3 ms·
I don’t think you’re entertaining the idea sufficiently considering you’ve stated that it’s a worthless and futile idea. I think it’s a worthwhile and valuable
by angelgonzales 11mo ago
I don’t think you’re entertaining the idea sufficiently considering you’ve stated that it’s a worthless and futile idea. I think it’s a worthwhile and valuable idea. Rules-derived articles with logical dependencies could hold a mirror to our own biases. I think truth should be logically derived and I don’t want people to be hostile to the outcomes since we’re approaching a future where technology will be able to do this.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> don’t think you’re entertaining the idea sufficiently considering you’ve stated that it’s a worthless and futile idea It’s useless and futile to this problem. It could be useful. But as a compliment to Wikipedia. And not in adjudicating something like the definition of genocide. > should be logically derived Not really an option for social constructs, which rely on consensus more than logical consistency. You could create LLMs that logically derive an answer from a definition. But that is a semantic punt with extra steps (unless the LLM controls martial forces).