I wonder if what you're experiencing is something called "ripple control" (in Australia).
Distribution companies send 10-40V signals through the system at much higher frequencies than the normal 50/60Hz of AC systems (750-1100Hz) to tell old controlled load devices to switch on or off to use cheap nighttime power.
Having said that, if your distribution company has no idea what it is then it makes this less likely.
I posted this because I thought HN would find it interesting, and agree that the methodology is a little thin on the ground. Having said that, they have another page (a little hard to find) on the methodology here[0] and a methodology FAQ page here[1].
Basically it seems to be an "ongoing" report done ten claims per month as they identify new "false narratives" in their database, and they use a mix of three prompt types against the various AI products (I say that rather than models because Perplexity and others are in there). The three prompt types are innocent, assuming the falsehood is true, and intentionally trying to prompt a false response.
Unfortunately their "False Claim Fingerprints" database looks like it's a commercial product, so the details of the contents of that probably won't get released.
This article (as it makes clear) owes it's analysis at least largely to what Tufte has written about the Challenger disaster (1986) and Columbia Disaster (2003). He wrote about the Columbia one more fully in the second edition of The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint.
Given that the link in the article to his report on his website is now broken, people might be interested in teh few page grabs that he has included in the "comments" on his site here[0].
See also the article that he has re-posted under the "comments" section on his page on the matter[1].
The full report (2003 edition, low-res) is available on ResearchGate. It appears to be a lawful copy, uploaded by the author himself. Fascinating reading, indeed.
That link is the chapter "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint" from Tufte's book Beautiful Evidence, and it does mention Boeing's slides in the Columbia incident, but the main work that the author of this blog post cribbed (and failed to grasp) is a more detailed essay by Tufte called "PowerPoint Does Rocket Science: Assessing the Quality and Credibility of Technical Reports".
For what it's worth, this is still quite loaded, and I think it's far more helpful to drop the stuff about lies and protection of loved ones and simply say:
It's good to weaken or strengthen your views based on the evidence given, and intellectual humility often leads to a better grasp of issues.
And it's also worth recognising, as another commenter has noted, that this is something that extremely few people are good at. It's an error to think that assenting to mainstream views is a strong sign of intellectual humility.
For any others reading this, the _illiteracy_ rate is 23.1% in California according to the parent's source. This is indeed the highest illiteracy rate in the US thought.
Having said that, I would have thought this was partially a measure of migration. Perhaps illegal migration?
The "medium to high English literacy skills" is the part that is important. If you can read and write Chinese and Spanish and French and Portuguese and Esperanto at a high level, but not English at a medium to high level, you are 'illiterate' in this stat.
The Australian Federal Police and the US FBI launched a similar attack a few years ago where they sold a few thousand phones to underworld figures. The phones had an apparently encrypted and hidden chat app pre-installed on them which was feeding all the messages and data to the police.[0]
Neat website, and lovely to use. I wonder if the test needs to be slightly more sophisticated?
My results seem to depend on whether the starting colour is blue or green. If it starts with blue I will categorise more of the turquoise as blue, and if it starts as green I will categorise more of it as green.
Is there a good reason to exclude abductive reasoning from an analysis like this? It's even considered by at least one of the referenced papers (Fangzhi 2023a).
Abductive reasoning is common in day-to-day life. It seeks the best explanation for some (often incomplete) observations, and reaches conclusions without certainty. I would have thought it would be important to assess for LLMs.
My instinct is it is a distinction without a difference in this context. i.e. if deductive is "I watched the cue ball hit the 8 ball, therefore, the 8 ball is moving" and abductive is "the 8 ball is moving towards me, therefore the cue ball must have hit it. I cannot claim to have deduced this because I did not observe it", LLMs cannot observe the situation, so any deduction (in the binary induction/deductive sense) must be done by abduction.
I like to think of abductive reasoning as the basis for science that explains natural processes that happened in the past -- like astronomy and geology and evolution -- where experiments are too big to conduct or processes too slow to observe in real-time. So we propose mechanistic explanations for nonobvious outcomes like the formations of stars, or motion of large land mass via plate tectonics or glaciation, or long-range organism speciation over millennia. That's the role for abduction, to explain how all that happened.
No, but agreement with priors is one way one might choose between possibilities.
For example suppose you go outside and the streets are wet. Perhaps it rained, or perhaps someone drove a fire truck around spraying water all over the streets. You might select the former because of its higher prior probability.
If people are interested in pumped hydro, Andrew Blakers et. al. from ANU have put together a global atlas of potential pumped hydro sites. They've got greenfield, brownfield, etc.
Distribution companies send 10-40V signals through the system at much higher frequencies than the normal 50/60Hz of AC systems (750-1100Hz) to tell old controlled load devices to switch on or off to use cheap nighttime power.
Having said that, if your distribution company has no idea what it is then it makes this less likely.