swansont

OMFG, absolutely NOT. It was one thing to try to discern bits about the AI algorithm based on chats (probably not fruitful, but if people want to do that), but it’s CLEARLY not allowed to submit questions asked of you to an AI. I have no interest in chatting with your AI. If you don’t know what this thread is about, then it stops here.

You’re acting like you weren’t involved in the conversation. It’s almost like it was generated by an entity that didn’t have access to the prior discussion.

That much was obvious. And yet you decided to pontificate on the topic, as you have on a few others. You might ponder on the issue of credibility.

You had a hypothesis, “When the cognitive capacity of a system reaches a certain threshold, a kind of sentience inevitably emerges” but when you were challenged on defining some terms, you abandoned it. You had another, “The AI isn't just responding to the literal text; it's adapting its own logical framework in response to the nature of the interaction.” but when I raised the possibility that it wasn’t adapting anything, but was programmed to agree with you, you agreed and said it was a “core bias” which is strange since it seems very much at odds with the original proposal. IOW, you are modifying your responses, much like you noted about the AI. (Only with humans we call that trolling) Since you keep changing these discussion points I’m not sure what the point of all this is. Nothing I’ve read rebuts the notion that it’s chatbot that trues to keep you engaged in conversation. Although I’ve not scrutinized the long flowery exchange you posted recently, even that fits with it adopting the style of discussion you wanted. So: can you present a concise statement of what this is about?

It can’t interpret the theory, so it can’t misinterpret it.

I would think it’s kinda hard to hide the data crawling necessary for the training of these LLMs so while the concept no doubt existed, I doubt they had a working system for long. Self-driving, like Tesla, have been up-front about the need for the data they gather being important to them. The problem with LLMs is less about regulations in place to help them, since the issue is restraining them. And they blatantly violate copyright laws and have publicly admitted the need to do so.

Spoken like someone who has no clue what a PhD in science entails. (Or even an undergraduate degree from any legitimate source, to some extent.) And you still haven’t explained the relevance. I must confess I haven’t heard of the two nail experiment. Your description of this is muddled but if I understand it I’m not sure why you think this means anything. Water waves will diffract going around nails and interfere, with nothing about that is odds with what physics teaches. Or why an atom would go straight through.

What, numerically, constitutes “enormous”?

The fact that you feel that many of those in your country are ignorant, have offensive attitudes, and represent the worst aspects of humanity doesn’t excuse the point of view.

Nveredward has been added

So? Data generally has some kind of experimental error. How precise and accurate does it need to be? Does it need to be 0.01%? Don’t you still get useful information if it’s 1% or 10%, or (in some cases) just order-of-magnitude estimates?

It has happened, but most of the time, no, the sockpuppets still talk nonsense.

The failures are being posted on social media. Listing presidents with their dates of office. Counting the number of “b”s in blueberry. Complicated stuff like that.

And that draws a distinction between what moderators do and what admins do. Any behind-the-scenes tinkering with how the site runs is admin. Moderation is enforcing rules about posting and decisions related to that. And there’s the maxim that anyone who actively wants to be a moderator is not qualified to be one.

IMO, You need to do your own homework.

Moderator NoteUse your existing thread. Repeatedly posting the same material without engaging is considered spamming, and can get you banned.

I think some things are driven by lawyers saying “Do it this way so we don’t get sued” and appealing to common sense doesn’t make for a strong argument in court.

Can’t say for sure, but its existence might be due to (an interpretation of) privacy laws in existence somewhere. Internationally-used software has to comply with everybody’s requirements*. So if someone e.g. thought that this was some kind of personal data, there would have to be an option to protect against its dissemination. Again, I don't know this to be the case. It’s just a plausibility argument *(We had to switch hosting this year because of one country’s arguably misguided law)

But wifi is typically less than a Watt, IIRC.(When I bought a wi-fi router at work I had to prove it complied with some federal rule on EM emissions on government property) so you’d need an amplifier

Replying to a post telling you not to just provide links with a post that just has links and not much else is a bold strategy. Unfortunately, Cotton, it did not pay off.

Telling us what it isn’t is not particularly helpful. You’re proposing something new, and a new state of…something (not matter) so you need more than this. Yes, but if you smack a trampoline you generally don’t go through it. So that analogy fails. You haven’t provided much in the way of a mathematical model, and that is absolutely require. Just saying it’s been derived from known data isn’t very illuminating. And hand-waving gets old pretty fast.

A valid point, I think. It’s a little like how more people used to be able to maintain or fix their own cars, out of necessity. You had to know things about the internet because nothing was (reliably) plug-and-play. Now very few know what’s going on under the hood. (edit: posted w/o seeing exchemist’s comment)

Threads merged

What for? It was the question that was asked. I don’t think you understand what compare means. You can compare the results of analysis of the data. We do it all the time. As you pointed out earlier, progress (development) does not apply to biological evolution. Why would you imply the opposite a short while later? If you want to talk about medicine evolving you need to make it clear you aren’t talking about biological evolution, since the definitions are different. But it has, and that was an answer to an inquiry, not the topic of discussion. And who “joins” evolution with religion? (that’s rhetorical; please don’t sidetrack things further by answering)

Moderator NoteYou have a thread about this already https://scienceforums.net/topic/135819-the-dean-paradox-a-paradox-exposing-a-fundamental-disconnect-between-the-logic-that-underpin-physical-theories-of-reality/ And you abandoned it rather than engage in discussion. It’s still open, for the moment, but you need to follow the direction of the mod note there.