Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jackomelon's commentslogin

Very neat.


Depending on the pre-training structure, you can fine-tune old local models (even locally if you have a nice GPU) to steer behavior towards your desires.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGkJj_4bjpE


I used this just now on https://github.com/karpathy/nanochat and here is the output site built from the wiki markdown: https://comforting-alfajores-8752fe.netlify.app/readme


Curious if others have tried any of these and what their thoughts are? Feels like a really great use case for agents that benefits both humans and downstream agents.


meatspace constraints!


A task is deleted and removed the board once you X it out, and then the entire board's state is reset at the start of the next day :)

I could perhaps offer a choice in the settings if you want to disable the auto-reset in favor of historical tracking by day with export!


I've been thinking of building something like that - a routine task utility. Perhaps I can add it as a feature to Today. "Routine Mode vs Self-Destructing Tasks Mode"

Thank you for the idea, I may start working on that tonight!


Sounds like reinventing TickTick. "Recurring" can be a complex subject which it mostly gets right. Still can't do "every Easter"!


I hadn't heard of TickTick, going to check it out. Super neat that Easter trips it up!


amazing clip. Thanks for sharing!


This looks great. I'm excited to try this later! Great work!


Thanks, I'm glad you like it.


Can you elaborate?


Pointing out that biologists use animal models that don't map perfectly to our biology is a lazy criticism. It's not a good-faith way of engaging with research, and demonstrates ignorance to the purpose of modelling in any field.


12 October 2023 - Reproducibility trial: 246 biologists get different results from same data sets https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03177-1

I think it's perfectly far to be very very critical of these paper especially because of the impact they can have on society, medicine, and legislation.

We should be very harsh and disciplined.


GP isn't saying we shouldn't be critical, hard and disciplined. They are saying we shouldn't just lazily dismiss any results as "in rats."

I fully agree with your comment out of context, and I think it actually backs up GP's point about not lazily dismissing stuff as "in rats"


It's not a lazy criticism, if the data is so variable when it comes to various conclusions of the same data set, imagine the difference when it goes from rats to humans!


I would agree, it definitely isn't always a lazy criticism. But to be unlazy it should include something that expounds on why it might matter. When the entirety of the response to the study is "in rats" that doesn't seem helpful to me


It is not a lazy criticism.

These animal studies are way too preliminary to waste time discussing by non-biologists. I think that the press popularizing these very preliminary studies as science actually serves to undermine the perception of science in the general population.


This info is conventionally added to HN titles since articles have the bad habit of omitting it so HN users often point it out. You can read it as equivalent to comments pointing out publication year so it can be added to a title.


Certain experiments are not ethical nor possible to do in human subjects, so scientists rely on model systems to interrogate biological questions. It has become somewhat common for people to immediately dismiss scientific findings on the basis that this research was done in a mouse, and therefore not applicable to human biology.


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

Search: