I'm honestly confused as to why it is doing this and why it thinks I'm right when I tell it that it is incorrect.
I've tried asking it factual information, and it asserts that it's incorrect but it will definitely hallucinate questions like the above.
You'd think the reasoning would nail that and most of the chain-of-thought systems I've worked on would have fixed this by asking it if the resulting answer was correct.
Or just make sure that we don't put too much into place that will get in the way of future disruptors, so that as they slowly fall out of favour due to chasing the bottom line and it eventually affecting their offerings to the point where a critical mass of users seriously look for alternatives¹, there are viable alternatives there waiting to be found. Google and the other entrenched big companies spend a lot of lobbying money on trying to make sure the status quo can be maintained, by raising the barrier for entry into their markets.
----
[1] this takes time: after _years_ of saying I'm going to I've finally started experimenting with using Kagi for search instead. It also takes _good_ alternatives, a paid option won't be seen as good by many.
And Apple while we're at it. Stuff like adding hardware to their devices to implement their own version of Tile ("Airtag") so that Tile pretty much immediately dies off is just scummy, imo.
At least Google's M.O. has mostly been to make stuff and then just throw it out into the open (with no support). Apple has been the opposite, ingesting the ideas and features of whole other companies without buying them, because they control their own little ecosystem.
Yes, developers can use basic/locked down UWB functionality in their apps, but no they cannot run it in the background constantly like Apple does for their airtags, essentially making it useless.
Prompt caching has been a thing for LLMs since GPT-2 (e.g. transformers's `use_past=True`), it's more of a surprise that it took this long for the main LLM providers to provide a good implementation.
> If you're ever in a situation similar to this, run as fast and as far as you can.
I really really want to underscore this point.
You're literally standing on top of ground and under that is boiling water.
If that breaks and you fall in you're going to be in boiling water with no way to get out and you will die screaming.
Also NEVER walk on ground that has no vegetation. If you look around a geyser you will see that the ground is white and has no vegetation. That's because the temperature is too high and it has water under it that's heating the ground.
Walk on that and there's a chance you will fall in.
In the back country there are no fences so you can fall right through the crust.
>> Also NEVER walk on ground that has no vegetation.
There are also places on this planet where toxicity issues preclude vegetation. If there are fumes coming through the soil so powerful that grass doesn't grow, take the hint.
They mean never in the context of fleeing from these explosions.
My sidewalk has no vegetation, but that is because I weedwhacked on Tuesday not because a geyser 10 meters away is flash boiling water in a pressure vessel made of stone and glass shrapnel-to-be.
The US was in Afghanistan for twenty years. Everything the US did there collapsed in a few months after twenty years. It seems like after the second Osama was killed everything done there was a waste of time and money for the US. It's a terrible situation, but it's a terrible situation whenever there is a country using religion to justify oppression and war. The people have to be willing to get rid of the oppressors.
US had to learn the age old lesson too it seems - you just can't conquer Afghanistan (well maybe apart form wiping almost its entire population but even russians didn't do that). And its not a place for democracy, its tribal to its core and nobody likes giving up power held over many generations. It doesn't matter much how superior you think your cause is or advanced equipment deployed.
There were just 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan before they pulled out, and below 10,000 for years before that. There are more U.S. troops in countries like Germany, Italy, or Spain.
In the end it was a very small commitment for the US, with huge gains not just for Afghan people but also for the US.
I'd argue that zero troops and zero dollars in Afghanistan should be the goal. Afghanistan knows that if they try to raise up another Osama what will happen, so I would argue that what happens there, even if it's terrible, doesn't actually affect things in the US anymore.
We can invade a bunch of countries in South America, Africa, Asia, and Europe and possibly "improve" lives there, impose our will, while sucking money out of America ostensibly forever.
Or we can sanction human rights abusers, offer proper asylum, and if there are any real on the ground changes from within the country then possibly support in a similar way to support in Ukraine.
Once you invade a country you're committing to a certain responsibility to do right by it and the people living there. Either follow the Prime Directive or don't, but you can't just choose whimsically based on whatever is convenient in the moment. Blame the Bush admin if you really want to blame someone.
How does the prime directive apply when you are attacked directly.
I do agree that Bush deserves the blame for turning what should should have been a hunt down and destroy Al Qaeda mission into a sprawling invasion of various countries in the middle east
Afghanistan or the Taliban didn't attack the US – bin Laden did, who had no position in the Afghan government. Taliban refused to extradite Bin Laden to the US, and the US refused any compromise such as extradition to another country. All of that is a rather different thing than "they attacked us".
Regardless, Obama, Trump, and Biden had to deal with the situation as they found it, whether they agreed with the lead-up or not.
Counterpoint: after World War II we still have troops in both Germany and Japan who are now our allies. Any kind of occupation, and our occupational forces were small, was always going to be a long term commitment. Instead we just straight up abandoned our allies.
This was not a win, and the Biden Administration lying about it at every single stage of the process until the final troop was out was downright cowardly when all we had to do was continue to commit to sit on our asses while Afghani society rebuilt itself.
They reverted months after we left, which means the only way to hold it off would have been to stay forever and make them the 51st state.
Anyone who didn’t want to live under authoritarian Islamist rule should have left during that 20 year period. I find it hard to believe the whole place reverting was a surprise.
The US invasion and attempted puppet government in Afghanistan made life much worse for women in Afghanistan because it drove regular people to support the extremist Taliban, who themselves became more extreme as the war went on.
Just because the US could take control and pretend to make progress doesn't mean it actually changed people's minds. In fact it actively poisoned the concept of women's rights in that region for decades
Enough ordnance lying around for them and their army and menfolk to have fought if they wanted to. At some point we have to say enough is enough. Thousands of American lives, trillions of American dollars, and 20 years ought to have been enough. If not, then it's just not a job that is reasonably accomplishable by a foreign state. I wish them all the best in building a free society for themselves over the next decades, but they'll have to do it without American boots on the ground.
Maybe its China's turn to try to conquer the graveyard of empires.
Owing to the change of administration, the Biden administration was obviously responsible for implementing the terms of the agreement as negotiated by the Trump administration.
I think both parties get an approximately equal share of the credit or blame.
That's not the fault of the US though. We were there for years and years trying to foster democracy, but you can't help a country/culture that doesn't want to help itself.
> He got us out of Afghanistan too... this was a huge win and was very risky. Doesn't get enough credit for this one.
Thats because Trump agreed to get us out of afghaniston. Biden oversaw the absolutely disastrous execution, abandoning untold millions of military equipment in the hands of the taliban.
Trump's plan involved getting out even quicker. How was it going to be less disastrous?
It is always the same story, Dems bad, I would have done it right. He had a 'credible deterrent', and would have completely ended the Ukraine war (that had been going on since 2014). Just like he claims now he will end the war, and bring back all the Americans imprisoned abroad if re-elected. It's one thing to say that sort of stuff and present a plan for doing so. Trump says it, and then pivots to even more bullshit.
Do you really think a different president, with effectively the same military leadership, was going to execute the pull-out in a broadly different way on a shorter deadline, and call it a success?
In fact I'm pretty sure that Sun, SGI and HP all used the same OEM. They were really nice Trinitron displays though and this meant they were well interchangeable too. Which was great because by PC standard they used a weird DB25 with 3 composite RGB connector and sync on green iirc.
My take is that it means founders are sharing the risk by investing in the company and by taking a smaller salary than they could otherwise. This means there is a clear motivation to get a successful exit for them as well as the VC's
I've tried asking it factual information, and it asserts that it's incorrect but it will definitely hallucinate questions like the above.
You'd think the reasoning would nail that and most of the chain-of-thought systems I've worked on would have fixed this by asking it if the resulting answer was correct.