3 ms·
The general public have no issue saying a computer is thinking when you’re sitting there waiting for it to calculate a route or doing a similar process like sel
by Retric 11mo ago
The general public have no issue saying a computer is thinking when you’re sitting there waiting for it to calculate a route or doing a similar process like selecting a chess move.
The connotation is simply an internal process of indeterminate length rather than one of reflexive length. So they don’t apply it when a GPU is slinging out 120 FPS in a first person shooter.
- t23414321 11mo agoThat's right when saying selecting not calculating a chess move - assuming you are outside of Plato's cave (Popper). But now, I see this: the truth is static and non-profit, but calculating something can be sold again and again, if you have a hammer (processing) everything looks like a nail, to sell well the word thinking had to be used instead of excuse for every time results being different (like the shadows) - then, we can have only things that let someone else keep making profits: JS, LLM, whatever.. (just not.. "XSLT" alike). (yet, I need to study for your second sentence;)
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- t23414321 11mo ago.. and confront about Prolog or else in recent years - likes: "intended benefit requires an unreasonably (or impossibly?) smart compiler" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14441045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14441045) - isn't quite similar to LLMs, for that, requiring.. impossibly smart users ?? (there were few - assuming they got what they wanted . not peanuts)
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- t23414321 11mo ago> to calculate a route (In math class I've been told that not some number but the formula is the expected result.. .. then people are now asking: "Just show me the prompt instead !" and.. done. ;) )