dimreepr

I recently saw an FB post about a recently found quasar that formed 670 million years after the big bang with a trillion sun brightness, or mass or something, I can't find the article now. But it got me thinking, if the atoms of our universe were condensed enough, as in the very early universe, could a black hole be formed before a star has a chance to ignight, or it ignights breifly as it forms?

Wow, that's a spectacular version of rose coloured spec's, I'm sure you think you're explaining yourself, but your really not, bc repetition is pointless, as I, and, other's have already dismissed, just a reminder, your opinion is only valid through reasoned argument, not gaslighting... I get that, but again history suggests "cometh the hour cometh the man" let's hope our AI doesn't actually become an AGI, then our 'man' may struggle to teach anyone more effectively.

man fears the pyramid, time fears man The other side of that coin is, my name is ozymandias king of kings, look on ye mighty and dispare; spoiler alert man fears time, much more than a tourist attraction... 😉

But that's my point, if you don't even understand a simple brain, your AI for instance, then you won't be able to explain it to other's; think about it with an honest attempt to learn and maybe you'll understand where you went wrong... 😉 To be fair, a significant percentage of student's, throughout the age's, would cheat if they thought they could get away with it, especially with the current financial cultural pressure on them, it was ever so.

Perhaps, but not every answer...

The one thing I can't say, for certain, about @cladking is that, he's being dishonest about what he believes is true. I prefer the challenge bc I have a chance to at least steer his beliefs in a more productive direction. It seems to me were in another affect versus effect situation, I see no benefit in knowing the difference (I know what I mean)...

Whilst I agree with the differences, I contend that the post I referenced, is equally dishonest, he hasn't addressed any argument presented by the membership; just a polite excuse to leave and have the last word, I don't really see a difference in their attitude.

Of course it's nonsense, since you only think you understand how you think, if you think you understand how a bee thinks, think again...

It depends on the argument...

No shit Sherlock...

If this were complex or required a massive intellect there could be no sparrows or field mice. why?

That's exactly what you've claimed and that's your difficulty, you don't have the knowledge to understand where your translation fails...

I'm sorry but this type of post really boils my piss, it's just an excuse to have the last word without having to reasonably justify their argument, the click-it club is obviously irrelevant bc 'they' can't possibly know why they decided to down vote 'me' of all people. Of course it's not fact v truth bc they're two sides of the same coin/word, emotional truth is like suggesting there's such a thing as good v evil. In fact I'm going to break a rule of mine, and join the click-it club for this post...

You keep repeating yourself with no, it seems, attempt to clarify your point, or actually address questions posed by any of the poster's; what's the point of being the messiah (the only one with the knowledge of heaven), if you can't explain it to other people, and we've got some proper brainy buggers, in this thread, trying to understand. Repetition is not a cogent argument, nor is nobody 'can' understand me, if you're as clever as you claim to be, how do you think, that can be? If you actually understand a topic, the one thing you can do, at least, is explain it to your peers even if it's out of the intellectual reach of 99% of, 'the other's'... 😉

What you seem to be missing is, a computer's universe (information) is infinately smaller than ours, your under the illusion that a bee has no choice but to obey it's DNA (which is kinda true, but that's not this rabbit hole), different bee's have different job's, how do you know they didn't choose their job? You can define reality in any way you like, but you also said "you can't cross the same river twice" which is the antipode of binary; Schrodinger's cat, is basically saying "I cross the same river everyday for 50 year's, and then, yesterday it moved and my bridge no longer work's"... I wish I could be so aloof, but I do love a challenge. 😇

Schrodinger's cat makes nonsense of that, ask your AI... Indeed, but in the context of this thread, I think, it's a reasonably accurate metaphor to describe the LLM's shortfalls, presently.

That depends... who are you going to believe

You talk as if one word is truer than another, that's nonsense talk if your logic is fallacious.

If you don't know for sure, ultimately, it's just a guess and just luck if you're right. It reminds me of a professional sportsman's take on luck "The more I practice, the luckier I get", it works for all professionals, even the thinkers. 😉 Just for clarity, I'm not a professional, the epithet I hope to achieve is, talented amateur. An LLM will never have enough information to do more than just guess, bc being, even being a bee is more than the automation of a dry circuit, primarily bc our world is analogue/wet, which is impossible to reproduce digitally, ask your AI about a computers attempt to create a truely random number/event, and get back to me...

This is exactly the response I'd expect from an AI, it's very human centric/biased, is it direct from your AI or do I detect a smattering of paraphrasing? It's us humans that assume animal's lack assumptions, and it's us human's that assume we're uniquely human and so have a unique perspective on reality bc we're a magical type of animal that stands apart from nature. After all you have stated that you are uniquely priveliged, in that you understand things better than a professional student, they don't just give PhD's away, willy nilly...

No shit Sherlock, did it show you pictures of fairies?

Every value statement is complicated, that's why we value a fact, in law, beyond reasonable doubt, is enough to jail them, but not enough of a fact that we should just kill them, even if it saves money...

Both are true, unless the observer actually observed the fact, for instance, a murder, eveyone else, sane or otherwise, are second degree observer's IOW their observations are via an editor.

Not everyone makes sense to everyone, for instance two people from different culture's, definitely struggle and without a shared premise have very little chance to comunicate, luckily we all share a need to eat, drink and sleep, so we all share a fundamental premise; that's not true of an AI human interaction, anything you gain from your interaction with 'your' AI is ultimately from your own projections and so, at best, it's circular reasoning, like in "Taxy driver" the mirror scene "You talkin to me"... As an example, this post screams of trying to sound convincing, from a vox box of misunderstood aphorisms.

No, you've just been very trying, you haven't even attempted to communicate, you've just assumed correctness; your world seems wrong, in a fascistic sort of way.