(I can not say how comprehensive that wikipedia list is).
There's more in the 70s and 80s than I was expecting (having lived through the 80s), but given how many flights there are, hijackings have been and are exceedingly rare; and most of these are not even US flights. These are "driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous than flying" and "10x a very small number is still a very small number" numbers.
These numbers only serve to re-enforce that the response of giving up liberty for (the feeling of) security due to terrorist action in the US was probably outsized. General population awareness in general was probably more of a deterrent after 9/11 than any of the first order 9/11 response actions, especially considering that the US gave countries in the middle east further reason to hate Americans and US foreign policy after 9/11. Obviously, terrorist attacks get a lot of air time and column inches, which feeds the perception of the risk.
And there had been another hijacking just the week before that one.
You can quote statistics at people all you want, but when something like a plane hijacking is happening nearly two out of every three months on average (throughout the entire 1970s), and sometimes on a weekly basis, and making a big splash in the media every time, people are going to want something to change.
A lot of the plane hijackers were either funded or trained by the Communist bloc, particularly Libya... Such incidents declined a lot with the end of the Cold War.
It's rich that the cohort that sees identity verification and real names policies as necessary and meaningful also doesn't seem to understand the first thing about identity and names.
It's safer in the same sense as if you're paranoid about your date being a serial killer, you meet them in a public venue. It doesn't mean your date isn't a serial killer, but the risk profile is different because other people can be involved/witness/have context.
You didn't use the word "safe", you used the relative term "safer", and on average, it is harder to hide ill intent in open source software, there's a greater chance it will eventually be discovered. The blast radius is larger for open source (because the barrier to using it is lower), which increases the number of people impacted, but an increase in the number of people impacted also increases the chance of discovery and motivation to address it once discovered.
"I need you to turn your key and enable the missile silo's MCP server, sir".
~ the opening scene from a reboot of War Games, probably.
A few years ago there was consternation over the US's missile launch system using 8" floppy disks, that it was needless archaic and had never been updated. Can't say that if the launch is mediated by the latest hotness LLM.
Reducing buffer size puts back pressure on the whole system, which can be valuable to manage load (but often throttles faster stages and that throttling makes people uncomfortable). A meaningful metric is how much of the buffer is used at any given time and the throughout. If the buffer is backed up, that says there's a bottle neck on the consumption side of the buffer and more bandwidth is needed there. For whatever reason, adjusting buffer sizes is the more common action taken. A buffer provides throughput management but it also provides info/metrics about the operation of the system.
I remember a book I read as a pre-teen, 40 or so years ago, about a kid who wanted to be "perfect". A wear a tree of broccoli on a string around your neck to learn how to overcome embarrassment. A perfect person never makes mistakes, and the best way to not make mistakes is to not do anything. Similar "requirements" of perfection and their expression are presented. The kid eventually finds himself in an empty room, by himself, doing nothing, wearing broccoli. Perfection was achieved, but at the cost of an extremely boring life.
I'm trusting this is a throwaway example and that you used a real IPv6 address literal in this test, without the "IPv6" and with only colons and no dots (unless you mean to use v4 mapped address with dots)? Because this IPv6 literal is so malformed that I'm hardly expecting it to do something sane and changing that to "@2001" is nasal-demons quality undefined behavior. I tried with this exact literal and it let me send it but then there was a tiny red pop-up at the top of the gmail interface that said "could not be delivered, check your network connection" (which is odd; the same kind of pop-up that appears in gray when you legitimately are not connected to the internet) and it ended up in my drafts with the To: field empty.
I just tried to send a message to a "test@[" my current IPv6 address "]", and gmail told me
Error
The address "test@[«redacted»]" in the "To" field was not recognized.
Please make sure that all addresses are properly formed.
This address doesn't have an MDA listening on it, but it didn't accept it enough to give me a non-delivery notification, it didn't even let me send it. gmail did accept an IPv4 address literal in brackets, although it hasn't given me back a non-delivery notification. What it stuffed into my Sent folder for this message has the square brackets stripped and the IPv4 address appears right after the @.
> There are very principled reasons why LLMs do not know how many letters are in words, and it says nothing about their facility for understanding meaning. … Tokens are the most basic input unit of an LLM. But tokens don't generally correspond to words or letters, rather sub-word sequences. So Strawberry might be broken up into two tokens 'straw' and 'berry'.
This sounds like a description of a child who has not learned to read yet. You ask a child who is not aware of the alphabet and of "words" how many r's are in strawberry you'd get a non-sense answer too. So what you're really pointing out is that the LLMs have not been trained on "the english language" and how words are constructed and what they are composed of. That they operate by tokens that don't correspond to words or letters is irrelevant as an answer to why they can't count the letters in a word. It's not that I know how many r's are in strawberry because of how I'm understanding the word "strawberry", I know how many r's are in strawberry because I know how to spell strawberry. The LLM needs to be trained on this the same way someone who is learning to read would be trained on it. No one should be surprised that an LLM can't "read" in the same way no one should be surprised that a child can't "read".
>That they operate by tokens that don't correspond to words or letters is irrelevant as an answer to why they can't count the letters in a word.
This interpretation takes things too far away from how LLMs are constituted and so misses important explanatory power. The issue of counting letters in a word isn't about an ability to spell, it's about the nature of one's perception. We perceive words as sequences of individual letters. LLMs do not. I can ask you to tell me how many r's are in some nonsense word sequence and you're fully capable of doing that. LLMs do not see sequences of letters so they are intrinsically at a disadvantage for this kind of question. But this says nothing about its capacity for intelligence anymore than not naturally being able to distinguish frequencies of photons hitting your retina has anything to say about human intelligence.
> But this says nothing about its capacity for intelligence anymore than not naturally being able to distinguish frequencies of photons hitting your retina has anything to say about human intelligence.
I disagree with this pretty strongly, because I don't think you're correct that I don't have the ability to distinguish frequencies of photons hitting my retina. We have a lot of tools that can determine the frequency of light and I can use those on any source of light that I wish to measure that may hit my retinas.
If you ask an LLM how many Rs are in strawberry, it wouldn't think like this. It would confidently state that there are two Rs. Even though it "knows" that it can write a python script to count the number of Rs in strawberry, it doesn't do that. Why not? Is it maybe because it isn't intelligent? Yeah, you can prompt an LLM to write a script to count the number of Rs in strawberry, but that's a use of your intelligence, not the LLM's.
>We have a lot of tools that can determine the frequency of light and I can use those on any source of light that I wish to measure that may hit my retinas.
Yes, which is why I said naturally distinguish. Have you asked a frontier model how many r's are in strawberry recently? They get it right now. Either through RHLF to ensure they spell out the word letter by letter or some other means. Humans and LLMs both use tools or alternative means to overcome perceptual limitations. I don't see an in principle difference here.
This "common sense" you refer to, is it the same common sense Babbage was subject to?
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
If you freely follow a recipe telling you to put glue on your food, I also don't trust you cooking anything and I definitively don't trust you coming up with your own recipes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
(I can not say how comprehensive that wikipedia list is).
There's more in the 70s and 80s than I was expecting (having lived through the 80s), but given how many flights there are, hijackings have been and are exceedingly rare; and most of these are not even US flights. These are "driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous than flying" and "10x a very small number is still a very small number" numbers.
https://businesstats.com/global-air-traffic-number-of-flight...
https://easbcn.com/en/how-many-planes-fly-per-day-around-the...
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-air-pas...
These numbers only serve to re-enforce that the response of giving up liberty for (the feeling of) security due to terrorist action in the US was probably outsized. General population awareness in general was probably more of a deterrent after 9/11 than any of the first order 9/11 response actions, especially considering that the US gave countries in the middle east further reason to hate Americans and US foreign policy after 9/11. Obviously, terrorist attacks get a lot of air time and column inches, which feeds the perception of the risk.
reply