swansont

That verbal communication can be garbled. The telephone game is strictly about reproduction errors; the words need not carry a message purple monkey dishwasher. Authors are conscious and can understand the message they conveys. LLMs are not and cannot. We are intelligent. What does this have to do with LLMs? Emphasis on WE (meaning intelligent humans) Any intent you see in a message from a LLM is something you are projecting on it. As I said, you’ve expressed thos more than once. Yes. Why did you feel the need to write several paragraphs arguing the point if you agree?

According to which observer? Relativity only allows you to make statements about invariant quantities without specifying what a quantity is relative to.

There is no intended meaning, since there is no intent. You’re anthropomorphizing it, as you have a number of times in this thread. You give the AI too much credit Saying things better than you can mean the aggregate of its training is higher quality than your skill level. But your skill won’t improve if you offload the work to it.

It’s been trained on sentences that make sense. But structure alone does not guarantee meaning. You can swap out nouns, verbs and adjectives to leave the structure intact to create nonsense. Mad Libs built a business on that premise.

Can it be a half-step ahead if it’s fabricating material? No, it can’t understand anything.

If you want to know what is possible and why, I know that Greg Gbur has written a pop-sci book about the physics of invisibility. But if you cite science-fiction, there’s no guarantee that there’s a legitimate scientific basis for it.

Perhaps you could give some examples of truths that are not facts, and vice-versa.

I guess I don’t know how you’re using the AI. Since you’re getting pattern matching, consistency is to be expected, even when there’s no causality to the correlation.

But this means you value consistency over veracity. You look for a consensus only, rather than a correct answer. An answer “consistent with your framing” But you don’t know if the answer is right. It’s amazing to me that you keep avoiding this issue. Religion is similar. Valuing simple, easy answers rather than correctness.

They are fiction. They “work” because someone says they do, not because there is a physical basis to it.

KE scales as v^2, momentum as v. If you double v, you quadruple the KE you impart. But that’s true of the payload as well. As I derived earlier: Conservation of momentum dictates mv = MV, so (mv)^2 = (MV)^2 Meaning the ratio of kinetic energy of each is KErocket/KEexhaust = m/M The exhaust velocity doesn’t enter into this limit An advantage of the ion thrusters we use is the fuel need not be carried onboard - you use solar panels. Also, we often use Xenon, mass of ~130 u, as opposed to might lighter molecules typical of chemical rockets (e.g. water). Rockets are limited also by thermodynamic efficiency, while ion thrusters are not based on heat transfer

And that’s the problem I’m pointing to. I point out issues with content, and you ignore that and tout the structure Veracity matters, and matters more. It is not “searching reality for things that makes sense.” It searches its training data for matches. It can’t “make sense” because it’s not thinking, and the answer is something that sounds plausible but is not necessarily correct. If the training data includes nonsense, it’s not reality. You extend way too much credit to the LLMs, as others do, and IMO that’s dangerous. “my understanding is derived from things it has volunteered that are consistent with my own framing” is a recipe for confirmation bias.

Moderator NoteYou haven’t provided enough information to answer the question, and your framing makes it clear that this is not an inquiry made in good faith.

Interesting you single out “you democrats” Who is in charge right now? Are you suggesting that nobody in opposition has complained about the exploding debt? How about an analysis of what has happened to the debt and deficit under each party?

Moderator NoteThis is a discussion forum. What is it you want to discuss? If you just want to rant, go post on a broadcast-style social media site.

This is science, so what you believe doesn’t matter. It’s what you can show. You’ve been asked for evidence of this claim, but you keep avoiding the task of actually providing it. Some would call that trolling. You’re also just repeating your points rather than addressing criticism. We call that soapboxing. Both of these are against the rules.

It’s a science forum; kind of a hybrid of both. You’re expected to support your claims with scientific evidence. Your response here suggests that you did not come to a conclusion and that this is a conjecture, i.e. speculation, which still requires evidence per forum rules. However, you have shown resistance to posts saying you are incorrect. The reasoning you use is limited to a few specific cases, which is cherry-picking. Not very scientific at all. Not in this thread, but did express that sentiment before. A thread entitled “Are we still evolving?” and the first thing you say in it is “I say no” (a thread that covered much of the same ground as this one, showing that you’ve learned very little in 12 years)

Yes. You also said the evolution that happens in modern humans isn’t due to natural selection. Yes, I want examples that support your thesis. I’ve asked for this multiple times. The examples you gave do not support your thesis. I am too, but also not having time wasted by a bunch of tap-dancing And I will ask again: so what? How does that tie in with your thesis? What it shows is that specific pathways of and traits affected by evolution differ between species. You seemto think it has more significance but resist in explaining further.

Agree. I think the specific series of changes humans underwent is specific to humans, but the overall process is the same as all organisms, as it must be. More specialized traits leave a species susceptible to extinction if/when the environment changes

I’m talking about the reaction mass How do you maneuver in the atmosphere and get back into space?

I made the point earlier that there’s a lot of analysis that’s independent of the technology; conservation of momentum doesn’t care how you impart the momentum. You have to use up a lot of your energy budget throwing the mass out of the back of the rocket, even if there’s no energy lost to anything but thrust and payload KE.

I’l lactose intolerant, as are others, so it’s not “we humans,” it’s “some humans” It certainly could be that this ability persisted because dairy is a way to turn indigestible grass, etc. into useful calories, and that’s something that would give improved survival probability and increase the odds of passing down the gene(s) responsible I asked for examples that supported your premise, i.e. ones that allowed you to draw your conclusion, and this doesn’t fit the bill. Evolving to adapt to new food sources is definitely something observed in wild animals. Sexual selection. Definitely something that happens in wild animals. Mammals generally have breasts, they just aren’t prominent when not lactating in most mammals. My understanding is that it’s part of the evolution of the human reproductive “strategy” where women aren’t just fertile for a short period of time (estrous) - humans don’t have a breeding season. Lots of inter-related elements in this. The specifics are human-centric but the process is not. Your examples don’t support your thesis.

What does structure matter if the content is wrong? That’s an apologist argument. That’s a tautology. This is reminiscent of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Patterns can be meaningless, though. Correlation is not the same as causality.

Which it said because humans have said this, a lot, so it’s the most likely respinse to give. AI can’t admit anything, and its “recognition” is pattern-matching. This doesn’t answer the question of how you know if the AI works. You said it often works, not always works.

I will once again ask you for examples of evolution in humans — the ones you are looking at to draw this conclusion. I think a problem here is that you are narrowing your field of view on this, but still trying to apply it to a broader conclusion.. Avoiding predators is not the only avenue of natural selection.