Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more Metus's comments login


This looks good. Is the training data in the repo itself?


There is also https://open-assistant.io by LAION.


By supporting, participating in and using projects like this by LAION:

https://open-assistant.io


> The thing that is often de-emphasised in the presentation of the problem, in order to make it seem more mysteriously paradoxical, is that the presenter knows where the car is and this knowledge is always used perfectly. If the question always ended with "remember: Monty knows where the car is and will use this information", it would be more obvious.

The associated line of reasoning resolved the paradox for me. If I stick with my original choice, it is as if I ignored the new information. If I switch the choice, I react to the new information.

The extreme of this is to pick among countably infinite doors, having the presenter open countably infinite doors and leaving just yours and another closed. Who could reasonable suggest that the chance is still 50/50, assuming you don't flip a coin and base your choice on that?


> If I switch the choice, I react to the new information

This assumes that him opening a door is new information. It isn't unless you make an assumption about the game masters intentions.

If the host doesn't want you to win then you will lose 100% of the time if you switch, if the host wants you to win then you could win 100% of the time by switching etc. But people think that these assumptions are "obvious" so of course you must make them, but that makes the riddle bad.

If the riddle doesn't say that the host always opens an empty door after you pick a door, then the typical solution isn't correct. People does the typical "X happened once" and assumes it means "X always happens", that is a typical naive assumption but no, just because it happened once doesn't mean it always happens, you can't make that assumption here unless stated in the riddle.


>if the host wants you to win then you could win 100% of the time by switching etc.

66% of the time. 33% of the time you picked right first time and lost it by switching. The host never conveys "dont switch."


Is there a fork running it on Apple's Neural Engine?


Can I somehow keep track of the content I generate? That is, the prompts, the answers as user and the answers as assistant. I only see my recent messages.


> Honestly I don't understand why a consortium of governments and businesses with high regulatory requirements don't simply get together and develop a common platform for this. They'd rather give billions of dollars to Documentum or Oracle. If they want support, SOMEONE will provide paid support, like Postgres

Or have a cooperative of businesses write the necessary software.

In Germany we have vaguely similar thing going on with DATEV: Basically all tax advisors are members of the DATEV cooperative if they want to use their software suite, which for all intents and purposes is able to implement absolutely anything a tax advisor is required to do while at the same time implement all regulatory requirements such as confidentiality, archival rules, reporting, logging etc.

In my opinion there should be a similar thing going on for all industry to implement the regulations required by GoBD, GDPR and so on.


Another general purpose backend could be S3-type object storage.

If I could store all kinds of documents there, I'd adopt in a heartbeat. My use case would be to combine this with a contract management system and to attach all (email) correspondence to the respective contract, so we wouldn't have to rely on the responsible people managing their inboxes.

In turn, I'd like to attach deletion, visibility and archival rules, such that I conform with GoBD and GDPR (I am based in Germany) where on one hand there are archival rules, such as keeping contracts for ten years after they are canceled, or correspondence for six years, but also have to keep in mind that PII gets deleted regularly.

So after a contract has been canceled I'd like to archive all correspondence and the contract itself, such that the operating team only sees active contracts and correspondence older than six years is immediately deleted.


This should be way higher up.


I find OpenAI having exclusive access to that kind of high-quality data more concerning than them having access to their current amount of compute and currently trained model. A couple of million dollars worth of compute is in the realm of any medium sized research university, larger company or any country worth of mention. And seeing as Moore's law still applies to GPU, the cost will only fall.

However high-quality data is scarce. I would be willing to fund a proper effort to create high-quality data.


Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: