npts2020

IMO "truth"is ultimately unattainable and is therefore reduced to a personal outlook, so discussions about whether it changes or not are moot. That is why people have different "truths", even when having all of the same facts. The best humans can do is use our inventive and reasoning skills to come up with an approximation and it is that approximation that really changes, (hopefully to become more like) instead of "truth".

Since there is change in the universe, some facts are time dependent, as pointed out by TheVat. Every one of those is still a fact for the time considered and that has not changed, nor has the "truth" from any of those times. Facts are immutable because they are based on a yes/no proposition, whereas truth is a narration that changes with the accumulation of more and better facts.

It seems to me we have had "AI" in movies almost as long as there has been movies. The only difference I see between today and the first Mickey Mouse or Betty Boop cartoons is ease of generation and characters being more lifelike.

One difference I see is that "truth" is a narrative based on "facts" and changes with more or different"facts", whereas, "facts" are unchanging. If a "fact" changes, it was never a fact to begin with.

Sounds like something Maxwell Smart would go to Control HQ to use. 😀

Great song, pretty much describes what is being discussed. As Albert Einstein may (or may not) have said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand the subject." I would agree, such is the beauty of language. Apparently, I am not a member of your species. Ever since beginning to question the nature of reality as a preteen I have never believed I knew the "true" shape of it because there are just too many unknowns. When you can envision several different versions of the same thing, it is possible that all, some, or none are true. The more I learn about various scientific debates, the less sure I am that I "know reality".

IMO facts are objective while truth is subjective, that is the reason people see "truth" differently. Anyone's "truth" is limited by their knowledge of facts (unfortunately what some call facts, aren't, and is probably the biggest reason for differences) and ability to construct them into a logical framework.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/nasa-races-to-save-aging-swift-telescope-from-falling-back-to-earth-with-daring-rescue-mission A pretty interesting undertaking. The rocket is being launched from an airplane and the 3 armed robot that is supposed to grab the telescope and move it to higher orbit is pretty amazing. Hubble could be next.

I'm not interested in what an LLM "thinks", I am interested in what facts humans have accumulated in reference to the subject. I strongly disagree that thought is a product of language. It takes a relatively long time to learn a language but even babies are capable of some thought, even if they lack the language necessary to communicate that thought.

I would be very interested in reading about any research comparing symbolic thought in humans to other species. Do you have any links?

It seems to me "facts" are the same to any sane observer, whereas, "truth" is more subjective and limited by one's experiences and knowledge (and perhaps ability to use those to reason in a logical manner).

How do you know this is true?

All forms of language have limitations, beginning with being able to understand said language.

Actually, I don't even have a driveway and all of the trees are maples but none of that is the point. The point is that language can be used as specifically as necessary to convey an idea completely, as you point out. Thanks.

I am still unclear as to how much smaller these chips are. .7 nanometers vs 2 nanometers would make things almost 3 times smaller, an improvement to be sure, but am I missing something? Because most announcements like this are orders of magnitude smaller. IMO the bigger + of these chips is their efficiency improvement.

IMO you are looking for exactness where it doesn't exist, we are talking about human language after all. When I refer to "the old oak tree at the end of the driveway", my neighbor might picture it from the angle he sees it from his living room and I might picture it as I see it from mine but the words have enough of the same meaning for both of us that there is no ambiguity in what I am talking about.

I don't think friendship requires shared goals. I have a number of friends I know would help me out if in need and I would do the same for them but am not aware of any particular shared goals. What we do share are similar views on things like "fairness" and "goodness".

5 hours ago, cladking said: “Meaning isn't in the words, meaning is in the receiver.” If words don't have meaning, how is it possible to communicate an idea to a diverse audience using them?

Starting with a clear definition of the difference between "understanding" and "structure". To me LLM's have perfect "understanding" of whatever they are programmed for and that informs the "structure" of its communication, meaning that it "understands" what it is communicating as much as any of us do. In both cases, we are still limited by the breadth and quality of our knowledge of the subject at hand.

This is absolutely not true. What IS true, is that the factors affecting NS in humans are different from those of other species and even those affecting ancient humans. NS still happens.

As much as I can visualize what you are talking about, it seems to me you are saying objects that have changed the most are the farthest advanced in time, which actually makes some sense even if not strictly true. However, (ignoring speed effects on time) doesn't that mean said object would have moved more through time rather than less?

Just doesn't reflect too well.

IMO this is wrong. What is true is that the factors applying to natural selection have changed (in some respects by humans themselves) over time. In modern societies, social skills are far more valuable than the hunting and foraging skills required for survival even as short time as 50,000 years ago. (Maybe not the greatest example but should outline my, and I believe the scientific, definition of "natural selection") A good accountant who has never been out of the city or learned survival skills would have been unlikely to survive long enough to pass on their genes at that time. A caveman would likewise almost certainly find themselves killed or incarcerated by authorities for breaking some law or norm they are unfamiliar with today and will thus not be passing on their genes. I would argue that both cases are natural selection (even if some of the conditions are human-influenced) in accordance with the environment either being is exposed to.

Being an elected official in America, I can state affirmatively there are a lot of good, smart and caring people in our government. The problem is it seems to be a growing minority of those who wield power on a national and international scale.

Leaving aside the fact that the term"superpower" is not very well defined, there are still limits to what even the most powerful entities on Earth are able to accomplish.