swansont

No, those are not my statements, those are yours. My statement was “true statements are true” which is a tautology. You asked for proof, and I gave it. You can’t rebut it by considering some other statement. As for your statement, give an example of truth contradicting itself.

Where are these perfect LLMs? Not ChatGPT, not whatever Google is using for its summaries. Not Apple. And whatever performance this mystery LLM has, (why isn’t it being adopted everywhere?) it doesn’t erase the bad performance of what’s widely used, because what I’ve seen is crap, and I won’t trust them until they’ve demonstrated they aren’t. As I said.

A tautology is a statement that is true by definition (in rhetoric, it says the same thing twice). “True statements are true” seems to fit that. By inspection. If you want a syllogism A tautology is a statement that is true by definition ‘True statements are true’ is true by definition Therefore it is a tautology Do we need this proof? I wouldn’t think so, but YMMV Can you refute it?

Just the AI part was moved there, because it’s not allowed in mainstream discussions, owing to these veracity issues.

Given the demonstrated performance thus far, LLMs are crap until proven otherwise, IMO. It’s being presented as a solution now, not that it might become a viable solution some day. Until it passes a Turing test, I don’t like deeming it AI anyway. To me, Faux Intelligence is more apt. Some of the examples above are machine learning, which is indeed a different beast (or set of beasts) than LLMs, and I agree it probably would be best to specify the implementation being referenced, much like we specify biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy or physics instead of just saying “science” since there are distinct differences between how they are conducted. Agree. Computers do certain things more quickly than humans, and that’s the advantage being exploited for e.g. pattern recognition using ML or in sorting through piles of data to attempt to summarize something.

! Moderator Note Not even a theory, but if it’s outdated, is there a point in discussing it? There isn’t enough here to support keeping it open in speculations

If the jokes persist for longer than four hours, consult a physician

Which is not teaching, nor LLMs, AFAIK. Again, this is not teaching. Still not teaching. There are different forms of AI. When you say “It can summarize the notes and provide reading” you are referring to LLMs which is not necessarily the same set of algorithms as a program that has some other task. And being good at one task is not a valid argument that it will be good at a different task (just like not all humans would make good teachers) Why not just use Khan Academy then? Why throw a layer of crap into the mix? Self-study comes from some source material. Why not just use that? These two things are contradictory. If it can’t do the job, it’s not good enough.

You posted this in classical physics. If it were in speculations, I’d ask you for some evidence or a model. Absent that, it’s a WAG and we don’t j\have a WAG forum. If one thing pushes on another, that other thing pushes back. Momentum changes. You’d have things slowing down because of spacetime pushing on it. That throws Newton’s first law out the window.

How would that work? Space-time is geometry And pushing has implications for e.g. momentum which we don’t observe.

It can do a really poor job of summarizing. I don’t see how that means it can teach. Can it explain concepts? Can it figure out why an explanation doesn’t work for some students, figure out what the misconception is, and come up with alternate explanations? Give examples, because I think you’re overestimating the capabilities of LLMs. Can it answer questions that aren’t part of its “training”? Google tried to excuse the poor performance of its AI on novel questions. Can it figure out a poorly-phrased question, which you will get from students who don’t understand enough to explain what they don’t know.

Concentrating the rays can work if the lens or mirror array has a larger area than the collector. Mirrors are used in thermal solar, but lensing has the problem of what happens with off-axis rays - unless the system tracks the sun, you might miss the collector.

! Moderator Note From Rule 2.13 ”Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions.”

I’ve seen several treatments of this framed as if cutting corners was a brand-new phenomenon, but yes, the corners are now bigger and easier to cut.

! Moderator Note This all seems true but we’re a discussion site. What do you want to discuss?

! Moderator Note Merged and locked because you posted this before and didn’t learn a damn thing from the feedback, such as tagging Musk with dishonesty when he’s not the one making the claims.

No, but then, this seems like a straw man. I don’t think people familiar with science think it’s a linear path. And I would say more complete rather than complete. These are not mutually exclusive. You can have progress without a paradigm shift, and scientific revolutions don’t represent all progress, just perhaps the progress that get noticed more. Quantum mechanics, for example, did not render classical mechanics obsolete. The latter still gets a lot of use. And falsifiability is in no way in conflict with paradigm shifts. Truth is matter for philosophers You haven’t pointed to any misconceptions. Any part of science can be superseded by a better theory, but in physics at least often it’s in some new domain previously inaccessible - e.g. smaller scale, faster motion - that wasn’t available to earlier researchers. But classical physics still works in its area of applicability. I think “misconception” over-dramatizes the situation. More and better models.

Are you suggesting that these were the result of AI, or is this just worded poorly? None of those give us physics that works earlier than the BB. Some of these aren’t even confirmed for after the BB.

That’s not novel, though, just the latest in a long line. We’ve seen spam for sites that will do homework and essays for years. Cliff and Monarch notes were around when I was in high school. Cheating/cutting corners on academics is nothing new.

Yes, tautology. Can you ask a more specific question?

It’s not “ruining” disciplines; AI art and writing are pretty crappy. Even where it’s used, it’s not as useful as hoped. I was reading about an ad agency’s frustrations because AI couldn’t make small changes. Instead of recreating a picture and e.g. changing someone’s hat from red to blue, it would recreate a similar scene, but not identical,. And identical is something that a computer should be able to do.

Except that’s not how it’s being used, by and large. It’s doing things, like writing and art, that some folks and corporations don’t want to pay for, but that some people want to do. But it’s not like anyone is being forced to work in the art mines, and this would free them.

! Moderator Note It’s not. Per rule 2.13 “Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions.” IOW, it gets the same level of credence as a drunk person in a bar, and we don’t want anyone sharing that, either. It’s not even clear what you want to discuss here. It’s not quantum theory.

If there was anything before the BB, evidence of it did not survive the event. The only evidence that could would be details of the hot dense state, and we don’t have physics that works to explain the behavior, as Markus said. Conjecture about anything prior has no basis in existing physics. No evidence and not testable.

There are now reports of people saying it’s patriotic to pay higher prices. They’re never going to admit those were the droids they were looking for.