4 ms·

Yes, the optimal solution won't be achievable, it will burn lots of compute and we need better simulations so that less errors are made (and will be made). Sti

Yes, the optimal solution won't be achievable, it will burn lots of compute and we need better simulations so that less errors are made (and will be made). Still, if LLMs are capable of writing working code, art and solving math problems, they qre definitely capable of doing suboptimal routing (with some algorithmic aid)

Joel_Mckay 25d ago
>if LLMs are capable of That is the leap in logic, as an LLM doesn't think/create/feel or understand. It simply copies billions of patterns, and finds the closest fit. > writing working code, You mean a compacted collage of stolen codified work from real people. It will require a continuous parasitic relationship of user data to remain coherent. Given the firms have already stolen everything, it is unlikely to improve much as weights are refined. > art Again, a statistical output of salient feature clusters mimicking a humans output is not a creative process. For example, a glass-blower only sees the glowing art-form in its true state before it is annealed into its final form. Or a painter undergoes a creative process to find meaning, and abandons the work when there is nothing left to add. Emotional projection onto an algorithmic output is simply recognizing the millions of peoples aesthetic choices stolen, and compacted with some degree of lost granularity. It is peoples art forms, but no creative thought or intent behind the results. > solving math problems, LLM are very good at context search, but require persistent data streams to mine for weighting relevant vector proximity. Again, everything that could be stolen, has already been scraped. Only user input data remains in a sea of slop, and the process is degenerative given most human chat-users appear to be losing 17% cognitive function. As people discover the intelligence campaign against users is not in their interest.. paying companies to rob you and your friends makes less sense. Being a sentient turnip, I am probably unaware of such things. ymmv =3
- adrianvi 25d ago
  > That is a leap in logic It is not, it doesn't matter if a brain's neurons or a prediction algorithm managed to get the solution if it has done so in a (sort of) reliable way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test Errors are made by both machines and humans, so that's not a differenting factor. What is clear is that the human element will be more valued on art as time goes on.
  - Joel_Mckay 24d ago
    Indeed, LLM also stole that data as well, and encoded it based on frequency of occurrence and similarity with other previously compacted fowl related vector weights. Yet still has no idea what any bird actually looks like. bye =3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Joel_Mckay 25d ago

>if LLMs are capable of That is the leap in logic, as an LLM doesn't think/create/feel or understand. It simply copies billions of patterns, and finds the closest fit. > writing working code, You mean a compacted collage of stolen codified work from real people. It will require a continuous parasitic relationship of user data to remain coherent. Given the firms have already stolen everything, it is unlikely to improve much as weights are refined. > art Again, a statistical output of salient feature clusters mimicking a humans output is not a creative process. For example, a glass-blower only sees the glowing art-form in its true state before it is annealed into its final form. Or a painter undergoes a creative process to find meaning, and abandons the work when there is nothing left to add. Emotional projection onto an algorithmic output is simply recognizing the millions of peoples aesthetic choices stolen, and compacted with some degree of lost granularity. It is peoples art forms, but no creative thought or intent behind the results. > solving math problems, LLM are very good at context search, but require persistent data streams to mine for weighting relevant vector proximity. Again, everything that could be stolen, has already been scraped. Only user input data remains in a sea of slop, and the process is degenerative given most human chat-users appear to be losing 17% cognitive function. As people discover the intelligence campaign against users is not in their interest.. paying companies to rob you and your friends makes less sense. Being a sentient turnip, I am probably unaware of such things. ymmv =3

adrianvi 25d ago
> That is a leap in logic It is not, it doesn't matter if a brain's neurons or a prediction algorithm managed to get the solution if it has done so in a (sort of) reliable way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test Errors are made by both machines and humans, so that's not a differenting factor. What is clear is that the human element will be more valued on art as time goes on.
- Joel_Mckay 24d ago
  Indeed, LLM also stole that data as well, and encoded it based on frequency of occurrence and similarity with other previously compacted fowl related vector weights. Yet still has no idea what any bird actually looks like. bye =3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning