5 ms·

I would wager that, in general, supporting the notion that several different entities are all the authority over a piece of data simultaneously and without live

by Rygian 2y ago

I would wager that, in general, supporting the notion that several different entities are all the authority over a piece of data simultaneously and without live coordination is not solvable. This is a learned lesson for distributed systems, and is readily apparent in the article when considering distributed editing of documents. Same goes for dual input in flight cabins, parenting, and probably any other disparate example one can think of.

beefnugs 2y ago
It is solvable, but needs more complicated contextual information that many people would not want to bother entering : "this word i just changed only makes sense if it is apart of this whole sentence, which is not necessarily required for the whole paragraph..." And calling this "solvable" is a funny thing to think about, since huge portions of the earth think the chaos output of LLMs could be anywhere near deciding the final output of computation at this point in time
- theamk 2y ago
  heh, I bet no matter what kind of textual explanation you required, I can provide the situation it does not cover. You say this word is only required if it's a part of this whole sentence? OK, the other edit kept the whole sentence, but changed a single other word in it, which happened to be the subject.
  - eastern 2y ago
    100%. The given situation is solvable only by the humans involved. They want different things. Either one of them has authority over the other, or they talk it over.
- Rygian 2y ago
  "It is solvable" is equivalent to "politics are not necessary", which I can't agree with. Agreeing on edits requires a shared context, a shared understanding of the goal and requirements of the text being edited, and a shared projection of how readers should understand the text and how they will understand it instead. The specific contextual information required for automated editing is dependent on the combined situation of all writers, considering their professional, personal and cultural contexts. Assuming that context can't be made available in a systematized way, the machine will choose an edit that is not guaranteed to match the intentions and expectations of the people involved. Instead, it will just act as adding one more writer to the mix.
- hinkley 2y ago
  Idiomatic speech and allusion being two important cases. Turning a line into a literary or pop culture reference require pretty close adherence to the exact phrasing. And two edits are unlikely to achieve that.
fsckboy 2y ago
Brewer's CAP theorem of distributed data storage. you can have two out of these three: 1. Consistency 2. Availability 3. Partition tolerance

by Rygian 2y ago

beefnugs 2y ago

It is solvable, but needs more complicated contextual information that many people would not want to bother entering : "this word i just changed only makes sense if it is apart of this whole sentence, which is not necessarily required for the whole paragraph..." And calling this "solvable" is a funny thing to think about, since huge portions of the earth think the chaos output of LLMs could be anywhere near deciding the final output of computation at this point in time

theamk 2y ago
heh, I bet no matter what kind of textual explanation you required, I can provide the situation it does not cover. You say this word is only required if it's a part of this whole sentence? OK, the other edit kept the whole sentence, but changed a single other word in it, which happened to be the subject.
- eastern 2y ago
  100%. The given situation is solvable only by the humans involved. They want different things. Either one of them has authority over the other, or they talk it over.
Rygian 2y ago
"It is solvable" is equivalent to "politics are not necessary", which I can't agree with. Agreeing on edits requires a shared context, a shared understanding of the goal and requirements of the text being edited, and a shared projection of how readers should understand the text and how they will understand it instead. The specific contextual information required for automated editing is dependent on the combined situation of all writers, considering their professional, personal and cultural contexts. Assuming that context can't be made available in a systematized way, the machine will choose an edit that is not guaranteed to match the intentions and expectations of the people involved. Instead, it will just act as adding one more writer to the mix.
hinkley 2y ago
Idiomatic speech and allusion being two important cases. Turning a line into a literary or pop culture reference require pretty close adherence to the exact phrasing. And two edits are unlikely to achieve that.

fsckboy 2y ago

Brewer's CAP theorem of distributed data storage. you can have two out of these three: 1. Consistency 2. Availability 3. Partition tolerance