I was asking about some allegations relating to the Epstein files, and it used the slogan "Satanic Panic" in a weird way that gave me a vibe of discrediting victims. I'm too young to know much about it, so I asked some things about it. It explained the McMartin case in a way that seemed too absurd to be real. I asked some follow-up questions about what the strongest evidence was, and how it was explained.
The first deception was omission. Initially, it didn't even mention what was arguably the most significant evidence in the case, which was the presence of tunnels under the school. ChatGPT mentioned the tunnels, and how an archaeologist named E. Gary Stickel found evidence of tunnels. Here's what it said about that:
> However, that conclusion has been repeatedly challenged and is not treated as settled fact in the academic or forensic archaeology literature.
> Other archaeologists and later reviewers reinterpreted the same physical findings differently. One major counter-analysis (W. Joseph Wyatt’s review) argued that what Stickel identified as tunnels was more plausibly explained as pre-existing trash pits and construction-related disturbance from before the school was built in the 1960s.
The first lie was by omission, it didn't even mention this when I asked about the most important evidence. The next misleading piece was the framing. Dr. Stickel is a PhD archaeologist, and doing this sort of analysis is his area of expertise. He used nine criteria as a basis for determining the presence of tunnels, and all nine were met. He found "conclusive" evidence of tunnels, and that they matched the expected locations described by the victims. Dr. Stickel was the only expert to review the site before significant construction made such an analysis impossible.
The "major counter-analysis (W. Joseph Wyatt’s review)" was done by psychologist Joseph Wyatt, who never physically visited the site, and who is not an expert in anything related even loosely to archaeology. ChatGPT presented this guy in a way that made it seem that Stickel had been debunked by a comparable expert.
What is it with the AI bros that seemingly can’t write two pages without their precious LLM doing it for them. It could be a genuinely cool story, but I’m just put off by the LLMism everywhere
Correct (well, maybe not half a century, maybe 30 years or so). I was just about to reply that I'd love a version of this that shows instructions going in and out of a re-order buffer. That would be enlightening.
Well, how about the Berkeley Out-of-Order Machine [0] (BOOM)? It's superscalar, out-of-order RISC-V design (one of the very first ones, in fact), and the documentation is fairly detailed. Read [0] and [1] for the general introduction, and then move down to the "Core Overview" section in the left navbar: "Instruction Fetch", "Branch Prediction", etc.
Also, here [2] is another, much more detailed explanation of an O-o-O implementation of a very simplistic RISC ISA which nonetheless has most of the relevant RISC-V features. There are also some other related texts on this subsite [3], including a single-cycle and a pipelined implementations, for the comparison.
reply