<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: kerwioru9238492</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=kerwioru9238492</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 22:02:32 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=kerwioru9238492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by kerwioru9238492 in "What Do Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems Mean?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>My understanding is that for any system of axioms strong enough to encode arithmetic, you can have at most two of these three properties:<p>1. Complete (for any well formed statement, the axioms can be used to prove either it or its negation)<p>2. Consistent (can't arrive at contradictory statements ~ arriving at a both a statement and its negation )<p>3. The set of axioms is enumerable ~ you can write a program that lists them in a defined order (since the workaround for completeness can be just adding an axiom for the cases that are unproven in your original set)<p>If my understanding is correct, I believe your explanation is missing the third required property.<p>It's also important to point out that if we cant prove a statement or its negation (one of which must be true) then we know there are true statements that are unprovable. This is a much stronger of a finding than "Godel's first incompleteness theorem says that in any axiomatic system (sufficiently complex) there are theorems that are neither always true nor always false. "</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 15:48:40 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48224739</link><dc:creator>kerwioru9238492</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48224739</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48224739</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by kerwioru9238492 in "Simply Scheme: Introducing Computer Science (1999)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>At Brown university there are 3 intro courses you can choose from. Two use functional programming languages.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 17:45:22 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46902311</link><dc:creator>kerwioru9238492</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46902311</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46902311</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by kerwioru9238492 in "The problem with LLMs isn't hallucination, it's context specific confidence"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>One issue right now is that in a lot of ML benchmarks models get rewarded for guessing multiple choice questions due to the probability of being right. In addition to that, people have tuned models via RLHF to be very confident because people think confident responses sound good. These two paired together resembles bluffing because models will guess at answers very confidently rather than saying "I don't know".</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 14:55:38 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45606154</link><dc:creator>kerwioru9238492</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45606154</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45606154</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[The problem with LLMs isn't hallucination, it's context specific confidence]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Article URL: <a href="https://www.signalfire.com/blog/llm-hallucinations-arent-bugs">https://www.signalfire.com/blog/llm-hallucinations-arent-bugs</a></p>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45596997">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45596997</a></p>
<p>Points: 4</p>
<p># Comments: 4</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 19:03:20 +0000</pubDate><link>https://www.signalfire.com/blog/llm-hallucinations-arent-bugs</link><dc:creator>kerwioru9238492</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45596997</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45596997</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by kerwioru9238492 in "AGI's Moving Finish Line"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>“When bubbles happen, smart people get overexcited about a kernel of truth,” Altman said. “If you look at most of the bubbles in history, like the tech bubble, there was a real thing. Tech was really important. The internet was a really big deal. People got overexcited.”</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 19:49:36 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44944557</link><dc:creator>kerwioru9238492</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44944557</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44944557</guid></item></channel></rss>