silviot

I can. It is indeed satire.

I tried the playground at https://playground.allenai.org/ and clicked the "Show OlmoTrace" button.

Above the response it says

> Documents from the training data that have exact text matches with the model response. Powered by infini-gram

so, if I understand correctly, it searches the training data for matches in the LLM output. This is not traceability in my opinion. This is an attempt at guessing.

Checking individual sources I got texts completely unrelated with the question/answer, but that happen to share an N-gram [1] (I saw sequences up to 6 words) with the LLM answer.

I think they're being dishonest in their presentation of what Olmo can and can't do.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-gram

Not offensive, but much more often wrong than person.

> ...and to be clear, Hacker News is not a representative sample of their customers.

I am a customer and I learned about Kagi here. I assume many people are on the same boat, so I wouldn't be so sure about that.

> Upper management are just average people with better networking and less empathy

Very concise and to the point. I might print and hang this!

Excellent game. Excellent attitude towards feedback. Keep up with the good stuff!

> But anyway, even if it were all true, the only reason we are talking about diffusers, and the only reason we are paying attention to this author's work Fairly Trained, is because of someone training on data that was not expressly licensed.

Thanks for putting this into words. I'm of the same opinion and this is the best articulation I have so far.

This is very different from my experience. Whenever someone I was in a conversation with brought up GEB, it was always a great pleasure of mine. I'd get the chance to discuss the main ideas of the book, and the way I assimilated them. I tend to not even engage in conversations with people who do it mostly to show off the extent of their knowledge. I believe this second point is the important one. GEB is completely orthogonal to the problem you describe.

Because otherwise you spend too much time arguing about not-so-important matters (in a word: bikeshed - you end up bikeshedding less).

I'm trying to read and reread this over and over again to make sense of this but to me it sounds like in the comments people speak as if Greg brockman resigned while in the article he is not amongst the three names who resigned. What am I missing here?

> It's pretty simple actually

That's true. You just need to exploit your fellow humans! Make them work for you but never pay them for the full value they bring. Always pay them the least they will still accept. So you get a piece of their pie. Your position of power will allow you to do so, and people will see your position of power as "natural" and will see no problem in the exploitation.

I think you misspelled his name. It also doesn't sound like you listened to what he had to say about the license. I suggest you do.

> Two, it seems he is trash talking open source software and using that to justify his own proprietary monopoly software.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see this in any possible way. Can you help me understand? What did he say that you consider "trash talking open source software"?

The reason I like him is that he's been fighting Apple anti-repair policies for years.

The authors have this to say about it:

> The issue with the non-standard license for the application stems from problems that arose with NewPipe, an open-source media player. When a video recommended downloading NewPipe, many people mistakenly downloaded a malware-ridden version from the Play Store. This fake version was loaded with ads and sometimes even required payment. The crux of the problem is that people were forking NewPipe, adding ads and trackers, and then asking for money on the Play Store. To prevent this kind of exploitation and deceit, the developers of the application in question opted for a less permissive license. This allows them to retain the right to take action against anyone who forks their application and tries to monetize it through deceptive means. They are committed to an ad-free, non-tracking application and don't want to engage in a business model where the user becomes the product.

Source: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613

It is now public, but slow. Probably hugged to death.

I just clicked on a video link in this thread (so I know nothing about this app), but came here to mention that the fact that Luis Rossman is behind this plays a big role for me. I have a lot of trust in that guy. I think others might share the feeling.

I remember spending a lot of time on these tools in my teen years. I'd love to revive them in some emulator.

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2347/

Isn't that "social" though?

They parachute deliver blood, but they will use a different technique for consumers.

From their website:

> Lowering from the body of the Platform 2 Zip, this little droid uses onboard perception to leave packages exactly where they're supposed to go, whether that's a doorstep or patio table.

Duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37426201

I recommend you do set up key authentication. You'll get more convenient logins and better security. This page should document how to do it: https://www.ssh.com/academy/ssh/copy-id

The standard term to name this is Orphan Crushing Machine [1]

[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/orphan-crushing-machine

Oh, this is by the author of "Coders at Work". I can recommend that: a good read!

There is one. You need to zoom in.

I can attest deploying OpenEDX is no fun.

If that's true those employees could be kidnapped for a high ransom...

TIL. I thought after reaching the max token size ChatGPT would just refuse to produce more output.

Still, the explanation given by ChatGPT about why the Litany of Fear was cut off is incorrect, when it says: "In this case, the completion was cut off after the token limit was reached".

This response is certainly incorrect: had the token limit really be reached, no more text could come out. Not the Litany of Fear, nor this explanation.