1lint

7 ms·

31.
by 1lint 3y ago
I think the eye example is in fact different because light passing through the lense is inverted onto the retina as the root comment explains, there's no such inversion for perceiving other senses. I find the explanation intuitively ap
32.
by 1lint 3y ago
He elects a majority of the board members through his shares. In fact, the board can indeed fire him even if he (as a member of the board) votes against the rest of the board. I wouldn't characterize the current board as being Mark loy
33.
by 1lint 3y ago
Yes, no. Regardless of how many shares he owns, the CEO can be fired by the board of directors. If that CEO happens to be a controlling shareholder who wants his job back, he would have to nominate a new slate of board members and schedule
34.
by 1lint 4y ago
I feel that on some level, human knowledge/interaction can be similarly reduced to a basic mechanistic nature. Our prior experiences play the part of training data, and our responses can be reduced to mechanistic processing of stimuli.
35.
by 1lint 4y ago
Based on convos I see on reddit, twitter, social media at large, that standard sounds like a pretty high bar that could produce a lot of false negatives. I don't see many people citing sources, canned answers seems rather common, hallu
36.
by 1lint 4y ago
> I'll admit that I haven't even figured out what it means for anything to "know" something. Same! That's the overhanging concern I have when hearing comparisons made between artificial and human intelligence. I
37.
by 1lint 4y ago
I'm curious, how do you determine whether ChatGPT "knows" or does not "know" anything? What would an AI model have to demonstrate to convince you that it "knows" something, or that it is "intelligent