Recent posts

#71

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Valmy - Today at 12:41:57 AM

I don't necessarily see how that is inconsistent with what Minsky was saying. Surely generalizations beyond it's data must still be consistent with that data, yes?

#72

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by Zoupa - Today at 12:40:32 AM

The call was on an unsecured cell phone. There are dozens of countries that could have intercepted that call.

#73

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by DGuller - Today at 12:22:23 AM

Yeah 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.

I think your assertion is not even true for classical statistical or machine learning models.  I have worked with plenty of statistical models, some that I even developed myself, that have translated at least partially to new domains.  In fact, there is even a whole concept called transfer learning, where you develop a model for one use case, and then take it as a starting point for a completely different use case, which is often preferable to starting from scratch.  Transfer learning would be a useless technique if machine learning models were incapable of generalizing beyond their training data.

The fact that a model can generalize beyond its training data is not limited to filling in missing patterns. If its internal representation captures the real structure of a domain, then extrapolating into unobserved territory becomes a logical consequence of the model itself, not an act of mystical human creativity.

#74

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by Tonitrus - Today at 12:18:51 AM

Treason

It'd be interesting to find out the source though...did Rubio leak it (There are some to thing he was sandbagged by this whole circus and this is part of infighting against Vance)?...the other theory I've heard is that the Kremlin leaked it (because they want to sabotage any peace plan, believing they are on a winning momentum in the war).

Just based on the two conversations/three personalities leaked...my money is on the FSB/SVR.

#75

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by Jacob - Today at 12:09:57 AM

Though on the other hand, at this point it's clear that JD Vance would be far worse for Ukraine than Trump is.

Yeah, Thiel is obviously evil.

#76

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by HVC - Today at 12:08:11 AM

But wouldn't that just be regurgitating Einstein? Sure it's more dynamic than a tape recorder playback, but functionally the same. It wouldn't be able to come up with new theories or thoughts.

[If]

#77

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Jacob - Today at 12:06:42 AM

I'm a little hesitant to agree, because I may be agreeing to something that I understand differently from you.  I mean, I couldn't have imagined how "evolved" could be interpreted here...

I want to make some kind of joke relating this to AI and human intelligence, but I can't quite figure out how... 

Let me try to concisely restate your restatement:  "If LLMs are developed to the point where they can consistently emulate intelligent communication, then they're functionally equivalent to being intelligent.  If you can have an "Einstein LLM" that would say everything flesh and bones Einstein would say, even to novel contexts, then it doesn't matter whether the algorithm is classified as cognizant or not;  functionally it is as intelligent as flesh and bones Einstein was.

Okay, understood.

It's a coherent position. I'm not 100% sure I agree with it - I'm more than a bit ambivalent to be honest - but let's accept it for the sake of argument.

First off, that's a really big if (to be fair, you did bold it ).

For me, the interesting part of that conversation is how likely it is that that if can be satisfied, and where the biggest challenges are likely to lie; as well as what subtle nuances are at risk of being elided (and with what consequences) in the eagerness to claim the if has been satisfied.

IMO, 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.

Secondly, what Minsky said about the Einstein LLM which he articulated way better than my (now deleted) attempt.

#78

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by The Minsky Moment - November 25, 2025, 11:57:08 PM

Yeah 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.

#79

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Admiral Yi - November 25, 2025, 11:45:34 PM

How would you program curiosity?  Invention?

[If]

#80

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by DGuller - November 25, 2025, 11:44:22 PM

I didn't mean to imply self-evolution, or Darwinian evolution, or anything of the kind.    I meant evolved as in "developed".

I'm not sure I'm following your argument correctly here, but it seems like you're saying that "it's theoretically possible that LLM models could be developed to a point where their output 'emulates intelligent communication', and that if it does then it can essentially be considered cognizant whatever is 'under the hood" purely on strength on the apparent intelligence of the output".

Is that right? Or have I missed some nuance?

I'm a little hesitant to agree, because I may be agreeing to something that I understand differently from you.  I mean, I couldn't have imagined how "evolved" could be interpreted here...

Let me try to concisely restate your restatement:  "If LLMs are developed to the point where they can consistently emulate intelligent communication, then they're functionally equivalent to being intelligent.  If you can have an "Einstein LLM" that would say everything flesh and bones Einstein would say, even to novel contexts, then it doesn't matter whether the algorithm is classified as cognizant or not;  functionally it is as intelligent as flesh and bones Einstein was.