Maybe I'm pulling at a fake distinction here but the progenitor blog posts of this format that I'm thinking of were incorrect models of constructs that almost everyone uses in their everyday life constantly ( names, dates, time etc )
Whereas I find it kinda unlikely that someone both knows what a DHCP server is, and holds a belief that there is only ever exactly one on their network?
Hmmm, In my experience programmers are often not particularly good at networking, and this can result in all kinds of bad assumptions (or awkward workarounds for things that could be much better solved at the network level).
Maybe I don't remember the names, dates, and others correctly but I don't think they had things like
> Wi-Fi and Ethernet clients are equivalent peers on the LAN.
> Wi-Fi and Ethernet clients aren’t equivalent peers on the LAN.
To be honest I don't know what this is supposed to be telling me. They can or can't be on the same VLAN? They could have different or the same QoL? If we hammer traffic on both at the same time bad things may or may not happen?
> Only IPv4 is running on my LAN.
> Only IP is running on my LAN.
> Okay, only IP, IPX/SPX, Phase IV, AppleTalk, VINES, NetBEUI, or SNA are running on my LAN.
> Seriously?
Practically I'm not sure how this affects someone writing a networked application. Sure, IPv4/IPv6, but if I get a bug report in the year 2026 that my application is broken because it doesn't work on the AppleTalk network, it gets a WONTFIX.
Sure, maybe if I'm writing a low-level network driver or maintaining a mainframe application these are things I have to care about. I think that may be the difference between the other posts and this post - non-experts in Onomastics and Chronology deal with names and dates all the time, hence resulting in issues like government websites not accepting Ng as a last name because it is less than 3 characters or not allowing entering February 29th as a birthday.
I believe so. AIs are shockingly good at a lot of domains, but there's still a lot of pretty basic stuff they don't really "understand" at a conceptual level and (currently) they can't learn to get better at them.
(obviously it might take years for me to get good enough at something, or if you set the "arbitrary" task as something ridiculous, but lets work in good faith here and think of something the average human could do after learning about it)
If we progress to the point where an LLM instance can meaningfully learn to get better at something overtime without retraining, then I will accept that is basically AGI. Right now, they still seem to be pretty boxed into their training, even if you can prompt them to act differently.
>It appeared to listen intently as a man in a cleric's uniform railed. "God made all intelligent creatures," the man was saying in a powerful voice. "You may have the apprearance of thinking, but you are really just parroting the responses taught you by that man there." He pointed at Lawrence.
>By anchoring borrowing costs at or near zero, the BOJ enabled Wall Street to borrow Yen cheaply and invest it with leverage into higher yielding instruments globally, such as U.S. treasuries, equities, and cryptography
They got the word wrong, but I don't believe cryptocurrency would count either: The interest rates at BoJ _are_ low, but to borrow anywhere near that low they have to have high quality collateral like treasuries.
