And cloak it in layers of language so that a quick read doesn’t catch it. It’s like human prompt poisoning.
5,626 karma · joined October 6, 2015
This struck me as…odd…before I even saw the parent comment.
(This argument also failed to convince my mom my teenage band didn’t suck)
> "The MP responded “14.5” ... and then opined a “conference hotel” was appropriate for this situation (Tab N-12)." (pg. 13)
> "The MP, utilizing the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF) in the air traffic control (ATC) tower, initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin (LM)" (pg. 8)
> "The SOF informed the MP he was on the phone with the conference hotel and Lockheed Martin were getting the LG subject matter experts (SME) on the line ...no transcript is available because the call was made on a personal phone rather than the legal voice recorder in the air traffic control tower" (pg. 13)
in the last statement, he means that the SOF was informing the MP that the SOF was on the conference call and would relay information. The mishap pilot (MP) was speaking to the supervisor of flying (SOF), almost certainly via radio. He asked the SOF, in the control tower to set up a conference call. For reasons, maybe of expediency or technical failure, or norms or something, the SOF made that call on his personal cell phone. The MP was not 'on the phone' but the SOF would have primaily functioned as a relay between radio and phone. The purpose of the call was to get information from the pilot to the engineers and from the engineers to the pilot. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate* means he doesn't need to cognitive load of actually listening as the SOF and engineers think through what to do and decide on a plan. He needs to fly the plane and provide information necessary to help figure out how to aviate.
If you want to harp on CNN for accuracy, I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities but this feels pedantic. It is like saying 'the astronauts weren't talking to mission control, they were talking to the capcom. Only the capcom talked to mission control'.
I suspect that in the non-public version of this report there is more discussion of the decision and alternatives to doing that call on a personal cell phone for two reasons. (1) As noted in the report it means that conference isn't recorded and a transcript is not available to the investigators (thats shocking to me). (2) Detailed aircraft systems information, which is highly controlled, is being discussed on an open line.
* Funny enough, the third time the report defines SOF, they have a typo "supervisor of lying" (pg. 36)
It's not just the pay, a fab operates 24x7x365 and how management turns that into work practices and life for employees.
I once interviewed at a fab that offered 'better work life balance'...and what they meant was you weren't allowed to access any email or information off site so they couldn't bug you as much. In reality, it just meant you had to actually go in to the plant if anythign went wrong.
Nobel Disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease)
That doesn't matter for lay audieces and doesn't really matter at all until we try and use them for technical things.
These are places where common lay discussions use language in ways that is wrong, or makes simplifcations that are reasonable but technically incorrect. They are especially common when something is so 'obvious' that experts don't explain it, the most frequent version of the concepts being explained
These, in my testing, show up a lot in LLMs - technical things are wrong when the most language of the most common explanations simplifies or obfuscates the precise truth. Often, it pretty much matches the level of knowledge of a college freshman/sophmore or slightly below, which is sort of the level of discussion of more technical topics on the internet.
And for those new to this - don’t miss the episode Cricket (3,47) which makes my wife tear up everytime.
The ability to tell a clear and focused narrative that has humor and a lesson in 8 minutes is stunning to me. I have legitimately used it with grad students learning to write a paper. Nothing is wasted, not a line not a shot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/style/2008/09/29/what...
As it stands it isn't an incentive, its just a disruptive and opportunistic approach to take money from a politically disfavored group. THe CBO, as quoted, is clear that until they figure out the reimbursement process they are still just going to colelct the fee and keep the money:
>, “CBO expects that the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements. On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues and decrease the deficit by $28.9 billion over the 2025‑2034 period.”
Add to that the wild level to which economists seem to think their economics knowledge generalizes to telling other disciplines and I tend to approach with distrust.
Trade unions tend to have a large focus on training and skill building. Yes they make firing people harder but the flip side of unions can be increasing the average quality such that firing due to quality or skill is less often necessary.
If I have need 10 people and I have a choice between two looks. Pool A is harder to fire and costs more but has a 95% competence rate. Pool B is easy to fire and costs less but has a 70% competence rate.
Setting any contractual rules aside I’m going g to find myself firing from pool B more often, and it is easy to attribute all of that to the rules that make A harder to fire. They are easier to fire (component of variance), they are more likely to be bad (component 2), and because they are easier to fire in going to be more likely to fire than coach for quality (component 3).
For example, the phrase 'furtive movements' seems really anochronistic. Is that a phrase you use? cops use in their day to day life? But it constantly shows up in police reports. Why? The courts have said that 'furtive' movements are suspicious enough to trigger probable cause - which justifies a search. So now, cops every where write that they observe movements that are furtive. Is what your attorney viewed furtive? where they normal movements? were they suspicious? The cop described them as furtive though and we defer to cops, in part because they speak the language of the courts, and now your arrest is valid and that search is valid and whatever is recovered is valid - because a court said movements need to be furtive and you sneezed and a cop described that as furtive even though he had already decided to do the search before he got out of his car.
The only way our system works is if at every level every participant (people, jurors, judges, politicians) distrust the words of police - especially when they habitually use the language of the law to justify their actions. What this tool does is quite the opposite, it will statistically normalize the words police use to describe every interaction in language that is meant to persuade and influence courts now and over time to defer to police.
https://www.bjjohnsonlaw.com/furtive-movements-and-fourth-am...
The result is a 2x2 matrix where several quadrants are deeply concerning to me.
I was taught since at least high school that you don’t cite encyclopedias as sources because they are not sources - they are summaries of sources.
LLMs are similar but worse. They are a statistical approximation of truth, without a concept of truth. They are fuzzing sources that you and I have access to already. I find calling that hand off of agency and responsibility “being informed” deeply disturbing.
The current level of workability and cost and alloying is after that chicken and egg. Titanium is expensive because it is hard to manufacture, not just hard to work with, which limits demand. Titanium, to what we now know, is what it is. It’s the nature of the material not a lack of investment.
More realistically, the ROI isn’t there for most applications. Good aluminum is pretty darn good, massively easier to work, cheaper, etc. newer super steels have even made serious inroads on titanium parts because of workability and toughness.
[0] https://www.construction-physics.com/p/the-story-of-titanium
This would be very useful for the aerospace industry. However the reason they still use things like MATLAB is less about “the best software in terms of efficiency or modern code structures is the stability and backing of it. I’ve seen stacks that are matlab transcompiled to Fortran loaded onto aircraft…as late as 2015.
The other detail, and without reading the documentation fully, is variable accuracy in types would be something interesting to have as a controlled set of options.
40% to 80% is a 2x improvement
It’s not that the second leap isn’t impressive, it just doesn’t change your perspective on reality in the same way.
I doubt LLM's have anything like what we would conceptualize as trust. They have information, which is regurgitated because it is activated as relevant.
That being said, many humans don't really have a strong concept of information validation as part of day to day action and thinking. Development theory talks about this in terms of 'formal operational' thinking and 'personal epistemology' - basically how does thinking happen and then how is knowledge in those models conceptualized. Learning Sciences research generally talks about Piaget and formal operational before adulthood and stages of personal epistemology in higher education.
Research consistently suggests that about 50% of adults are not able to consistently operate in the formal thinking space. The behavior you are talking about is also typical of 'absolutist' epistemic perspectives where answers are right or wrong and aren't meaningfully evaluated - just identifed as relevant or not. Evaluating the credibility of information is that it comes from a source that is trusted - most often an authority figure - it is not the role of the person knowing it.
Among other issues: They can’t read effectively, they can’t pay attention (which is related to the above), they have largely only experienced classes that value right answers not thinking, they have mental health problems, their teachers passed many of them because of said mental health problems, oh and both because of and as a result of the above they are glued to devices.
I teach a course that is totally team based. Six students in a room working. I’ve had students sit in the room with their teammates, and have three screens out none of them on class related work. They tried to claim that was necessary for their mental health. That’s fine, but if it is then this class is not for you.
Given the above don’t get me wrong, students aren’t to blame. They are a product of their environment. I teach at what most would call a top US school. The top students are the same, but the median has slid badly. Our society is not preparing them to learn or think.