Trains can work great for either passengers or freight. The problems arise when you try to do both at the same time (on the same line). If the US was to dramatically improve its passenger service it would have to either build an entirely new set of parallel tracks (which would be very expensive) or dramatically worsen its rail freight offering, which would greatly increase the number of trucks of the road.
There's a train line close to me which runs on tracks parallel to a freight line.
The company maintaining the latter was asked several times if their infrastructure could be used, but they refused each time, so the passenger line, which was always there, just in a state of disrepair, had to be refurbished at great expense.
I'm happy with the result though because like in every track having just one line, the trains are amazingly punctual.
And if you’re going to pick one, there are plenty of reasons to pick freight. A single freight train might have 70-200 cars, each of which can carry 1-2 full-size intermodal containers (if not a comparably massive tanker car or something). Trains are more efficient than road vehicles in terms of energy consumption, wear and tear on the road (or railroad), and labor cost, but these efficiencies scale up considerably based on vehicle weight, and the weight of a few hundred loaded intermodal containers is a very high number indeed. Not to mention that intermodal containers are a lot less fussy about hospitality than passengers!
People already generate books with `AI' so the odds of there already being a `cookbook' on Amazon that contains such a recipe is not 0. Good luck explaining to someone why the recipe they saw in a physical book they bought from a reputable retailer ended up killing their family.
So, if you drink and drive and kill a child, is it your responsibility, or is it the fault of alcohol being legal or vehicles not being mandates safe enough? This modern way of dealing with moral hazards is making me sad and afraid of others. After all, who knows whom they are going to blame for their own inability to perform sensible actions?
More like if you drink and then take paracetamol for the headache, the pharma corporation should warn you against performing this seemingly sensible action.
> The bottle being labeled is sufficient, just as the LLM being labeled as sometimes wrong is sufficient.
Labeling LLMs as "sometime wrong" is like labeling drugs as "sometimes have side effects, especially when mixing". It's a truism, such label would be completely useless. You need to take the drug anyway, so knowing that "some side effects exist" doesn't change anything. And often you also do need to take 2-3-4 drugs at same time, so the mixing clause is not helping either.
It took us many decades to build the system around drugs that today you take as granted. Drugs are studied very carefully, with all observed side effects listed explicitly. Drugs compatibility is a big topic and all new drugs are checked in combination with common-use drugs.
At the other end of equation awareness of side effects and mixing was increased dramatically both among doctors and patients, who were previously completely oblivious of them. Mere 100 years ago people were prescribed heroin against cough. Only 60 years ago the thalidomide disaster happened.
If all you can say to people destroyed by Kevadon is "you are at fault, the bottle said CAUTION: new drug", then I'm afraid we see this too differently.
I always wondered how the following setup does not prove that NP != P so please chime in.
Finding the correct N-bit long (binary) number (that someone is thinking of, they only reply yes or no to a guess). Verifying if the number is correct can be done in Polynomial time yet finding the correct number can only be achieved by trying (brute force) all the 2^N possibilities?
For P vs. NP to apply, you would have to be given a Turing machine (or equivalent program) that could verify a guess in polynomial time, without having to ask somebody.
But how do you know that Turing machine couldn't be somehow reverse-engineered to find the number without trying every possibility? You don't know, you're just assuming it. Proving that assumption is the entire point of the problem.
NP means, a solution can be found in polynomial time with a hypothetical non-deterministic Turing machine.
If your problem statement includes the number to be guessed, it's trivial and solvable in linear time without non-determinism.
If it does not include the number to be guessed, then the process of "verifying the solution" has no access to this info by definition too, and it is not possible to verify the solution at all!?
Apart from that, the verifiability of a solution in polynomial time on a deterministic Turing machine is a necessary consequence of a problem being in NP, but the reverse direction does not apply without additional conditions, IIRC.
If you want to say anything interesting about related problems in regard to complexity theory, you'll have to introduce an "oracle".
As far as my knowledge goes, even this doesn't make the problem of "guess an unknown number" without further qualification more interesting.
Maybe it would be a good exercise to apply these ideas to binary search for an unknown number, with the answer (greater, smaller, correct) as an oracle. Of course the number must be computable, which doesn't preclude it from being transcendental. Another interesting rabbit hole :)
It looks as if you exclude any numbers with an infinite decimal representation by allowing an oracle that says "yes" or "no" to a guess — but of course numbers can also be defined using different means, e.g. convergent sum series etc — and we both know that Pi is finite, right?
A formula that can calculate Pi to an arbitrary precision is a finite and complete representation of Pi, just not as a sequence of digits.
Digging further into this would lead away from CS and into Maths, particularly there are old and new discussions about the "existance" of transcendental numbers (irrational would suffice, too). This is a part of our shared scientific basics, at least in any math-adjacent field.
Googling "Nicolas Bourbaki" is at least as interesting as the complexity theory zoo :)
But probably I'm going over my head here since I don't know much about complexity theory apart from faint CS course memories about Cook's theorem.
You don't get to have "hidden information". The code used to respond "yes" or "no" to the guess would be part of the problem input. But, we currently can't prove there doesn't exist some algorithm that can examine that code and figure out what the "yes" input is faster than brute forcing all inputs.
From watching the linked video, and going by the given informal definition for NP-Problems "hard to compute, easy to verify" I think of it this way:
You can not compute the secret number efficiently, only the keeper of the secret knows it. So the number is indeed hard to compute. But can you easily verify a solution? Sure you can ask the keeper and he can tell you the answer, but then you didn't verify it yourself. If you count on the secret keepers cooperation he could also just tell you the number, making it easy to compute.
I think you are conflating "incomebase" and userbase. There are no "hard facts" on this but everyone seems to agree that the US is not even remotely close to 50% userbase for TikTok which makes sense (inverse Pigeonhole principle) if TikTok really has 1b+ active users. However, the US might be a bigger share of the "incomebase" because ads for US users are more valuable.
Interesting that you think breaking the laws is justification for banning a Platform. I wonder how the US would feel about the EU banning every last US tech company for the plethora of violations.
US defence spending is still below its 2010s level. Besides, you mentioned EU banning US apps. Last I checked, with some exceptions, all EU nations are in NATO, and directly procure weapons from the US.
It’s absurd to compare banning a Chinese-owned app to EU banning US apps.
A great example of invisible “AI” IMO is Apples image search it is a feature that works like magic, being able to find photos by searching for text or objects still amazes me every time I use it.
