TUHS->COFF
> > It's like Wikipedia.
>
> No, Wikipedia has (at least historically) human editors who
> supposedly have some knowledge of reality and history.
>
> An LLM response is going to be a series of tokens predicted based on
> probabilities from its training data. ...
>
> Assuming the sources it cites are real works, it seems fine as a
> search engine, but the text that it outputs should absolutely not be
> thought of as something arrived at by similar means as text produced
> by supposedly knowledgeable and well-intentioned humans.
>
> An LLM can weigh sources, but it has to be taught to do that. A human
> can weigh sources, but it has to be taught to do that.
Before LLMs, Wikipedia, World Wide Web, ... adages such as "Trust, but
verify," and "Inspect what you expect," were appropriate, and still are.
Dabbling in editing and creating Wikipedia articles has enforced those
notions. A few anecdotes here -- I could cite others.
1. I think my first experience was trying in 2008 to fix what is now at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Gas_Company_(1967%E2%80%931970),
because the article had so much erroneous content, and because I had
worked/performed at that venue 1969-70. Much of what I did in 2008 was
accepted without anyone else verifying. But others broke things/changed
things, even renamed the original article and replaced it with an
article about a newer club that adopted the name. A few years ago, I
tried to make corrections, citing poster images at
https://concerts.fandom.com/wiki/Vulcan_Gas_Company. Those changes were
vetoed because fandom.com was considered unreliable. I copied the images
from fandom to https://technologists.com/VGC/, and then citing those
images was then accepted by the editors involved. (The article has been
changed dramatically, still is seriously deficient, IMO, but I'm not
interested in fixing.)
2. Last year, I created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hub_City_Movers,
citing sources I considered reliable. Citations to images at discogs.com
were vetoed as unreliable, based on analogous bias against that site.
Partly to see what was possible, I engaged with editors, found citations
they found acceptable, and ultimately produced a better article.
3. Later last year, I edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX to
fix obviously erroneous discussion of AIX 1/2/3. Even though I used my
own writings as references, the changes were accepted.
I still use the Web, Wikipedia, and even LLMs, but cautiously.
Charlie
--
voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer(a)technologists.com
fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to: CharlesHSauer
From https://spectrum.ieee.org/bellmac-32-ieee-milestone
"The group wrote its own version of Unix, with real-time capabilities to
ensure that the new chip design was compatible with industrial
automation and similar applications."
Would that be in the archives?
S
> From: Paul Winalski
> Wikipedia quite rightly wants citations for stated facts and this
> practice goes a long way to prevent inaccuracies. But I recall one
> instance where it actually caused the establishment of a factual error.
Not rare; this pattern was the subject of an XKCD strip, "Citogenesis":
https://xkcd.com/978/https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/978:_Citogenesis
The latter URL has a very similar story to the one you gave.
Noel
[Redirected from the TUHS list]
George Michaelson <ggm(a)algebras.org> writes:
>> We're way off topic. Warren should send a kill.
>
> That said: please don't repeat the "hallucinate" label. It's
> self
> -aggrandisement. Its deliberate, to foster belief "it's like
> thinking"
>
> It's not a hallucination, it's bad model data and bad constraint
> programming. They're not thinking, or dreaming, or demanding not
> to be
> turned off, or threatening or bullying: They're not Markov
> chains
> either but they're a damn sight closer to a machine than a mind.
Point taken, although i think trying to change that language might
be
tilting at windwills at this point. Still, i'll try to use
alternate
phrasing, e.g. "LLMs are known to output nonexistent
sources". (Alternative phrasings welcome.)
i'd also be interested in an analysis of this:
> An artificial intelligence model created by the owner of
> ChatGPT has
> been caught disobeying human instructions and refusing to shut
> itself off, researchers claim.
--
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360701275/openai-software-ignores-explic…
Alexis.
List members may be interested in this new article published today:
Steven M. Bellovin
Netnews: The Origin Story
IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 47(1) 7--21 Jan/Mar 2025
https://doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2024.3420896
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 -
- University of Utah -
- Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB Internet e-mail: beebe(a)math.utah.edu -
- 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe(a)acm.org beebe(a)computer.org -
- Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: https://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beating a nearly dead horse, I'm shipping this to COFF instead of TUHS
to which it responds.
> I find
>
> if (a == b && c == d)
>
> perfectly reasonable, but
>
> if ((a == b) && (c == d))
>
> to be just silly.
Amusing. IT's odd that no one has mentioned the use of spaces for
grouping. When the operands of == are simple, I prefer to vary the
spacingy spacing. It's less intrusive than extra parentheses and just
as clear.
if(a==b && c==d) or
if( a==b && c==d )
K&R usually flank every infix operator with spaces, unlike classical
mathematical usage, where spacing reflects operator precedence. I
usually write a*b + c*d, not a * b + c * d, which wantonly flattens
the parse tree. Here's an example from K&R, where uniform spacing
hampers intelligibility.
for (i = 0; s[i] >= '0' && s[i] <= '9'; ++i)
n = 10 * n + (s[i] - '0');
The "extra" parens in the second line admirably show the intent of the
subtraction. Other groupings are not so well indicated. I would write
it like this:
for(i=0; s[i]>='0' && s[i]<='9'; ++i)
n = 10*n + (s[i]-'0');
(I'll admit that the juxtaposition ]>= is less than perspicuous.)
Long identifiers constitute a level of grouping that takes precedence
even over multiplication. So I may flank long identifiers with spaces.
I suppose then + in a sum of products might deserve double spaces.
That's probably a bridge too far, but double spaces after the
semicolons in the "for" statement above seem justifiable
K&R aren't absolutely rigid about spacing. In the following oddly
mixed specimen, the first of three operands in a conjunction is spaced
tightly, but the third is not; I guess they feel about != the way I do
about long identifiers.
i<lim-1 && (c = getchar()) != '\n' && c != EOF
The middle conjunct is a challenge. I'd probably squeeze out the
spaces. But I might instead try to hold it together with outer parens.
Doug
Mention of punched cards reminded me of some 1960s trivia.
There were two formats for binary code on punched cards for IBM 700-series
machines. In "row binary" two 36-bit words filled each of the 12 rows from
bottom to top. In "column binary" successive thirds of a word ran downward
in each of 3 successive columns. Bob Morris wondered what is the order of
the permutation performed in row-to-column conversion.
The order of the row-to-column permutation turns out to be 172. There are
five cycles of that length plus an oddball of length 4. My souvenir card
shows the oddball.
If you convert a cycle from row binary to column binary, the output is the
same as the input.* Each cycle is also invariant under 180-degree
rotation.The 4-cycle is a simple parallelogram. One of the 5-cycles lines
up in periodic diagonals. The other cycles show no easily described
structure.
The images of the two described cycles should be viewed in a fixed-width
font. The punches in the 4-cycle are numbered in cyclic order.
I keep a few souvenir punched cards. One bears that 4-cycle.
* Well, almost the same. The first word on the card contains control
information whose layout differs in the two formats.
Doug
........................................................................
........................................................................
...........................................3............................
........................................................................
..............2.........................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
.........................................................4..............
........................................................................
............................1...........................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
..X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....
....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X..
.X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X
...X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X...
X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X.
..X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....
....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X..
.X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X
...X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X...
X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X.
..X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....
....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X....X..
https://boingboing.net/2025/03/10/make-your-own-virtual-punchcard.html
[50 years ago today I started working at IBM Yorktown. My boxes of
punchcards from graduate work at UT-Austin were enroute with the movers
from Austin, to be fed into VM-370 after they arrived. I wish I had kept
those boxes as souvenirs.]
Charlie
--
voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer(a)technologists.com
fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to: CharlesHSauer
Besides the first day I sat at the PDP-7 console, one of the biggest Unix
thrills came when when I logged in remotely to the new Cray at Bell Labs.
Here was a monster machine with a manual I had never seen, and I was able
to compile and run a program on it at the first try. God bless sh, ed, cc,
and a.out.
Doug