chillacy

One interesting way I heard to around this is by mixing human languages in the prompt which probably never appear together in any training data, and seeing that chat gpt can do still output sensible replies. That seems to imply that something unique is happening beyond token lookup, if it’s taking different languages and mapping that to the underlying information, that looks a lot more like what people call “understanding”.

Read only is a good case, afaik one of the usecases of flatbuffers is that you can mmap a huge flatbuffer file and then randomly access the data quickly without paying a huge deserialization cost.

I saw a trick to increase the output by putting the text like “page 1 of 10” right at the end of the prompt

Then to keep going type “page 2 of 10” and the AI will keep it going

I'm not a finance guy, but from what I've heard, much of this is driven by the risk-free rate of return going up due to interest rate hikes. As the risk-free rate increases, business performance has to change on two fronts:

1. The value of dollars today / next year increase while the value of dollars in 5-10 years decreases, incentivizing less R&D and preferring short term operations (and cutting staff)

2. Profitability needs to increase overall in order to make sense owning stock vs a guaranteed return from the government, otherwise the risk of holding a stock doesn't make sense.

Basically the opposite of what happened when interest rates dropped, where "cash is trash" became the mantra.

So it is driven by investors, but it doesn't require any broad coordination, only shared beliefs and self interest.

From what I heard early GoPro cameras were designed in China as well, they were off the shelf devices rebranded. Only later did GoPro start doing in house camera design.

You can’t come up with the topics yourself either, because the topics you will think up are different based on your demographic / type of person you are, and ad networks basically try to guess that.

I’ve heard this theory before but wouldn’t that mean you could take these substances while anesthetized and derive the same benefits without remembering any of the “trip”?

I started having more success with setting up habits after reading up on habit formation science.

The junk food example is one aspect on frequency and availability. There are other aspects to habit formation like understanding how habits are triggered (by system1) and creating or removing triggers, how location can play into habit triggers, how habits can be more easily bootstrapped on top of existing habits, etc

I liked the book Good Habits Bad Habits which is more science based than the pop stuff but I would guess that Atomic Habits covers similar stuff.

I’m curious what you consider a legitimate moral conversation to look like. When I hear that I think “philosophy before 1800s” where you can appeal to moral absolutes via God (yet still end up in unsolved debates. It seems even harder today.

This is the moral theory behind patent laws, and I’ve never seen definitive evidence that it actually helps, and a lot of examples where IP law completely hampers innovation or at least adds layers of bureaucracy.

I’m glad we don’t have to deal with this issue as much in software. I can’t imagine that a world where all the companies actually tried to enforce their software patents would be better for anyone but the lawyers.

On this note it’s always useful to reflect upon the era where the US also had a cultural acceptance of “stealing” technology from the UK, since America wasn’t always such a tech leader.

Also the story goes that the Wild West was so famous for not enforcing Edison’s patents, an entire industry formed to take advantage: Hollywood.

Look up Polymarket

There are also no-money markets like Forecast and the traditional forecasting competitions like GJP and Metaculus

Taking somebody’s real story to fall back to a hypothetical moralistic scenario? I’m confused if you think this helps you actually understand someone else’s beliefs.

Ultimately questions of right and wrong are entirely values based (barring belief in an absolute power, and I’m not aware of a way to pick absolute right and wrong without starting with some sort of unprovable assumption, one could charitably call “faith”)

For the record in the novel The Dark Forest, most aliens don’t actually get in space ships and visit, they hurl relativistic projectiles at the sun and blow it up. The reasoning being something like the prisoner’s dilemma (in space!).

Also I do think it’s too early to call it as safe: just because something has not happened yet does not mean it won’t happen, or “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

By extension what do you think about people living comfortably in the United States and benefiting economically (and indirectly helping prop) the military industrial complex?

My favorite conversation to observe in person now is the “yea my industry isn’t actually bad and I’m a good person (says the person in finance, social media, etc) but yours is, how do you live with yourself?”

I assume you mean book value? Since most stocks trade for far less earnings, we have an a tire concept of revenue multiples to account for that.

I once heard from an engineer that the learning corpus for digital assistants like siri contains a lot of abusive (and usually sexist) stuff, like some section of the population regularly takes it out on digital assistants…

Speak for yourself, I have no proof that anyone else experiences an “I”, you may as well be a philosophical zombie for all I know ;)

The justices on the Supreme Court all have pretty different* interpetations of this absolute truth, so I do kind of get OP’s point.

* different enough that it matters to people who care about modern day politics

The worst part is that it’s entirely narrative, so not really disprovable in the same way that “it is raining outside right now” is.

And it is like you said self fulfilling, where the world makes more sense the less economic success one has, and the narrative provides no moral option to changing one’s economic status within the system.

Upon a second reading of parent poster's comment, there's nothing much to debate the conclusion but mostly debating the degree of certainty of the conclusion, which is a much lower bar.

The way I see it though, unless anyone is shorting cryptocurrency with 100% of their net worth I think they are at some level expressing that the world is not so clear cut. Sometimes meme stocks win before you run out of runway.

Case in point, some old tweets from Luna founder Do Kwon:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/terrausd-founder-kwon-mocked-econ...

Professional organizations have stronger incentives to increase their compensation through restricting supply instead of decreasing their compensation to help their customers.

The AMA is actually doing a great job at this recently compared to the ABA, where there have been too many lawyers graduating recently for insane salaries except at the top.

In my experience, insinuations of brainwashing are applicable in both directions. We all hold assumptions about the world which lay upon foundational beliefs like a pile of bricks. The ones at the bottom are often invisible or taken for granted.

Russell Conjugation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation

I get what you mean but the statement that reasonable people would agree could always be tautologically true, as opposed to evidence for others.

On a large team I’ll often be debugging someone else’s code anyways, and the framework code is usually better than hacked together product code (and comes with a public bug tracker).

Lenders add to the base rate so the return is nonzero afaik.

To be very cynical, HN isn’t a nonprofit we all donate to either: it’s the wholly funded pet project of an organization who teaches growth and engagement (and in fact from what I hear is quite strict with its companies on expected monthly growth rate)

That HN is a thoughtful garden unconcerned with the ugliness of ads and growth targets is also unsurprising to me, in the same way that a lot of open source and other charitable giving comes from companies who are already comfortably profitable.