I built a flask app based chrome extension that takes content from the DOM and sends it to chatGPT for summarization, I also configured it to work on YouTube videos and PDFs, helps when you want to share the tl;dr of a site or video to a friend, I'm thinking I'm going to add some more specific summary functionality next, like listing out a recipe's ingredients and cooking steps
I’m a bit surprised of how antagonistic HN is against the builders, Sam was/is a Seller, it’s a needed function to pair with Builders, but no one can reasonably say that Sam built anything, Ilya and the safety contingent are the builders, but somehow the mob is angry at them for protecting what they made from the Sellers, kind of hard to see us becoming so profit motivated that we choose IBM over Woz
It might be the influx of all the MBA-CEO-Steve-Job wannabe types due to the tech boom and normalisation of tech entrepreneurship, and due to YC becoming a brand.
I don't care too much about Sam. He seems to me just a bloke that was at the right place at the right time. With the builders, though - I always felt so much contempt to the extremities of AI safety "they" seem to be pushing (and many, I knoq, feel the same) - that makes it rather hard to emphasise.
In our society, why should they be expected to build for free? Unless you only hire previously wealthy individuals the idea that there's this class of selfless scientists at the top of their field that don't need to pay a mortgage or support a family is absurd.
In case you do not understand why you are being downvoted. This is precisely what the person you are replying to is saying. When push comes to shove, will these builders prefer a paycheck or stand on their principles.
Tell me in which country Linux was first developed?
Which part of the world is that?
Do the countries there have something special which they are well known for, and which might make unpaid passion projects more attainable than, say, 2020s North America?
This is my main observation as well watching this play out.
I’ve welcomed how a non-profit board finally “struck back” on the trend of the commercialization and rollout of an incomplete yet highly impactful technology. It might have been imperfectly done, but it was done.
We went though scaling at all costs with social media etc and lived through the last several years to pay for that choice. Watching AI the last year felt like that was all starting again.
OAI’s 700 employees not having as clear a route to fat RSU payouts as they did on Friday seems to be the least important concern here. This technology and its impacts are greater than any 1 company or founder. The idea of another Zuck situation sitting on it in control is not good. Zero lessons were learned from ‘07-2022.
Exactly, how are the researchers going to get all the compute power they need without the 'seller's selling something? Like it or not ChatGPT took the country by storm, has name recognition, generating revenue. And that all allows them to purchase more compute, hire more researchers. What do they think will happen if they stop selling? Will they work for free?
It's contempt for the Yudkowskyans ("AI doomers"), not contempt for the builders.
I find these threads deeply frustrating, as a long-time Yudkowskyan, because approximately zero of the critics show any understanding at all of the arguments involved, and the vast majority seem not even to have tried to understand the core concern. Most seem to be engaging in some kind of status demonstration, sneering at a group of panicked nerds, rather than having any actual technical opinion at all.
Unlike another poster, I don't think this indicates that HN is full of MBA types. Just average software engineers.
To apply just send us an email: ashley@academia.edu
Company:
* Our mission is to build a new system for scientists to share their results and broadcast their work
* We have over 10 million users and they are extremely important to us!
* Our investors include Khosla Ventures, Spark Capital and True Ventures
Team:
* We move quickly, everyone is in charge of their own projects but also very collaborative
* We get catered lunches from zerocater and lunch usually ends with a round of foosball
* We're a diverse group with backgrounds in philosophy, biology, music and art.
Technical:
* We are a Rails shop (you don't need to know Rails though, just how to tackle difficult technical challenges)
* Peer Review: We are revisiting peer review with a novel product built from the ground up that will allow layers of discussion on top of a single
document and we are building this using Rails and Backbone
* Recommendation Engine: Lots of machine learning to parse science papers and figure out what people want to read. Pretty cool stuff.
* Servers, Speed, Security and Storage (Postgres / Dynamo / Elasticsearch / Redis): Speed and stability are really important to us because areas in the world with slower internet connections tend to be where researchers can benefit the most from open access to research
About you:
- You have a curious mind and enjoy tackling hard technical problems
- You work best when given a lot of autonomy
- You want to have a huge impact on a product that is making a positive impact on the world
- You like piña coladas, and getting caught in the rain
Please send ashley@academia.edu an email if you would like to apply or if you have any questions.
It's really just a tool we built for ourselves to get information from a specific trusted source. It helps that he has a huge catalog of work to draw from. We thought the ability to tap into that through a search dynamic would be interesting, it's been very useful for us. We hope it can be useful for you.
Something that would add some fun to it: use some markov chains to make a PG chatterbot, using the same corpus that you already have. You could mark those answers clearly as bot answers.
These would be great for city travel. The two main issues would be safety and parking. They'd have to make a strong case for the vehicle being safe in the case of an accident, not unlike the challenge the Smart Car had. For the issue of parking it would be unlikely that a city would set aside real estate just for these cars as they'd have to do it all over the city and it would be relatively expensive. I think a better solution would be a car-sharing one like Zip Cars. I can pay a monthly fee to have access to the cars at certain spots and if I want to leave in rush hour, I'd pay a premium, or something to that extent. It's a really interesting idea, I live in NYC and I'd love it here.
Plasmyd does this via crowdsourcing, it lets users comment on papers so that researchers can point out anomalies or post their inability to reproduce the same results. It also gives the author a chance to explain their work.
It is frustratingly difficult to get biomedical scientists to openly discuss the work in their field. PLoS tried to have discussion sections to papers, and Nature has tried various approaches as well. Neither have worked. I looked-up my favorite topic (a popular one) on Plasmyd, and found 20 papers, none of which had a single comment associated with it.
It's honestly a vast waste of intellectual potential, I wish I knew the solution!
Bilal from Science Exchange here. Definitely agree that Plasmyd is a valuable service. We feel this Initiative operates in complement, providing a mechanism for independent validation.
There's probably a radiation issue that wouldn't make it suitable for close to human contact. I wonder how much energy the rover needs to move around since the gravity there is considerably weaker.
Rover mass is same on Earth or Mars. So acceleration costs the same. Low gravity also means less friction with the ground, making it somewhat harder to move on Mars.
Isn't there also an issue of impulse though? There must be an acceleration dip compared to earth since I'm basically pushing a mini cooper on earth but only a bicycle on mars.
Note: I'm a scientist so I'm embarrassingly bad at physics.
It would be easier to lift the rover perhaps, but F=ma, so since the mass of the rover hasn't changed, neither has the acceleration you can develop for a given force applied.
Absolutely, if you were pushing a block along the ground. Fortunately modern "wheel" technology reduces the bearing friction so much that it is no longer a factor. The only friction left is the friction holding the wheel to the ground. This is reduced in reduced gravity, such that wheels are more likely to slip.
It's only a negative if the vehicle needs to accelerate quickly. So sufficient friction is sufficient, not a negative or a positive.
Given that the batteries store roughly 2.4 kW-h, it's probably safe to assume that the max drive power is less than 500 watts (2.4 kW-h / 10 hours -> 240 watts). Earth side electric vehicles commonly have drive power over 100 kilowatts.
I don't agree that we need "less liberal arts degrees" but having more stringent STEM courses that push students to excel is never a bad thing. Bill Gates used to say "smart people go where the money is" and so if by the author's assertion that the new economy needs people who are good at math, then the market will reward those people and the system will change to focus on math skills. This does not mean that liberal arts degrees are useless as the best innovations usually come at the intersection of liberal arts and STEM fields.
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/news-article-summar...