ADC (Application Default Credentials) is a specification for finding credentials (1. look here 2. look there etc.) not an alternative for credentials. Using ADC one can e.g. find an SA file.

As a replacement for SA files one can have e.g. user accounts using SA impersonation, external identity providers, or run on GCP VM or GKE and use built-in identities.

(ref: https://cloud.google.com/iam/docs/migrate-from-service-accou...)

Hav you read https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/07/10/melatonin-much-more-th... ?

What is the significance of this?

I think the “wa” prefix means “bad” in Japan

There's a bit of a... pun(?) in there with its apparent origin as a name in Waluigi: The word is "waru" (noun) or "warui" (adjective), and with the "l" / "r" thing with Japanese pronunciation, "warui" and "luigi" combine really well.

Granted Wario was first in that franchise.

Correct. Another pun is that "ruigi" (類義) means "similar".

Easy, from my recent chat with o1: (Asked about left null space)

‘’’ these are the vectors that when viewed as linear functionals, annihilate every column of A . <…> Another way to view it: these are the vectors orthogonal to the row space. ‘’’

It’s quite obvious that vectors that “annihilate the columns” would be orthogonal to the column space not the row space.

I don’t know if you think o1 is magic. It still hallucinates, just less often and less obvious.

average humans don't know what "column spaces" are or what "orthogonal" means

Average humans don't (usually) confidently give you answers to questions they do now know the meaning of. Nor would you ask them.

Ah hum. The discriminant is whether they know that they don't know. If they don't, they will happily spit out whatever comes to their mind.

And why would the "average human" count?!

"Support, the calculator gave a bad result for 345987*14569" // "Yes, well, also your average human would"

...That why we do not ask "average humans"!

"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

So the result might not necessarily be bad, it's just that the machine _can_ detect that you entered the wrong figures! By the way, the answer is 7.

average human matters here because the OP said

> Can you please give an example of a “completely illogical statement” produced by o1 model? I suspect it would be easier to get an average human to produce an illogical statement.

> because the OP said

And the whole point is nonsensical. If you discussed whether it would be ethically acceptable to canaries it would make more sense.

"The database is losing records...!" // "Also people forget." : that remains not a good point.

Because the cost competitive alternative to llms are often just ordinary humans

Following the trail as you did originally: you do not hire "ordinary humans", you hire "good ones for the job"; going for a "cost competitive" bargain can be suicidal in private enterprise and criminal in public ones.

Sticking instead to the core matter: the architecture is faulty, unsatisfactory by design, and must be fixed. We are playing with the partials of research and getting some results, even some useful tools, but the idea that this is not the real thing must be clear - also since this two years plus old boom brought another horribly ugly cultural degradation ("spitting out prejudice as normal").

I interpreted the op's argument to be that

> For simple tasks where we would alternatively hire only ordinary humans AIs have similar error rates.

Yes if a task requires deep expertise or great care the AI is a bad choice. But lots of tasks don't. And in those kinds of tasks even ordinary humans are already too expensive to be economically viable

Sorry for the delay. If you are still there:

> But lots of tasks

Do you have good examples of tasks in which dubious verbal prompt could be an acceptable outcome?

By the way, I noticed:

> AI

Do not confuse LLMs with general AI. Notably, general AI was also implemented in system where critical failures would be intolerable - i.e., made to be reliable, or part of a finally reliable process.

Yes lots of low importance tasks. E.g. assigning a provisional filename to an in progress document

Checking documents for compliance with a corporate style guide

Wodehouse: Titanic forces beyond your control such as scheming aunts, accidental engagements, and inability to express your feelings threaten to irrevocably ruin your life forever. It’ll take a Machiavellian mastermind and a series of unlikely coincidences to extricate you from this predicament but you’ll have to pay a price.

They really didn’t do Wodehouse justice in the OP

They also restricted themselves to a subset of his stories; branch out beyond Jeeves and you find the school stories, the social commentary, and more.

From 50,000 feet they do look somewhat similar, but they're not.

how could they.. its impossible

“Compose” in the sense of “create”, not in the sense of “combine”

> “Compose” in the sense of “create”, not in the sense of “combine”

Although the latter is also highly valuable.

Absolute banger. But the auto-aim on vertical axis is missing. You should be able to have the crosshair under an enemy and still hit them. But in any case, nicely done!

Funny enough, when I've tried to introduce (indoctrinate) friends to DOOM, "how do I aim up" has consistently been the biggest hangup.

This makes sense when I try to indoctrinate my teenager who grew up on Halo and Call of Duty. But I began noticing this hangup in the late 90s with friends my own age.

Here's the real Doom player!

In fact, the GGP should've called his list "nice", not "good".

Jokes are supposed to have some attempt at humor in them, you know

They won't be able to refund her missing out on spending time with her kid.