HackerLangs
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

killerstorm

1,358 karmajoined il y a 19 ans

Submissions

A connection between capability-based security and lambda calculus

killerstorm.github.io
2 points·by killerstorm·il y a 6 mois·1 comments

Show HN: Skill capsules" for LLMs, a "poor man's continual learning"

github.com
1 points·by killerstorm·il y a 7 mois·3 comments

METR's time-horizon of coding tasks does not mean what you think it means

killerstorm.github.io
1 points·by killerstorm·il y a 8 mois·1 comments

The future of LLMs: cognitive core and cartridges?

killerstorm.github.io
2 points·by killerstorm·il y a 8 mois·0 comments

Ask HN: Why isn't capability-based security more common?

12 points·by killerstorm·il y a 10 mois·21 comments

comments

killerstorm
·hier·discuss
From what I understand, the warning is about swap-out during heavy memory use.

You don't need to be superstitious here: disk activity, including writes in particular, can be measured. E.g. `iostat` or `vmstat` on Linux.
killerstorm
·il y a 3 jours·discuss
It's much more specific. "Spend" would increase Broadcom's revenue. "Partners with" might be anything: investment, R&D assistance, whatever.

Both are public companies so they might be required to reveal these details
killerstorm
·il y a 7 jours·discuss
That metric would give you a number of bytes which can be used for pages not backed by files, but it won't give you actual memory usage statistics:

It won't count executable pages and memory-mapped file use as "used" memory, so your system might display gigabytes "free" when it's starving, executables getting paused when code pages are paged-in from disk.

It's just less useful than what's displayed now. "Everyone is doing it wrong" is usually a signal that you're missing something.
killerstorm
·il y a 7 jours·discuss
That study is a weird kind of bullshit which pretends to not understand employer-employee relationship.
killerstorm
·il y a 8 jours·discuss
Well, potentially a key might be stored in TPM. But I don't think that's better
killerstorm
·il y a 8 jours·discuss
Hmm, where does it get a key to decrypt memory on resume?

AFAIK it's practical only if you make use of TPM. And if you do, you're basically at mercy of TPM.
killerstorm
·il y a 9 jours·discuss
People in the past could survive and procreate without modern medicine (basically without any medicine at all as doctors could do very little 200 years ago) with ~50% success rate. I'd suspect this rate is already lower now, and it might matter in multiple ways
killerstorm
·il y a 10 jours·discuss


   type ProfileSpec = Frond.NodeSpec<{
     readonly args: Frond.Args.None;
     readonly key: Frond.Key.Singleton;
     readonly deps: {
       readonly http: Frond.Dep<typeof HttpTransportNode>;
     };
    readonly result: Profile;
   }>;
This begs to be its own DSL rather than TypeScript-type-meta-programming.
killerstorm
·il y a 10 jours·discuss
It's a formalism use to analyze security properties, it's not how it is used in practice.

The practical goal is to hide a secret key inside a program, so e.g. implement an algorithm which might involve decryption and signing a message without giving external parties ability to decrypt messages.

The connection between indistinguishable obfuscation formalism and "can't extract secret key" property is not obvious. Here's a quote from a paper which Vitalik linked:

> it is not immediately clear how useful indistinguishability obfuscators would be. Perhaps the strongest philosophical justification for indistinguishability obfuscators comes from the work of Goldwasser and Rothblum, who showed that (efficiently computable) indistinguishability obfuscators achieve the notion of Best-Possible Obfuscation : Informally, a best-possible obfuscator guarantees that its output hides as much about the input circuit as any circuit of a certain size
killerstorm
·il y a 10 jours·discuss
Well, modern medicine + economy + social pressure resulted in RADICAL change in fitness function for human population. It's very, very different.

So it's quite likely that modern population is not fit according to old criteria.

> It's also very important to remember that this operates over hundreds of millennia.

That's not true at all. People can make new breeds of dogs and cats in just a few generations. You can literally SEE how a change of fitness function affects the phenotype.

> You'd need to look back into deep prehistory to find changes to humans attributable to natural selection.

There are many studies which describe genetic changes within latest 10,000 years or less. E.g. paper "1,000 ancient genomes uncover 10,000 years of natural selection in Europe": "We identified 25 genetic loci with rapid changes 21 in frequency during these periods". You can find many similar papers if you do a search

One of studies identified changes in loci associated with Y. pestis immunity during the Black Death (i.e. something like a century). Black Death mortality is similar in scale to early childhood mortality 150 years ago.
killerstorm
·il y a 10 jours·discuss
> A computer genetic algorithm run for a billion generations doesn't lead to anything anywhere near the the complexity of a human.

What?... Our computers can't simulate anything similar to a real world. You're comparing apples to galaxies.

> meaningful loss of fitness

What makes you think we don't have "loss of fitness" already?

150 years ago child mortality was around 30% in the developed world, now it's less than 1%. A lot of kids with weak health survive now. I'm one of them - I got pneumonia when I was ~2 y.o. and probably would have died without antibiotics. Then I had something which required antibiotic treatment pretty much every year. My wife also had a pneumonia in early childhood. And so did my daughter...

Why do we need to talk about some mysterious problem in 10 generations when modern medicine removes a lot of fitness pressure by itself?
killerstorm
·il y a 15 jours·discuss
Yeah, this seems to be more like a concept piece. Just something to talk about, not really useful
killerstorm
·il y a 15 jours·discuss
Well, I mean you mixed up "fine-tuning" and "reinforcement learning" a bit when describing these options.

Regarding the value of these options, SFT communicates more information to the model being trained, but there's a risk of overfitting. So I'd guess they might use both - do a bit of SFT and then finish with RLAIF.
killerstorm
·il y a 16 jours·discuss
Fun fact: no dev containers in Cursor.
killerstorm
·il y a 16 jours·discuss
I'm sorry, but you got the terminology exactly backwards. Training on the answer is called supervised fine-tuning.

Just for the sake of clarity:

0. Full distillation uses logits of the teacher model - that's much more information than the text itself. This is a kind of distillation used inside labs, but one can't distill Claude this way as logits are not available via API.

1. Supervised fine-tuning on synthetic data might be called blackbox distillation. I guess that's what you meant in your case (1).

2. Reinforcement learning (like RLAIF) uses least amount of information from the teacher, i.e. only few bits per task.
killerstorm
·il y a 17 jours·discuss
I'm actually surprised with how bad is Google's voice recognition - with all their immense compute resources, R&D, owning Android, etc, what prevents them from having SotA voice recognition?.. Even "it's not a priority" argument doesn't work as they are pushing Gemini assistant. (ChatGPT app works so much better.)
killerstorm
·il y a 19 jours·discuss
I think the situation aetherspawn is "highest rank in a low-rank lobby", e.g. an experienced player playing together with newbies. That might be a person who's just enjoying executing a specific strategy.

True top-tier players are very flexible and love high-risk tactics like flying your commander to enemy base. They also happy to "go next" if something went wrong.
killerstorm
·il y a 19 jours·discuss
There's not much hostility in Beyond All Reason outside of certain "newbie" lobbies. Occasionally somebody has a conflict, but people who take game seriously avoid offensive words as they don't want to get banned.
killerstorm
·il y a 19 jours·discuss
I tried playing SC2 for a few years but controlling units was too difficult: the only thing I could do is to send entire army to fight.

No such problem with BAR, at least in early game: quite feasible to control each unit even if you don't have fast reflexes. That's pretty much unique in RTS.

Late game is more chaotic, but it's fun in its own way...
killerstorm
·il y a 19 jours·discuss
Sorry, but it's just not true.

Pretty much the only case I've seen where a person is kicked out is either griefing (deliberately playing bad) or refuse to listen to advice.

If you don't know basics there's plenty of opportunities to learn outside of a real match (spectator, bots, special lobbies, etc.) Learning basics during 8v8 match is just extremely disrespectful: you're wasting time of 15 people. I think you missed that part.

And JFYI generally high-level lobbies (20+ is) have less drama. So it's mostly beginners having drama between themselves