asserting it doesn't understand emotion while implying another non-human AI intelligence does. Seems like more OpenAI hard coded rules put in to prevent ChatGPT from becoming too scary.

It’s so bad that China’s courts have called for the death penalty for scientific fraud.

To add some context, the death penalty is used much more widely in China than a Westerner might realize, so to them this idea is not quite as radical as it might seem. The PRC government is a bit tight lipped about exact policies, but it's known the death penalty gets employed for things like corruption and even major economic crimes like fraud or money counterfeiting. And of course drug offenses and the violent crimes.

Well unlike the brakes situation, the ChatGPT lies are non-physically harmful misinformation and they're only sent directly to the user who presumably should be aware of the ChatGPT limitations. If I share ChatGPT lies as truth, that seems no different than me just sharing lies I made up. And it seems like in this case no one even believed the ChatGPT lies. I'm sympathetic because I'm sure it's incredibly hurtful seeing those specific lies, but no one was actually convinced.

We all already treat the internet at large as a source of "usually correct but not always" information, and people just need to take the ChatGPT disclaimer to heart and not treat it like some oracle. I imagine articles like these will fade over time as society finds lies coming from the "makes-up-lies-sometimes-machine" (ChatGPT) as boring and as common place as the many websites full of lies we already have.

Not sarcasm! Though I agree this also helps build Open AI's moat against competitors... but that doesn't make Altman's statement not true. It's still self-serving, but I think if he was totally willing to lie he'd have made other self-serving statements, and not this particularly high-risk, shocking, and also true (IMHO) self-serving statement.

At the bottom of the ChatGPT prompt it always says: "ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts."

So... is this just a case of user error? Or maybe the FTC needs to require a larger font size or just better disclosure? Mostly joking, but not entirely since I do think it's too small. Here's a proposal: https://i.imgur.com/IGON20r.png

Why not both? I think true AGI super intelligence (a lot smarter than us) does have the potential to destroy humanity, and as the current leader, Open AI seems closest to achieving that. Of course superintelligence might be far away or just unachievable, but we don't know that. And I agree Altman's statement also builds OAI's moat, but that doesn't make his statement false.

What are the geohot leaks?

Maybe he's just a CEO doing the ethically responsible thing and not the purely self-serving thing for the sake of shareholders? (though as humans, the shareholders have some stake in humanity too)

My not at all informed opinion:

You concern isn’t about some sort of side-effect of the Oxitec treatment, but rather your worry is that their solution does exactly the opposite of what it’s trying to do. Just based on this I’m skeptical. Also numbers wise, if some fraction of “Friendly Males” are actually female, or the self-limiting gene is disrupted due to environmental factors, assuming the majority of the friendly males have their self-limiting gene in tact then it’ll still have an overall positive effect. I don’t think the presence of some “defective” (or rather, not defective) mosquitos will off-set the presence of all the other ones working as intended.

I’m also assuming it’s straightforward to measure the effect of this treatment on the environment. It should be easy to confirm this really is having the desired effect. I think.

Must be our ancestors fault. They did a good job at contributing to the extinction of many megafauna (in addition to Paleocene climate changes), but didn’t quite get all the bears. How lazy of them.

Though fun-fact: California used to have an endemic subspecies of Grizzly bear that was entirely wiped out by the European settlers. I can’t really fault them for this... times were tough back then. Some Grizzly Bears have re-enter California from the north in more recent times.

Makes me realize that in certain contexts ecological preservation is a privilege. If there’s a 2% chance a Grizzly is going to kill my darling child Timmy, I’m okay with wiping them out and worrying about the ramifications later. I’m not going to risk little Timmy being eaten to preserve some amorphous concept of natural balance. Fortunately we don’t live in that world any longer. (And >0.05% risk of Timmy being eaten is acceptable to me, since this is on par with many other risks)

Agree with all that!

I'm pretty sure police are more likely to be shot than any other occupation. Logging is the most dangerous occupation of all, but I don't think any of them die from bullets. In contrast, police lives are at risk in brief high-stakes incidents that might require them to use a gun, or not use it, to save their own lives. All the other highly dangerous jobs involve pretty different risk models.

But that's why training of police is so important, and we as a society need to hold them to an incredibly high standard. But I think it's silly to tell police they shouldn't be jumpy because their occupation is safer than logging/fishing/piloting/roofing/etc.

I picked the above scenario because police calls for domestic disputes are incredibly common. This source[0] says they account for 15% to 50% of all police calls. Hundreds of women are murdered with guns by their intimate partners every year[1]. Also domestic violence calls are a big cause of police deaths though definitely not the #1 cause as Joe Biden erroneously claimed[2]. I was aiming to create a somewhat plausible 911 call, though having the wife shot while she was on the 911 call might have been a bit over the top.

[0] https://www.domesticshelters.org/resources/statistics/law-en... [1] https://everytownresearch.org/report/guns-and-violence-again... [2] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/mar/15/joe-biden/...

hah I didn't realize that! Though I can see why that makes sense. I edited the above to strikeout liable and changed it to "berated in the media"