Quote from: Tonitrus on Today at 01:21:20 AMQuote from: Zoupa on Today at 12:40:32 AMThe call was on an unsecured cell phone. There are dozens of countries that could have intercepted that call.
Sure...but who leaked it?
(I expect you to answer...everyone but the US would be rushing to do so.)
Quote from: Zoupa on Today at 12:40:32 AMThe call was on an unsecured cell phone. There are dozens of countries that could have intercepted that call.
)Quote from: Jacob on Today at 12:06:42 AMIMO, I think part of the point of the article that set off this current discussion was making is that human reasoning is largely non-language based and therefore, in my reading, it is making the prediction that LLMs are not going to be able to satisfy that if no matter how much computational power is applied.Even if human reasoning is non-language based, the ultimate, useful output is expressed with language. If you can emulate the useful output well enough even in novel contexts, then why does it matter whether you arrive at it with human reasoning or with canine intuition?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2025, 11:57:08 PMYeah I don't doubt you could in theory create an "Einstein LLM" or a "Hawking LLM" or something similar. Train it on everything that Einstein ever said or wrote, or what was said or wrote by him, or what was said or written by people most similar to them. And sure it may create a reasonable facsimile of what the historical Einstein would actually say in response to various prompts. But what it can't do is replicate what Einstein would say or do if he were reincarnated at birth in the 21st century and lived a full life. Because that Einstein would probably think or do novel and unexpected things now just like the real Einstein did in 1900s and 1910s. But the LLM wouldn't be able to do that because it's not in its data set.You are asserting an answer to a question that is being debated. You are asserting that an LLM cannot generalize beyond its training data. If it's true that a model cannot generalize, then by definition it cannot be intelligent, because ability to generalize is the core function of intelligence.
Quote from: Zanza on November 25, 2025, 11:18:32 PMTreason
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 25, 2025, 11:41:38 PMThough on the other hand, at this point it's clear that JD Vance would be far worse for Ukraine than Trump is.
Page created in 0.134 seconds with 16 queries.