Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #256159 > unrolled thread

question about net address

Started bycoreyh@free.fr
First post2023-03-18 12:30 +0100
Last post2023-03-19 17:50 +0100
Articles 20 on this page of 41 — 17 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  question about net address coreyh@free.fr - 2023-03-18 12:30 +0100
    Re: question about net address Markus Schönhaber <debian-user@list-post.mks-mail.de> - 2023-03-18 13:40 +0100
    Re: question about net address Timothy M Butterworth <timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com> - 2023-03-18 14:30 +0100
    Re: question about net address Kushal Kumaran <kushal@locationd.net> - 2023-03-18 23:20 +0100
      Re: question about net address coreyh@free.fr - 2023-03-19 00:40 +0100
        Re: question about net address David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-03-19 11:10 +0100
          Re: question about net address coreyh@free.fr - 2023-03-19 11:30 +0100
            Re: question about net address Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2023-03-19 11:40 +0100
            Re: question about net address Jeremy Ardley <jeremy@ardley.org> - 2023-03-19 11:40 +0100
              Re: question about net address coreyh@free.fr - 2023-03-19 11:40 +0100
                Re: question about net address jeremy ardley <jeremy@ardley.org> - 2023-03-19 11:50 +0100
                Re: question about net address <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-03-19 12:10 +0100
                Re: question about net address Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-03-19 13:20 +0100
                  Re: question about net address Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2023-03-19 18:20 +0100
                    Re: question about net address David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-03-19 19:50 +0100
                Re: question about net address Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2023-03-19 16:00 +0100
              Re: question about net address Yassine Chaouche <a.chaouche@algerian-radio.dz> - 2023-03-19 12:10 +0100
                Re: question about net address <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-03-19 12:20 +0100
                Re: question about net address <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-03-19 12:20 +0100
                  Re: question about net address Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-03-19 12:20 +0100
                  Re: question about net address Jeremy Ardley <jeremy@ardley.org> - 2023-03-19 12:40 +0100
                    Re: question about net address Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-03-19 12:50 +0100
                      Re: question about net address Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-03-19 13:30 +0100
                        Re: question about net address David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-03-19 18:30 +0100
                    Re: question about net address David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-03-19 19:50 +0100
                      Re: question about net address Jeremy Ardley <jeremy@ardley.org> - 2023-03-20 00:40 +0100
                        Re: question about net address fh@dnsbed.com - 2023-03-20 01:30 +0100
                          Re: question about net address Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2023-03-21 23:30 +0100
                            Re: question about net address Jeremy Ardley <jeremy@ardley.org> - 2023-03-22 00:00 +0100
                        Re: question about net address David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-03-22 00:50 +0100
                          Re: question about net address David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-03-22 15:50 +0100
                  Re: question about net address Jeremy Ardley <jeremy@ardley.org> - 2023-03-19 12:40 +0100
                    Re: question about net address Yassine Chaouche <a.chaouche@algerian-radio.dz> - 2023-03-19 13:10 +0100
                  Re: question about net address Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2023-03-19 18:10 +0100
                Re: question about net address fh@dnsbed.com - 2023-03-19 12:40 +0100
                  Re: question about net address <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-03-19 13:00 +0100
                Re: artifiial intelligence (was: Re: question about net address) Yassine Chaouche <a.chaouche@algerian-radio.dz> - 2023-03-20 10:30 +0100
            Re: question about net address David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-03-19 23:20 +0100
    Re: question about net address Yassine Chaouche <a.chaouche@algerian-radio.dz> - 2023-03-19 10:00 +0100
      Re: question about net address Yassine Chaouche <a.chaouche@algerian-radio.dz> - 2023-03-19 10:10 +0100
      Re: question about net address debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2023-03-19 17:50 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#256159 — question about net address

Fromcoreyh@free.fr
Date2023-03-18 12:30 +0100
Subjectquestion about net address
Message-ID<GaCV3-dkb8-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Hello

I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.

but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?

I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:

spf.pinoad.se.		300	IN	TXT	"v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"


Thanks.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#256160

FromMarkus Schönhaber <debian-user@list-post.mks-mail.de>
Date2023-03-18 13:40 +0100
Message-ID<GaE0N-dkPc-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256159
18.03.23, 12:28 +0100, coreyh@free.fr:

> I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
> 
> but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing

-- 
Regards
   mks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256161

FromTimothy M Butterworth <timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com>
Date2023-03-18 14:30 +0100
Message-ID<GaENb-dlm1-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256159

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 7:28 AM <coreyh@free.fr> wrote:

> Hello
>
> I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
>
> but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
>

192.168.1.1 is a host address usually assigned to the router. The network
subnet mask is /24 or 255.255.255.0. 192.168.1.0 is the network and .1 is
the host address.



> I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
>
> spf.pinoad.se.          300     IN      TXT     "v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24
> -all"
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org/
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256162

FromKushal Kumaran <kushal@locationd.net>
Date2023-03-18 23:20 +0100
Message-ID<GaN45-dqtO-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256159
On Sat, Mar 18 2023 at 07:28:23 PM, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
> Hello
>
> I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
>
> but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
>
> I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
>
> spf.pinoad.se.		300	IN	TXT	"v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
>

It means the same thing.  192.168.1.1/24 is the same range as
192.168.1.0/24, but written by someone not paying too much attention.

-- 
regards,
kushal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256164

Fromcoreyh@free.fr
Date2023-03-19 00:40 +0100
Message-ID<GaOjv-drce-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256162
On 19/03/2023 06:17, Kushal Kumaran wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18 2023 at 07:28:23 PM, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
>> Hello
>> 
>> I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
>> 
>> but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
>> 
>> I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
>> 
>> spf.pinoad.se.		300	IN	TXT	"v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
>> 
> 
> It means the same thing.  192.168.1.1/24 is the same range as
> 192.168.1.0/24, but written by someone not paying too much attention.


That's correct. Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256168

FromDavid Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>
Date2023-03-19 11:10 +0100
Message-ID<GaY9b-dxET-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256164
On 3/18/23 16:31, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
> On 19/03/2023 06:17, Kushal Kumaran wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 18 2023 at 07:28:23 PM, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
>>>
>>> but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
>>>
>>> I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
>>>
>>> spf.pinoad.se.        300    IN    TXT    "v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 
>>> -all"
>>>
>>
>> It means the same thing.  192.168.1.1/24 is the same range as
>> 192.168.1.0/24, but written by someone not paying too much attention.
> 
> 
> That's correct. Thanks.


AIUI:

* 192.168.1.0/24 identifies an IPv4 network with an address of 
192.168.1.0 and a network prefix of 24 bits.  The address is within the 
reserved private block 192.168.0.0/16.  The prefix corresponds to a 
class C network.

* 192.168.1.1/24 identifies an IPv4 network interface with an address of 
192.168.1.1 and a network prefix of 24.  The interface is configured to 
communicate over the 192.168.1.0/24 network.


See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIDR_notation


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256169

Fromcoreyh@free.fr
Date2023-03-19 11:30 +0100
Message-ID<GaYsx-dxM7-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256168
On 19/03/2023 18:00, David Christensen wrote:
> On 3/18/23 16:31, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
>> On 19/03/2023 06:17, Kushal Kumaran wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 18 2023 at 07:28:23 PM, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
>>>> Hello
>>>> 
>>>> I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
>>>> 
>>>> but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
>>>> 
>>>> I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
>>>> 
>>>> spf.pinoad.se.        300    IN    TXT    "v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 
>>>> -all"
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It means the same thing.  192.168.1.1/24 is the same range as
>>> 192.168.1.0/24, but written by someone not paying too much attention.
>> 
>> 
>> That's correct. Thanks.
> 
> 
> AIUI:
> 
> * 192.168.1.0/24 identifies an IPv4 network with an address of
> 192.168.1.0 and a network prefix of 24 bits.  The address is within
> the reserved private block 192.168.0.0/16.  The prefix corresponds to
> a class C network.
> 
> * 192.168.1.1/24 identifies an IPv4 network interface with an address
> of 192.168.1.1 and a network prefix of 24.  The interface is
> configured to communicate over the 192.168.1.0/24 network.
> 
> 
> 

So for Inleed (a local ISP)'s SPF:

spf.pinoad.se.		300	IN	TXT	"v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"


They specify only 188.66.63.1 to send email?

But as far as I know their mailserver is 188.66.63.2:

mail.inleed.xyz.	300	IN	A	188.66.63.2


Then this mail server should have problems in messages delivery.

Thanks
Corey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256170

FromJoe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date2023-03-19 11:40 +0100
Message-ID<GaYCd-dxPE-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256169
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 18:28:40 +0800
coreyh@free.fr wrote:

> On 19/03/2023 18:00, David Christensen wrote:
> > On 3/18/23 16:31, coreyh@free.fr wrote:  
> >> On 19/03/2023 06:17, Kushal Kumaran wrote:  
> >>> On Sat, Mar 18 2023 at 07:28:23 PM, coreyh@free.fr wrote:  
> >>>> Hello
> >>>> 
> >>>> I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
> >>>> 
> >>>> but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
> >>>> 
> >>>> I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
> >>>> 
> >>>> spf.pinoad.se.        300    IN    TXT    "v=spf1
> >>>> ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
> >>>>   
> >>> 
> >>> It means the same thing.  192.168.1.1/24 is the same range as
> >>> 192.168.1.0/24, but written by someone not paying too much
> >>> attention.  
> >> 
> >> 
> >> That's correct. Thanks.  
> > 
> > 
> > AIUI:
> > 
> > * 192.168.1.0/24 identifies an IPv4 network with an address of
> > 192.168.1.0 and a network prefix of 24 bits.  The address is within
> > the reserved private block 192.168.0.0/16.  The prefix corresponds
> > to a class C network.
> > 
> > * 192.168.1.1/24 identifies an IPv4 network interface with an
> > address of 192.168.1.1 and a network prefix of 24.  The interface is
> > configured to communicate over the 192.168.1.0/24 network.
> > 
> > 
> >   
> 
> So for Inleed (a local ISP)'s SPF:
> 
> spf.pinoad.se.		300	IN	TXT	"v=spf1
> ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
> 
> 
> They specify only 188.66.63.1 to send email?
> 
> But as far as I know their mailserver is 188.66.63.2:
> 
> mail.inleed.xyz.	300	IN	A	188.66.63.2
> 
> 
> Then this mail server should have problems in messages delivery.
> 
>
Mail to/from a domain does not have to be sent by the same host as the
one which receives it. They may be the same computer, they may be
servers on different continents belonging to different companies.

Many businesses use a mail-cleaning service of some kind for received
mail, and many who receive mail directly send their outgoing mail
through their ISP or domain host.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256171

FromJeremy Ardley <jeremy@ardley.org>
Date2023-03-19 11:40 +0100
Message-ID<GaYCd-dxPE-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256169
On 19/3/23 18:28, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
> "v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all" 

According to an AI version 4 that cannot be named:

This is an SPF (Sender Policy Framework) record, which is a TXT record 
in a domain's DNS settings. SPF records are used to help prevent email 
spoofing by specifying which mail servers are authorized to send email 
on behalf of a domain.

In this SPF record:

  * |v=spf1|: This indicates the SPF version used is SPF1.
  * |ip4:188.66.63.1/24|: This specifies that the IPv4 address range
    188.66.63.1 to 188.66.63.254 (a /24 range) is authorized to send
    email on behalf of the domain.
  * |-all|: This means that any host not listed in the SPF record (or
    not within the authorized IP range) is not allowed to send email on
    behalf of the domain.

To answer your question, this SPF record specifies a /24 range 
(188.66.63.1 to 188.66.63.254) rather than a single host. Any mail 
server with an IP address within that range is authorized to send email 
for the domain, while other mail servers are not allowed.


-- 
Jeremy
(Lists)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256172

Fromcoreyh@free.fr
Date2023-03-19 11:40 +0100
Message-ID<GaYCd-dxPE-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256171
On 19/03/2023 18:32, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
> On 19/3/23 18:28, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
>> "v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
> 
> According to an AI version 4 that cannot be named:
> 
> This is an SPF (Sender Policy Framework) record, which is a TXT record
> in a domain's DNS settings. SPF records are used to help prevent email
> spoofing by specifying which mail servers are authorized to send email
> on behalf of a domain.
> 
> In this SPF record:
> 
>  * |v=spf1|: This indicates the SPF version used is SPF1.
>  * |ip4:188.66.63.1/24|: This specifies that the IPv4 address range
>    188.66.63.1 to 188.66.63.254 (a /24 range) is authorized to send
>    email on behalf of the domain.
>  * |-all|: This means that any host not listed in the SPF record (or
>    not within the authorized IP range) is not allowed to send email on
>    behalf of the domain.
> 
> To answer your question, this SPF record specifies a /24 range
> (188.66.63.1 to 188.66.63.254) rather than a single host. Any mail
> server with an IP address within that range is authorized to send
> email for the domain, while other mail servers are not allowed.


So,

* 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
* why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?

Thanks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256173

Fromjeremy ardley <jeremy@ardley.org>
Date2023-03-19 11:50 +0100
Message-ID<GaYLT-dxTd-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256172
On 19/3/23 18:38, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
>
>
> So,
>
> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?

In the very specific case of an SPF there will be a rule. I assume given 
the AI response that the rule is to use the net definition /24 rather 
than the host defined in the the last stanza of a /24

Jeremy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256175

From<tomas@tuxteam.de>
Date2023-03-19 12:10 +0100
Message-ID<GaZ5f-dyfW-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256172

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 06:38:41PM +0800, coreyh@free.fr wrote:

[...]

> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?

My hunch is that they are meant to be equivalent, as, for
example 192.168.63.42/24, or actually any 192.168.63.x for
x in [0..255].

The problem with this notation is that its semantics are
context dependent: it can denote a host address cum network
mask (as in a CIDR interface spec) or a CIDR network range.

The "context" is provided by the application trying to grok
the notation, so it will vary :-)

The canonical way to express the network part would be to
set the host part to zero, which in this case would be,
as you stated, 192.168.63.0/24. This goes along nicely with
the convention [1] that the bottom address in CIDR is
reserved for the network address, and the top for the
broadcast address. But the non-canonical ways can be seen
just as equivalent -- or erroneous. The software seems to
prefer the former, and silently masks out the network part
(I'd do that, too).

Cheers

[1] AFAIK this is just a convention. I think you can have
   IPv4 subnets where the bottom and the top addresses are
   actual host addresses; this is particularly useful when
   the subnet has just two addresses (i.e. /31), for
   example in a "transfer net".

-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256186

FromGreg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org>
Date2023-03-19 13:20 +0100
Message-ID<Gb0b0-dyUK-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256172
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 06:38:41PM +0800, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
> So,
> 
> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?

Because it was written by a human being who made a tiny error.  One that
makes no difference in practice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256191

FromCurt <curty@free.fr>
Date2023-03-19 18:20 +0100
Message-ID<Gb4Rk-dBQq-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256186
On 2023-03-19, Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 06:38:41PM +0800, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
>> So,
>> 
>> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
>> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?
>
> Because it was written by a human being who made a tiny error.  One that
> makes no difference in practice.
>

The question is: once our AI is out of beta and connected to the web,
will it produce or more or less errors than the archetypal human
being to whom you refer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256198

FromDavid Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date2023-03-19 19:50 +0100
Message-ID<Gb6gp-dCzE-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256191
On Sun 19 Mar 2023 at 17:16:47 (-0000), Curt wrote:
> On 2023-03-19, Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 06:38:41PM +0800, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
> >> So,
> >> 
> >> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
> >> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?
> >
> > Because it was written by a human being who made a tiny error.  One that
> > makes no difference in practice.

I'm not sure we can call it a mistake without knowing the intent of
the person who wrote it. For example, it would be perfectly possible
to cut and paste that string from, say, a machine's /e/n/i, and not
bother to change 1→0 because it's not necessary in this location.

> The question is: once our AI is out of beta and connected to the web,
> will it produce or more or less errors than the archetypal human
> being to whom you refer.

That depends what you mean by "our AI". Chatgpt? or properly
trained AIs operating in particular subject areas?

Am I an archetypal human being? How do you know?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256188

FromStefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Date2023-03-19 16:00 +0100
Message-ID<Gb2FQ-dAkM-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256172
> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?

Which is more likely:

- someone erroneously added `/24` when they really meant to specify just
  one host.
- someone wrote `1` instead of the more conventional `0` at the spot
  that contains no relevant info for a `/24` network.

?


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256174

FromYassine Chaouche <a.chaouche@algerian-radio.dz>
Date2023-03-19 12:10 +0100
Message-ID<GaZ5f-dyfW-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256171
Le 3/19/23 à 11:32, Jeremy Ardley a écrit :
> 
> On 19/3/23 18:28, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
>> "v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all" 
> 
> According to an AI version 4 that cannot be named:
> 

I'm new to the list,
thus,
I don't know how many people have told you this before
(or not)
but that AI is a speech generator,
not a general problem solving
or
question answering AI.

It only knows about saying things that sound plausible,
not necessarily true.
It doesn't fetch info from the internet,
process it,
then give it you.
It rather generates text,
using statisics.

Don't get mislead by it.
It often gives wrong answers.

In contrast,
a tool like perplexity.ai is an answer-questionning tool.
Is is a search engine.
It cites its sources,
so you can check for yourself whether it's talking crap,
or if it's backed by facts.


Best,

-- 
yassine -- sysadm
+213-779 06 06 23
http://about.me/ychaouche
Looking for side gigs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256176

From<tomas@tuxteam.de>
Date2023-03-19 12:20 +0100
Message-ID<GaZeW-dyjr-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256174

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 12:12:15PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> tomas@tuxteam.de (12023-03-19):
> > Yes, it is just a simulation of knowledge (it can be pretty
> > convincing at that,though).
> > 
> > In other words: if you want an answer from it, you have to
> > know the answer beforehand.
> 
> Ted Chiang described it very accurately as a blurry JPEG of the web:

This is a good metaphor, thanks for it.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256177

From<tomas@tuxteam.de>
Date2023-03-19 12:20 +0100
Message-ID<GaZeW-dyjr-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256174

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 12:01:19PM +0100, Yassine Chaouche wrote:
> Le 3/19/23 à 11:32, Jeremy Ardley a écrit :
> > 
> > On 19/3/23 18:28, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
> > > "v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
> > 
> > According to an AI version 4 that cannot be named:
> > 
> 
> I'm new to the list,
> thus,
> I don't know how many people have told you this before
> (or not)
> but that AI is a speech generator,
> not a general problem solving
> or
> question answering AI.

[...]

Yes, it is just a simulation of knowledge (it can be pretty
convincing at that,though).

In other words: if you want an answer from it, you have to
know the answer beforehand.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256179

FromNicolas George <george@nsup.org>
Date2023-03-19 12:20 +0100
Message-ID<GaZeW-dyjr-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#256177

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

tomas@tuxteam.de (12023-03-19):
> Yes, it is just a simulation of knowledge (it can be pretty
> convincing at that,though).
> 
> In other words: if you want an answer from it, you have to
> know the answer beforehand.

Ted Chiang described it very accurately as a blurry JPEG of the web:

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web
https://web.archive.org/web/20230218181747/https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web