jibal

70 ms·

481.
by jibal 7mo ago
It was my joke, at the top of this thread and the only one in this thread. Have you considered the possibility that you have no idea what is going on here (your lack of fluency in English is a likely factor) and that you have no busines
482.
by jibal 7mo ago
I just told you: I side with whomever I think is right under the law. And your first sentence is not remotely true--or rather, it is quite conceptually confused . Whose "confusion" are you talking about? Not mine, generally. Th
483.
by jibal 7mo ago
I realize I'm in the minority but I side with whomever I think is right under the law, regardless of my (sometimes extreme) feelings about the parties and even about the law.
484.
by jibal 7mo ago
> when someone says LLMs today they obviously mean ... LLMs, if the someone is me or others who understand why it's important to be precise. And in this context, the distinction between LLM and AI mattered--not pedantic at all. I wo
485.
by jibal 7mo ago
> Don't be snarky.
486.
by jibal 7mo ago
> Plenty of humans can't do arithmetic. Can they also not reason. I just pointed out that this isn't valid reasoning ... it's a fallacy of denial of the antecedent. No one is arguing that because LLMs can't do arith
487.
by jibal 7mo ago
Philosophy may be exempt from accusations of arguments from authority--because that's a category mistake--but philosophers certainly aren't. Hauser's papers are just a part of a large literature rejecting/refuting Sear
488.
by jibal 7mo ago
The conclusion that LLMs don't reason is not a consequence of them not being able to do arithmetic, so your argument isn't valid. Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Be kind. Don&#x2
489.
by jibal 7mo ago
LLMs don't use tools. Systems that contain LLMs are programmed to use tools under certain circumstances.
490.
by jibal 7mo ago
Searle's Chinese Room is a fallacious mess ... see the works of Larry Hauser, e.g., https://philpapers.org/rec/HAUNGT and https://philpapers.org/rec/HAUSCB-2 The importance of Searle's C
491.
by jibal 7mo ago
https://shrunk.ai/research-journals/f/cranes-skyhooks-and-it...
492.
by jibal 7mo ago
That's very odd response if you know what a type system is.
493.
by jibal 7mo ago
> You can trivially execute every step in a Turing machine, hence you are Turing equivalent. It is clear you do not understand the subject at even a basic level. LOL. Such projection. Humans are provably not Turing Complete because they
494.
by jibal 7mo ago
P.S. everything in the response is wrong ... this person has no idea what it means to be Turing complete. > all we need to be able to do is to read and write a tape or simulation of one An infinite tape. And to be Turing complete we
495.
by jibal 7mo ago
This was in the late 1950's for me, in the San Fernando Valley where summertime humidity was very low. But a few years later the phone company put shields in the headsets so you could no longer puncture the foil.
496.
by jibal 7mo ago
We used to get free phone calls in phone booths by sticking an unwound paper clip into the earpiece and touching the other end to the coin box.
497.
by jibal 7mo ago
Also true of people who used to be young and then became old. And trans people also have a lot to say about this.
498.
by jibal 7mo ago
That skit has nothing to do with Vihart ... Claude hallucinated that. > This clearly shows that AI can think critically and reason. No it doesn't ... Claude regurgitated human knowledge.
499.
by jibal 7mo ago
That's an irrelevant strawman. It tells us nothing about how create such a system ... how to pluck it out of the infinity of TMs. It's like saying that bridges are necessarily built from atoms and adhere to the laws of physics--th
500.
by jibal 7mo ago
Of course.
501.
by jibal 7mo ago
You could try reading the TFA, and understanding that my comment was a joke (referring to Spinal Tap, of course) about those UIs, not a request for a knob with 11 divisions. Your knobs inspired by Spinal Tap have nothing to do with "th
502.
by jibal 7mo ago
You could try reading the TFA, and understanding that my comment was a joke (referring to Spinal Tap, of course) about those UIs, not a request for a knob with 11 divisions. pseudohadamard's knobs inspired by Spinal Tap have nothing to
503.
by jibal 7mo ago
The parsing broke speech into phonemes--actually a string of candidate phonemes, each candidate having an assigned probability. It made a lot of mistakes--it couldn't generally distinguish between "a" and "the" in r
504.
by jibal 7mo ago
Whoosh again. I'm the OP in this case.
505.
by jibal 7mo ago
whoosh
506.
by jibal 7mo ago
This completely misses the point, which is that the central limit theorem says that it isn't just any old clumping, it's always the normal distribution. tsunamifury dismissed this strong finding as "tautology" because cl
507.
by jibal 7mo ago
A piece of code is only one of many different implementations of a spec. And a good spec is careful to state what sort of variation is allowed and when rigid adherence is required.
508.
by jibal 7mo ago
First, every mathematical theorem is a tautology ... don't conflate "tautological" with "obvious". Second, your "aka" is incorrect --- there is all sorts of clumping that is not a normal distribution.
509.
by jibal 7mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
510.
by jibal 7mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem > suppose that a large sample of observations is obtained, each observation being randomly produced in a way that does not depend on the values of the other observ

More ›