But does that propagate to every entity worldwide using passports for identification, including all non-government-affiliated companies and KYC providers?
At least they exist. I've tried looking into this in the past, and I haven't really found any public passport revocation list, even of just numbers (i.e. without disclosing associated names or any other sensitive data).
But you need to verify everything unless it’s self evident. The number of times CoPilot (Sonnett 4) still hallucinates Browser APIs is astonishing. Imaging trying to learn something that can’t be checked easily, like Egyptian archeology or something.
You have to verify everything from human developers too. They hallucinate APIs when they try to write code from memory. So we have:
- documentation
- design reviews
- type systems
- code review
- unit tests
- continuous integration
- integration testing
- Q&A process
- etc.
It turns out when include all these processes, teams of error-prone human developers can produce complex working software. Mostly -- sometimes there are bugs. Kind of a lot actually. But we get things done.
Is it not the same with AI? With the right processes you can get consistent results from inconsistent tools.
Taking the example of egyptian archeology, if you're reading the work of someone who is well regarded as an expert in the field, you can trust their word a lot more than you can trust the word of an AI, even if the AI is provided the text you're reading.
This is a pretty massive difference between the two, and your narrative is part of why AI is proving to be so harmful for education in general. Delusional dreamers and greedy CEOs talking about AI being able to do "PhD level work" have potentially ruined a significant chunk of the next generation into thinking they are genuinely learning from asking AI "a few questions" and taking the answers at face value instead of struggling through the material to build true understanding.
There needs to be a reasonable chance of correctness. At least the local toddlers around here don’t randomly provide a solution to a problem that would take me hours to find but only minutes to validate.
>I'll take a potential solution I can validate over no idea whatsoever of my own any day.
If you have to validate what the LLM says, I assume you'd do that by researching primary sources and works by other experts. At that point, the LLM did nothing except charge you for a few tokens before you went down the usual research path. I could see LLMs being good for providing an outline of what you'd need to research, which is definitely helpful but not in a singularity way.
> If you have to validate what the LLM says, I assume you'd do that by researching primary sources and works by other experts.
For research, yes, and the utility there is a bit more limited. They’re still great at digesting and contextualizing dozens or hundreds of sources in a few minutes which would take me hours.
But what I mean by “easily testable” is usually writing code. If I already have good failing tests, verification is indeed very very cheap. (Essentially boils down to checking if the LLM hacked around the test cases or even deleted some.)
> At that point, the LLM did nothing […]
I’d pay actual money for a junior dev or research assistant capable of reading, summarizing, and coming up with proofs of concept at any hour of the day without getting bored at the level of current LLMs, but I’ve got the feeling $20/month wouldn’t be appealing to most candidates.
All of the information available from an LLM (and probably more) is available in books or published on the internet. They can go to a library and a read a book. They can be fairly certain books written by subject matter experts aren’t just made up.
Sure, I just gave the Browser API example as evidence that the 'hallucination' problem is not gone.
OP said it's like "talking to a professor" and you can use it to learn college level stuff. This is where I disagree. I did not double check my professors or text books usually.
I can't reproduce the "worst case" i.e. that if I ping "google.com" it gets first sent to "google.com.fritz.box". I'm on windows 10 and have a FRITZ!Box 7590.
If I ping "google.com" It just queries google.com
If I ping a domain I have never visited it just does a query for that domain.
It only appends .fritz.box if I, e.g. only ping "google".
So maybe they fixed it? I also changed quite a lot of settings throughout the years.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows NT\DNSClient\AppendToMultiLabelName
[default value - 0 (Do not Append Suffix)]
which resolver built into Windows (DNS Client) respects.
nslookup contains its own DNS resolver and does not rely on the resolver built into the operating system. The DNS (multi-label) query packets sent by the nslookup tool will append the domains listed in the suffix search order (or primary DNS suffix if the list is empty) irrespective of that registry key.
In summary, don't use nslookup to try to get insight into what actually happens when apps/services try to resolve names. ping is probably a better bet, at least it uses Windows resolver which honours the above registry key.
I think I agree, if that is legally possible.
I don't think apple provides any important infrastructure like Amazon, Microsoft and Google do.
It's basically a luxury company.
Might be bad for the people who already own iOS devices and need it to survive in one way or another (e.g. as a wallet).
Well apple could still operate the devices that they've sold, they just wouldn't be able to sell for a specified period of time, doubtful apple removes support anyways because then they customer trust.
As plenty of others have said - nope, dissaving is very uncommon word. As a native American English speaker, I don't recall ever seeing it either.
One clue for future reference - the linked article had to clarify the meaning of the word _in the title_. That strongly indicates to me that, even if in certain areas the word is well understood, the author expected there to be confusion.
reply