Here's an excellent recent comment along the same lines (in response to whether our intelligence is statistically based like LLMs): > mjburgess 9 days ago Sup

Here's an excellent recent comment along the same lines (in response to whether our intelligence is statistically based like LLMs): > mjburgess 9 days ago Suppose you touch a fireplace once, do you touch it again? No. OK, here's something much stranger. Suppose you see your friend touch the fireplace, he recoils in pain. Do you touch it? No. Hmm... whence statistics? There is no frequency association here, in either case. And in the second, even no experience of the fireplace. The entire history of science is supposed to be about the failure of statistics to produce explanations. It is a great sin that we have allowed pseudosciences to flourish in which this lesson isnt even understood; and worse, to allow statistical showmen with their magic lanterns to preach on the scientific method. To a point where it seems, almost, science as an ideal has been completely lost. The entire point was to throw away entirely our reliance on frequency and association -- this is ancient superstition. And instead, to explain the world by necessary mechanisms born of causal properties which interact in complex ways that can never uniquely reveal themselves by direct measurement. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39661963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39661963