Genady

@JustJoe. In the Modern and Theoretical Physics, where this thread is posted, electricity is not a substance.

If each logical step of a derivation is written on a separate line, and preferably numbered, then it is easier to understand and discuss.

Regarding the opening post examples: Null hypothesis: a deviation from an observed characteristic is a fluke, Alternative 1: a deviation is caused by population characteristic being greater than observed characteristic., etc.

Not so. A god-like observer must rather conclude that particle falls into the event horizon in one reference frame and doesn't fall into it in another reference frame. No contradiction.

An alternative hypothesis explains something as cause and effect, while a null hypothesis explains it as a statistical fluke.

By definition, logical OR is inclusive, i.e., either one of the parts is true regardless of the other. An exclusive OR, which does not allow for both parts to be true together, is usually written as XOR.

The developers of ChatGPT acknowledge these limitations of the system: (ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue (openai.com))

Fair enough.

This article lists "best" uses for ChatGPT, and the last one is similar to what you did, I think. It also links to another article, about ChatGPT's limitations. The 5 Best Uses (So Far) for ChatGPT's AI Chatbot (cnet.com)

ChatGPT says:

ChatGPT says:

I like that saying. Don't remember seeing it before and will use it often. Thank you, @swansont. Any known source?

Correction: it is rather about 45 billion light years.

The average distance a (general) particle travels, about 14 billion light years.

One reason is that the moving parts of a device accelerate thus creating internal tensions.

Yes, I have. The answers differed in wording, not in content.

In my opinion, this "importance" function does not have a global maximum.

We can conclude that this is a generic feature of science forums because this guy doesn't know anything about scienceforums.net specifically:

I don't think it is normal or common to everybody. Perhaps it is not rare either, as a list of possible disorders with such symptoms come to mind. As an example, see Auditory Processing Disorder.

Not all is bad in the ChatGPT world. Look at this:

@joigus I guess that the crucial difference between a human and the ChatGPT's experiences is in their context: the latter is an experience of language, while the former is an experience of language-in-real-life. For example, we easily visualize a daughter and her mother, and in this mental picture the mother is clearly older than the daughter. The ChatGPT instead knows only how age comparison appeared in texts. Yes, you're right: the red box denotes what I say and the green one denotes what AI says. No, sometimes it says that it cannot answer, with some explanation why.

Yes, @joigus, the experience, i.e., the training statistics emphasis of your hypothesis seems to me a right way to analyze this behavior. It was the following specification that looks unsupported:

@joigus, it doesn't look like a result of logical assumptions, because on one hand, it derives truth from the question itself in this example: and on the other hand, it is incapable of a simple syllogism in this example:

@studiot, there are thousands of articles about ChatGPT, here is one from the horse's mouth: ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue (openai.com)

I like this guess, @joigus. Here is a little evidence supporting it: