Ya I've had basically this question for a while. My assumption is that most of the time people search the internet to answer questions they DONT know the answer to.
If an LLM gives you a response to that question, how do you know if its right or wrong without already knowing the answer or verifying it some other way? Is everyone just assuming the ai answers are right a majority of the time? Have there been large scale verification of a wide variety of questions that I'm not aware of?
That's comparing apples to oranges though isn't it? Generating videos is the output of the technology, not the tech itself. It would be like someone asking "this computer that takes up a whole room printed out ascii art, what is this useful for?"
all the "creative" gen ai does a thing worse and more annoying than what exists now. the first computers did calculations faster and faster with immediate utility (for defense mostly)
Do you remember any of the functions/commands that were not documented? I'm semi active in the Janet community and would be able to work on improving the docs where its lacking!
Assume that P = NP is undecidable, then it would not be possible to present an algorithm that is NP-complete and in P, since such an algorithm would imply that P = NP is decidable which contradicts the assumption that P = NP is undecidable.
A simpler way to think about this concept in general would be, assume that it's undecidable in ZFC whether every even natural number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes.
Well if it's undecidable in ZFC then it must be true. If it weren't true then it would be possible to present an even number that isn't the sum of two primes, but presenting such a number would be a proof and hence contradict the assumption that it's undecidable. Hence the only way for it to be undecidable in ZFC is if there isn't any such even number, but ZFC is not powerful enough to prove that no such number exists.
This is the subtle difference between decidability and truth. For certain classes of statements (not all), especially ones involving existence, if they are undecidable within ZFC then they must be true.
Another subtlety is that one can never state categorically that a statement is undecidable, a statement can only be undecidable with respect to a formal system, and being undecidable with respect to a formal system does not mean that we can't ever know if that statement is actually true or false, it just means that said formal system is not powerful enough of proving from within that system whether it's true or false.
If you can prove in ZFC that the algorithm always halts for every input but it's undecidable in ZFC whether the algorithm is correct for every input, then it follows that the algorithm is correct for every input and hence P = NP. If you can't prove in ZFC that the algorithm halts for every input then you can't deduce anything further. Let's break it down and get an understanding of why this is.
Assume an algorithm X halts for every input and it's undecidable in ZFC whether X is correct for all inputs. Well if X were incorrect for some input Q, then since X halts for every input, Q could be used to prove in ZFC that X is incorrect. Since we assumed that X's correctness is undecidable in ZFC, it follows that no such X exists.
To better understand the nature of this issue, it boils down to the fact that ZFC can not unambiguously define the natural numbers. For every definition of the natural numbers in ZFC, there are at least two possible interpretations, one interpretation is the actual natural numbers 0, 1, 2, ... where every single natural number consists of a finite sequence of digits. But ZFC will also have another interpretation of the natural numbers which are not the ACTUAL natural numbers but a kind of mutation of the natural numbers, these natural numbers can have an infinite sequence of digits.
In situations where the correctness of an algorithm is undecidable in ZFC, it means that there is some interpretation of the natural numbers, some mutated system of numbers where the algorithm would give the wrong answer. The algorithm gives the correct answer for all ACTUAL natural numbers, but will give an incorrect answer for some mutated "natural number" consisting of an infinite sequence of digits. Because ZFC is not powerful enough to distinguish between the actual natural numbers and the mutated natural numbers, ZFC is not powerful enough to prove that the algorithm is correct for the actual natural numbers.
Now you might think that 3SAT isn't about natural numbers, the input for 3SAT is a boolean formula, not a number. Well that's a minor detail since for every single boolean formula, there is a 1-to-1 correspondence to a natural number. So this hypothetical algorithm would be correct for every formula that has a correspondence to an actual natural number, and each of these formulas would consist of a finite sequence of symbols, ∨, ∧, ¬. However, there would also be mutated versions of these formulas that don't correspond to a natural number but do correspond to a mutated natural number. These formulas would consist of an infinite sequence of symbols, ∨, ∧, ¬. Since the algorithm is undecidable in ZFC, then there is some mutated formula for which the algorithm gives an incorrect answer and since ZFC can not distinguish between mutated formulas and actual real formulas, that's where the undecidability lies.
And finally, you may be tempted to think that you can just define the natural numbers in such a way that they must consist of a finite sequence of digits and this whole issue will go away, surely there must be some way we can define the natural numbers so that they consist only of a finite sequence of digits and rid ourselves of these infinite sequence mutations. And well what we know from Godel's incompleteness theorem is that there is a way to do that, but it involves making your system inconsistent.
If X runs in polynomial time, then there is of course some X' which produces the same outputs on the same inputs, and provably (in PA, I'm pretty sure, certainly in ZFC) runs in polynomial time. So, if there exists an algorithm X which solves 3SAT in polynomial time, then there is an algorithm X' that provably runs in polynomial time, and solves 3SAT. If ZFC cannot prove that X' always produces the right answer, then, I suppose that implies (By Godel's completeness theorem) that there is a model of ZFC in which it doesn't...
uhh... huh.
Does the standard construction of the natural numbers in ZFC, if considered in a non-standard model of ZFC, produce a nonstandard model of PA? That's not what I had expected.
err... I guess there isn't necessarily a thing which is considered "the standard model of ZFC", so I guess I mean, "is there a model of ZFC in which the usual construction of the natural numbers, isn't the standard model of the natural numbers?" (where the model of ZFC is I guess a model within another ZFC or some other set theory, and asking whether the set of natural numbers in that model, is the standard one, is asking about how it compares to the model of the natural numbers in the outer set theory)
I think the OP was saying that having minors agree to a social media sites terms and conditions is them entering a contract. So if you're against minors entering contracts, its logically consistent to also be against holding minors to a websites terms.
> I think the OP was saying that having minors agree to a social media sites terms and conditions is them entering a contract. So if you're against minors entering contracts, its logically consistent to also be against holding minors to a websites terms.
In which case we should ban children from using game consoles, computers, cell phones, ISPs, TVs, or anything that else that comes with a ToS/AUP/T&C
Yet children have cell phones and use the internet right? Nothing (as far as I know) will stop a child from walking into a walmart and buying a pre-paid phone or a TV or a computer but all of those things will force you agree to their terms.
How enforceable all of that is legally would be up to the courts, but that's true for social media sites too. If a 15 year old signs up for a social media site they're forced to agree to terms that might not hold up in a courtroom. None of that protects the child from having their data harvested, sold, and used against them for the rest of their lives.
If we agree to ban kids from using social media on the basis of them not being able to legally enter into a contract, we'll have to ban kids from a whole lot more that social media since so many things in our lives require one. Even things explicitly made for children.
I'd be better to outlaw the data collection and exploitation than to tell kids they can't use cell phones or computers or social media and televisions. No need to limit that to just kids either.
If you are learning Polish, how do you know that ChatGPT is the better tutor of Polish?
I guess you could ask the same question of a human tutor, however this seems to me the sort of thing a chatbot could very confidently give BS or incorrect information, and you would have no way of knowing unless a human who already knows Polish pointed it out.
No human person has the stamina to spend 3 hours fixing basic conjugation tables and still encourage me.
As a European I have received extensive language tutoring and know how people teach. I also know enough Polish people that I can certify that they are just regular people without super-human tutoring skills.
I would highly recommend starting with a fantasy console such as Pico-8 or TIC-80. They remove the temptation to start by building a game engine from scratch, and instead help you focus on actually creating games! Plus they have great communities, complete docs, and simple apis.
Yeah, one of the traps I find myself falling into a lot is that the act of writing code itself can be satisfying enough, and fear (of finishing, complexity and failure) can lead to just spinning your wheels for a long time.
Wow, I literally did a full cluster version upgrade last night without knowing about this. I would have delayed the upgrade if I had known GKE was failing for "a small number of customers"
I wish cloud providers would just communicate outages to services I use like this to me!
In general, they seem bad at communicating relevant information. Just looking over at emails from Google, every single one of the last 10 emails they sent me was not relevant to me specifically.
> "[Important notice] Tax changes in Nepal" (yet I have never made a sale in Nepal)
> "Secure your Google Admin account with these best practices" (yet I already do all those things)
> "Preparing for the upcoming Google Ads change on October 31, 2023" (it's all about mediation waterfalls, and I'm 90% sure I don't use them, and 100% sure I don't know what they are)
I haven't had that comms issue with Google but I have to say, even though I prefer GCP to AWS in terms of user friendliness, it is far too often the case that you find exactly the solution you need only to learn it's deprecated in favour of a less useful alternative.
Don't put this in a special channel just for vendor incidents. Hopefully you have a channel for each vendor tool where you have a vendor representative present. You put that bot in there. It's much more likely to be noticed and much less likely to be a channel that everyone ignores because it's SNR is to low.
Yeah, we did do this when we got large enough for a shared slack channel with aws. But for most orgs, just having this piped to your alerts channel is good enough.
There is a 'Google Cloud Service Health Updates' Slack app that has notifications about this incident. Here's what it looks like on our channel:
8:18 PM
APP UPDATE: Global: Google Kubernetes Engine Nodepool Upgrade Failures
Incident began at 2023-10-02 11:29 (all times are US/Pacific).Summary: Global: Google Kubernetes Engine Nodepool Upgrade Failures
Description: A mitigation has been rolling out and we are assessing its effectiveness. We will provide an update byTuesday 2023-10-10 12:00 US/Pacific with current details.
Diagnosis: A small number of customers are experiencing failed nodepool upgrades. Customers experiencing this, may see "Internal error" in Google Cloud Console. Retrying is suggested but may...
There are quite a lot of alerts about various issues.
I will say CircleCI’s dashboard makes it impossible to NOT know there is an outage going on by putting it in the sidebar. Unless it’s collapsed you’ll be aware of everything breaking (that they report) to the point where it feels like everything is breaking all the time
If you've ever worked at a cloud provider, then you know everything is breaking all the time. The good ones are just able to hide it most of the time/for most customers.
Honest status page are a really really hard problem.
If your connector between your status monitor and the service breaks you'll have some subset of users panicking and causing problems (or asking for refunds for outages) when the service was up the entire time.
3rd party services are the only ones that you'll get a "more honest" but not always correct view of what the actual status is.
When an incident is declared, have someone tasked with determining customer impact. If the impact radius is greater than a handful of customers, declare a public incident. If customer communication is made a priority, then you can actually have a helpful status page.
Where I work, just about any non-false-alarm incident ends up on the status page in a timely manner. There's nothing stopping the likes of AWS from doing the same except for culture.
Exactly. It's the kind of thing where one person managing it and deciding whether to post updates is probably gonna work better than anything automated.
Well, maybe not at AWS scales though, if they have thousands of everything =/
I'm not talking about scraping, I'm talking about manual usage.
> You can easily check it manually.
You cannot. Twitter's site is plagued by redirect loops. If you work around those, these days /search just redirs to the login page. You can view single tweets, but there won't be any replies. (I have no idea if the site formerly known as Twitter is still rate-limiting views, or if they canned that.)
It is unusable if you're not actively logged in, and some of us have no desire to give away a phone number just to see AWS's true status.
See all those green there? Once it started becoming "monitored" by VPs instead of the software engineers on call, they started to become political. I bet there are several sev2s happening for several of those services even as we speak but it still shows green to the outside observer. If one has access to the actual metrics for those services, i bet we would see a different story than what is shown on the "status" page.
There was something probably here a few days ago to the effect of 'Their 9s are not your 9s'. Like yes, their status is showing an error rate of less than .00001%. However, all of those errors are being generated by your 5 instances that are completely down.
I think they mean that companies rarely update their status pages to reflect reality (for instance, AWS outages are rarely shown on their own status pages). This is often by design, company policy, or a desire to save face.
And it's so incredibly dumb. Companies need to get it through their thick heads that this is so incredibly short-sighted.
Not once has a status page that's devoid of information or slow to update ever saved face. I am far more annoyed to have to continue to verify "no, it is indeed that your service is down, not mine" and then file a support ticket. I am triply annoyed if the response from support is "ah yes that's a known problem and we're working on it" — known, and you just didn't bother to communicate.
I miss the days when Github had graphs. Even if they simply hadn't had the time to put a message on the page, you could tell from the graphs that it was Github. But even with "more information" that some PM might not like being put out publicly, Github felt more reliable & stable in those days.
At the end of the day, no amount of political gamesmanship will save you from having to actually run a reliable service, and gamesmanship just makes it more likely I'll ascribe false positives to your service, further lowering my perception of its reliability.
It's so watered down that the "AWS" emoji in our Slack instance is literally a meme of the status page.
not sure how this could work, as some qa/sre would have to be paid even more in order to effectively work against this type of falsification. there would have to be a very strong incentive for the company to do that.
I deeply desire one of these that also has 4G LTE. The idea of a portable linux shell that could also make phone calls by typing in something like "call 773-202-LUNA" just sounds super appealing!
Just use F-Droid or download from GitHub then. The power of Android is that you're not in a walled Google Garden and you are in control and can sideload whatever you want from wherever you want.
that's what i'm doing now, but it's probably only about 3 years away that google disables the api level that termux depends on; then you'll have to install lineageos or something in order to be able to use termux
To me it’s to opposite! I’m looking for a device that does not have a baseband on it. I can always hotspot + vpn if I need access to the outside world, but no direct access to the device. Add some encrypted chat software, and got the perfect communication device.
There's https://pyra-handheld.com/ but it's semi-existent not-quite-vaporware for about a decade already (props on the staying power of looking to get this project finished, though!)
Planet Computers are probably going down the drain soonish after the fairly disastrous crowdfunding for the Astro phone. I know a friend who has a Gemini and he wasn't impressed either. However I am massively biased, as I paid for a Astro which I'm still waiting for several years after the kickstarter finished. To be fair, they have had pretty major issues with the ODM, but still we've only just found that out recently.
Gemini also the disadvantage of horribly out of date software. Encrypted chat software is not a good combination with Android 8.1 missing years of security patches.
One project I think about a lot but will probably never do is build a DIY smart phone, writing all the UI and features myself.
There's people on youtube that have done this. They're basically off the shelf parts and a raspi glued together in an awkward brick of wires and electronics.
I'm interested in learning how to get the hardware all working together, but also making wacky UI that deviate from normal smart phones.
Ha I actually had the same thoughts about building an eReader with an eink display and everything. I actually put it together and wrote it with Python for epubs and everything. Then I realized I suck at UI stuff so it’s just sitting at like 65% complete… which is better than my average project actually!
If an LLM gives you a response to that question, how do you know if its right or wrong without already knowing the answer or verifying it some other way? Is everyone just assuming the ai answers are right a majority of the time? Have there been large scale verification of a wide variety of questions that I'm not aware of?