Trust, but Verify: Two-Phase Typing for Dynamic Languages

A key challenge when statically typing so-called dynamic languages is the ubiquity of value-based overloading, where a given function can dynamically reflect upon and behave according to the types of its arguments. Thus, to establish basic types, the analysis must reason precisely about values, but in the presence of higher-order functions and polymorphism, this reasoning itself can require basic types. In this paper we address this chicken-and-egg problem by introducing the framework of two-phased typing. The first "trust" phase performs classical, i.e. flow-, path- and value-insensitive type checking to assign basic types to various program expressions. When the check inevitably runs into "errors" due to value-insensitivity, it wraps problematic expressions with DEAD-casts, which explicate the trust obligations that must be discharged by the second phase. The second phase uses refinement typing, a flow- and path-sensitive analysis, that decorates the first phase's types with logical predicates to track value relationships and thereby verify the casts and establish other correctness properties for dynamically typed languages

ChatGPT and Excel -- trust, but verify

This paper adopts a critical approach to ChatGPT, showing how its huge reach makes it a useful tool for people with simple requirements but a bad, even misleading guide to those with more complex problems which are more rarely present in the training data and even more rarely have straightforward solutions. It works through four exercises in creating lookup formulas using chatbots, showing the need to test the offered solutions. They are a simple lookup, a lookup to the left, a match of two values at the same time, and intentionally confusing the models by using common language with technical meaning in Excel. It concludes with a practical guide for how to add an Excelscript button, with system and user prompts, to the ChatGPT API into the Excel desktop environment, supported by a blog post giving the technical details for those interested.Comment: 15 pages, 3 figure

«Trust, but verify»: easier said than done

Few weeks after the journal Science published a very unusual investigation by science journalist John Bohannon showing how many open access journals – among those asking for a submission or publication fee – don't really care about quality and accept for publication studies containing obvious and macroscopic mistakes, collecting money..

Trust, but Verify: Reagan, Gorbachev, and the INF Treaty

This paper is a discussion of the relationship between the deployment of two types of intermediate (medium) range missile systems in Europe, how leaders on both sides viewed the situation, and how the potential use of such weapons affected superpower relations during the last decade of the Cold War

Trust, but Verify! - An Empirical Investigation of Students’ Initial Trust in AI-Based Essay Scoring

AI is becoming increasingly important in supporting education. Nowadays, AI-based systems can score essays in high-stakes exams not only by comparing words but also by evaluating content. However, for AI-based essay scoring systems to be used, they must be trusted. Based on a scenario-based experiment with 260 students at a German university, we were able to show that their initial trust in AI-based essay scoring systems is significantly lower than in human examiners. Human control of AI-scoring can partially reduce the negative effect. The perceived system characteristics and the personality traits of the students are important factors which positively influence trustworthiness and trust, respectively. Furthermore, we could show that the more complex the essay scoring is perceived, the less trustworthy the AI-based system is classified. No influence could be seen regarding the relevance of the scoring for the students, their AI-experience and technology affinity

Clinical vignette: Trust but verify: When believing the patient leads the doctor astray

Case Presentation: A 27-year-old woman with reported sickle-cell disease, protein C deficiency, pulmonary embolism (PE), and recent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia was admitted for sickle cell crisis. She was flying between the east and west coast to visit family when she experienced chest pain 45 minutes into the flight. It was sharp, 7/10 in intensity, constant, substernal, and non-radiating. She felt the pain was similar to her sickle-cell pain. The pain continued to build despite acetaminophen and the plane was diverted for her hospitalization. She mentioned that during prior hospitalizations for sickle cell pain crisis that she required morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). She also stated that she was hospitalized 1 month prior for MRSA bacteremia initially treated with vancomycin and later transitioned to daptomycin requiring a chest port. The admitting resident started the patient on IV fluids, morphine as needed for pain, and her reported previous medications including hydroxyurea, warfarin and daptomycin. The patients care was subsequently transferred to a hospitalist. Several discrepancies started to appear when the hospitalist tried to confirm the patient\u27s history. Her self-identified hematologist stated that his testing failed to show sickle-cell trait or disease. Testing at our hospital also had a normal peripheral smear without sickle cells and a negative sickle cell screen. Calls and record requests to the outside hospitals and pharmacies the patient identified were unsuccessful. When confronted with these inconsistencies, the patient became tearful and stated, \u27I know what I have.\u27 She then gave a different name and birthdate. The diagnosis of bacteremia one month prior was confirmed, but the organism was methicillin-sensitive (MSSA). Given the inability to corroborate the patient\u27s reported medical history, antibiotics and analgesics were discontinued, and the patient was discharged. She has not reappeared in our medical system. Discussion: This case is one of simulated illness. The differential diagnosis includes factitious disorder, malingering, and delusional disorder. Factitious disorder behaviors are unconscious and motivated by a need to assume the sick role. Malingering behaviors are based on a conscious desire to achieve external gains. Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis characterized by disordered thinking that results in misinterpretation of events. In this case without a clear external gain identified, factitious disorder is presumed. The confirmation of the patient\u27s history was key in this case in both identifying the incorrect prior diagnoses as well as avoiding further harm in continuing hydroxyurea and daptomycin in a patient who has neither sickle-cell disease or MRSA. Conclusions: Physicians are taught to believe a patient\u27s story, but this case highlights the importance of verification in confirming details in order to exclude factitious disorder or malingering.\u2