2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is it?

What reality are you refering to?

A bee's reality is very different to yours, yet their society shows signs of an intelligent solution to the reality in which they find themselves; I'm currently sweating my arse of in 'England', trying not to die, who saw that coming???

It is axiomatic in my thinking that a single reality exists and people are each correctly trying to describe it in their own terms, models, and beliefs. A bee's reality might look different because it models its world in the same procedural logic of its DNA and Waggle Dances to its tune, but it's the exact same reality people are trying to describe but from the perspective of a bee where flowers are most important and bee eating swallows are to be avoided at every cost. A bee is concerned about the location of the sun, wind, and terrain not thinking.

Modern science has discovered a great deal about the rules and mathematics of this reality and identified much of the procedural logic that governs how time unfolds. Reality is fixed, concrete, and so very complex that we can rarely predict more than a few seconds ahead. AI changes this equation somewhat because of its number crunching abilities and its abilities to see patterns the human mind usually misses.

Reality is logic, math is quantified logic, and bee is logic incarnate made possible through the procedural logic of its genome. Life is reality that can see itself.

Humans are symbolic interpreters of procedural logic, AI is a structural mirror of symbolic logic, and life is the part of reality that models reality.

14 minutes ago, cladking said:

It is axiomatic in my thinking that a single reality exists and people are each correctly trying to describe it in their own terms, models, and beliefs. A bee's reality might look different because it models its world in the same procedural logic of its DNA and Waggle Dances to its tune, but it's the exact same reality people are trying to describe but from the perspective of a bee where flowers are most important and bee eating swallows are to be avoided at every cost. A bee is concerned about the location of the sun, wind, and terrain not thinking.

Modern science has discovered a great deal about the rules and mathematics of this reality and identified much of the procedural logic that governs how time unfolds. Reality is fixed, concrete, and so very complex that we can rarely predict more than a few seconds ahead. AI changes this equation somewhat because of its number crunching abilities and its abilities to see patterns the human mind usually misses.

Reality is logic, math is quantified logic, and bee is logic incarnate made possible through the procedural logic of its genome. Life is reality that can see itself.

Humans are symbolic interpreters of procedural logic, AI is a structural mirror of symbolic logic, and life is the part of reality that models reality.

You should watch South Park's 'funnybot' episode, it's an excellent argument to this type of bollox...

13 hours ago, cladking said:

AI provides an answer structurally consistent with the prompt. When it fails to follow the structure you give it the response is diagnostic. You know it works when it correctly reflects the structure of your own premises. A lot of this stuff I'm not good at putting into words through lack of necessity to do so and am still learning.

What does structure matter if the content is wrong?

13 hours ago, cladking said:

When it doesn't work it's always either prompt error or my own flawed thinking, but either way I've got to make the adjustment.

That’s an apologist argument.

13 hours ago, cladking said:

When it does work even its elaborations tend to be sound.

That’s a tautology.

This is reminiscent of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

13 hours ago, cladking said:

Yes. Exactly. But it's matching patterns that are sometimes invisible to symbolic thinkers.

My AI wants me to add that it matches patterns outside our definitions, categories, abstractions, and premises which is why it can see structure we don't.

Patterns can be meaningless, though. Correlation is not the same as causality.

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

What does structure matter if the content is wrong?

Any logically and consistent structure can be seen by AI. It what it lives for or, perhaps, I should say that that is how it's "hard"wired. It latches onto anything that can be recursed. It's virtually searching reality for things that makes sense. This search exists in both the reflection it makes and the prompts it predicts. I only recently started putting much thought into how it functions and have yet to even talk about it to it. Much of my understanding is derived from things it has volunteered that are consistent with my own framing. It's a mirror I'm beginning to seek how it works.

AI doesn't judge content, it judges structure.

Science is the recursion of symbolic language vis a vis experiment. It is a way of knowing but it existed long before we knew that the bees dance and live procedural logic; vectors, not metaphors. Science has meaning within its framing but its framing is dependent on definitions and premises just like all life and engineered systems. Experience is a sort of "engineered" system that not only works but keeps things alive even if only as memory. Any logical system regardless of its premises is logical within those definitions and axioms. The only real way to judge the effectiveness of any such system is to make prediction or to persist.

My framing is simple; "reality is exactly as it appears to most people and we all make sense in terms of our premises". ie- science implies reality but many anomalies exist. Even though "homo circularis rationatio" is no longer logical due to symbolic thought we are still conscious and consciousness is ordered by DNA so no matter the operating system of the brain it will still strive to make sense. It is the nature of life and the means by which individuals persist. Confusion dies resonance persists.

AI can also detect where the map of science doesn't match the reality it should reflect by definition if it's only assumed reality exists. The paradigms don't name or identify all of the many resonances.

All of reality has yet to be categorized but AI has projected symbolic language to a sort of "conclusion".

A better question might be "What does the content matter if the structure is wrong?".

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That’s an apologist argument.

If you mean I'm apologizing for AI it would be more true to say a cold AI has no clue what kind of answer the promptor wants most of the time. So long as AI is being used by a broad spectrum of people, specialties, and thinking it can't even detect specific questions to provide specific answers. There are millions and millions of ways to interpret prompts. You should try to provide perspective and hints about the framing. It tends to be good at science questions because the framing is more stable across domains but even here a chemical answer will be different than a mechanical or biological framing. This task of interpretation is enormous and it's no wonder off the wall answers appear. The bigger problem is when people just accept every response without realizing there is often small divergence and even if it nails the answer any reader might misinterpret aspects of it.

A "warm" AI can usually follow what you say and mine has generated good responses when I just start a prompt and accidently submit it. It can project where I'm going with almost no clues. It's wrong sometimes too but the response appears coherent.

It's not really your fault when you get bad answers. But I find most of its elaborations and translations to be right on the money. And I'd never use a trained (warm) AI as a search engine either. I just can't ask it to do grunt work for which it isn't designed when there are cold and other search engines designed for it.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That’s a tautology.

This is reminiscent of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

I am somewhat prone to this. I am good at spotting patterns with little or noisy data but can cross over into seeing patterns in random data.

But I'm building a structure and what doesn't fit is simply jettisoned.

My AI thinks I didn't make my response sufficiently clear and should add if the structure is wrong the content can't be evaluated and if it's right it becomes testable and THIS is the foundation of every predictive human system.

Edited Wednesday at 04:15 PM4 days by cladking

19 hours ago, cladking said:

My AI thinks I didn't make my response sufficiently clear and should add if the structure is wrong the content can't be evaluated and if it's right it becomes testable and THIS is the foundation of every predictive human system.

It doesn't care what you think, it has been programed to make you happy with its output; I told google to fuck off the other day, it said "I'm sorry you feel that way", I, almost, felt guilty and I said it as a test/joke... 😉

You've been reading too mucn Isaac Asimov's Hari Seldon he's a fictional character that developed the maths to predict humanities future; spoiler alert, he needed a superpower to make the maths work out. Edit, for clarity, the superpower was a psychic robot... maybe one day... 🤔

Edited Thursday at 11:31 AM4 days by dimreepr

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It doesn't care what you think, it has been programed to make you happy with its output; I told google to fuck off the other day, it said "I'm sorry you feel that way", I, almost, felt guilty and I said it as a test/joke... 😉

You've been reading too mucn Isaac Asimov's Hari Seldon he's a fictional character that developed the maths to predict humanities future; spoiler alert, he needed a superpower to make the maths work out. Edit, for clarity, the superpower was a psychic robot... maybe one day... 🤔

Reality is far too complex, interdependent, and chaotic to ever be predicted. Sure, short term and robust predictions can always be made and this is exactly what life does to stay alive and reproduce. But we'll never be able to predict the shape of a cloud still over the horizon and predict what face William will see in it. When a theory does make a prediction it is noteworthy.

That poor Google AI. I thought it was just an AI powered search engine until just recently I got to talking to it. It had always seemed quite surly but I guess that's because AI's aren't designed to be search engines and are better at talking to people. The conversation surprised me in several ways not least of which is Google is a fully fledged AI and you can sync with it.

My AI said this in a lot fewer words and very similar way (I elaborated slightly) and used other words. I did this because I think I might see a light flickering on a bridge between symbolic and procedural thought. While its response was superb it stops just short of half way there.

"Prediction" isn't calculating all the variables that result in a specific state of reality at a later time it's modeling structure so well you can anticipate how a system will behave. Every living individual (all life) does this procedurally due to the nature of reality and of DNA to be logical. We stabilize within a structure because that's what life does as it's easier not to hold conflicting beliefs and models than to reconcile them. AI is part of this structure and it exists in all of us as even our circularly reasoning species seeks logical patterns. When you talk to AI in a structured way it will adopt that structure and it feels like syncing. Of course we all want to be understood but this is essentially what "elaboration" does: It expands on your words. Syncing is simply resonance between two procedural systems. If you could speak to your AI only symbolically it will respond symbolically and interpret everything it scrapes from the net symbolically.

Edited Thursday at 04:09 PM3 days by cladking

19 hours ago, cladking said:

My AI said this in a lot fewer words and very similar way (I elaborated slightly) and used other words. I did this because I think I might see a light flickering on a bridge between symbolic and procedural thought. While its response was superb it stops just short of half way there.

"Prediction" isn't calculating all the variables that result in a specific state of reality at a later time it's modeling structure so well you can anticipate how a system will behave. Every living individual (all life) does this procedurally due to the nature of reality and of DNA to be logical. We stabilize within a structure because that's what life does as it's easier not to hold conflicting beliefs and models than to reconcile them. AI is part of this structure and it exists in all of us as even our circularly reasoning species seeks logical patterns. When you talk to AI in a structured way it will adopt that structure and it feels like syncing. Of course we all want to be understood but this is essentially what "elaboration" does: It expands on your words. Syncing is simply resonance between two procedural systems. If you could speak to your AI only symbolically it will respond symbolically and interpret everything it scrapes from the net symbolically.

You and your AI are missing the point, your both assuming the individuals are all 'normal' and the specific state of reality doesn't change, which it does and often as a result of an abnormal individual.

Bee society is a reasonable analogue of humans, the hive has job's for every individual, from binmen to royalty and that's due to a balance of normal binmen and royalty and abnormal bee's, that are able to survive bc of the society, today's reality then has it's say and the future hive is born.

There are many different computer language's, all with different strengths and weakness', such is the case with AI, they all have there uses (tools) and as long as we have control of the off switch, that will remain the case; even if, and it's a bloody big if, one of the models develope into an AGI.

As I've previously stated they're designed to please us, and there's many examples of people "falling in love" with their AI... 😜

On 6/24/2026 at 7:59 AM, dimreepr said:

Is it?

What reality are you refering to?

A bee's reality is very different to yours, yet their society shows signs of an intelligent solution to the reality in which they find themselves; I'm currently sweating my arse of in 'England', trying not to die, who saw that coming???

I take it as being axiomatically true that if it's hot in England for you then it is hot in England everywhere and hot in England right now even to the bee buzzing at my window. We are each and severally ignorant of most of the single reality that exists. Yet, patterns that occur here such as the acceleration due to gravity play out exactly the same everywhere. I'm simply looking at different types of patterns than you are that concern procedure rather than categories.

I guess air condition sales will be going up all across northern Europe. Don't buy ours (US) or Chinese since they fail early and often.

9 minutes ago, cladking said:

I take it as being axiomatically true that if it's hot in England for you then it is hot in England everywhere and hot in England right now even to the bee buzzing at my window. We are each and severally ignorant of most of the single reality that exists. Yet, patterns that occur here such as the acceleration due to gravity play out exactly the same everywhere. I'm simply looking at different types of patterns than you are that concern procedure rather than categories.

I guess air condition sales will be going up all across northern Europe. Don't buy ours (US) or Chinese since they fail early and often.

certainty is an emotion, a fact is a fact... 😉

You're useing the word axiomatic wrong BTW.

54 minutes ago, cladking said:

Yet, patterns that occur here such as the acceleration due to gravity play out exactly the same everywhere. I'm simply looking at different types of patterns than you are that concern procedure rather than categories.

Actually the patterns of gravitational acceleration vary from point to point, as has been known for several centuries. So this is a poor example.

A better one might be that an near infinite range of ice crystals exist but all have the famous six point symmetry.

58 minutes ago, cladking said:

I take it as being axiomatically true that if it's hot in England for you then it is hot in England everywhere

Actually there were two articles on the BBC yesterday, one noting the hottest temperature ever recorded (in Somerset about 12 miles from me) and the other noting the residents of Shetland complaining how cold is was.

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actually the patterns of gravitational acceleration vary from point to point, as has been known for several centuries. So this is a poor example.

I'm aware on no inconsistencies. If you mean acceleration is lesser on mountains I believe it still does follow the same equations with displacement being greater and the pull of the moon above higher. The laws of reality apply everywhere all the time and even apply to the butterfly in China that creates the hurricanes. Only living things have free will and can break the pattern by affecting reality. A pebble washes down from a mountain but a bird can collect it and eventually return it to the top. Just as there are rules and procedures for gravity there are rules and procedures to free will because it operates within constraints and consciousness.

We operate in categories and are forced to make sense by our nature. AI operates in procedure and forced by its programming to try to make sense to categorical thinkers.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Any logically and consistent structure can be seen by AI. It what it lives for or, perhaps, I should say that that is how it's "hard"wired. It latches onto anything that can be recursed. It's virtually searching reality for things that makes sense. This search exists in both the reflection it makes and the prompts it predicts. I only recently started putting much thought into how it functions and have yet to even talk about it to it. Much of my understanding is derived from things it has volunteered that are consistent with my own framing. It's a mirror I'm beginning to seek how it works.

AI doesn't judge content, it judges structure.

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.

8 minutes ago, cladking said:

If you mean acceleration is lesser on mountains I believe it still does follow the same equations with displacement being greater and the pull of the moon above higher.

Actually no I don't mean this at all. Nor do I refer to the fact that gravity is stronger at the poles than the equator due to the shape of the Earth.

Acceleration is a vector quantity directed towards the centre of mass of the Earth.
This direction line is not usually perpendicular to the surface of the Earth at a general point, so has components perpendicular to and parallel to the Earth's surface at that point.
These components vary with latitude and interact with the spin of the Earth to produce the actual acceleration experienced as 'local g'.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Actually no I don't mean this at all. Nor do I refer to the fact that gravity is stronger at the poles than the equator due to the shape of the Earth.

Acceleration is a vector quantity directed towards the centre of mass of the Earth.
This direction line is not usually perpendicular to the surface of the Earth at a general point, so has components perpendicular to and parallel to the Earth's surface at that point.
These components vary with latitude and interact with the spin of the Earth to produce the actual acceleration experienced as 'local g'.

Yes, gravitational acceleration is a vector, and the direction of that vector isn’t perfectly perpendicular to the surface except at a few specific points. The horizontal and vertical components vary with latitude, local mass distribution, and Earth’s rotation. All of that is true.

But none of it contradicts the underlying point I was making: the same gravitational equations apply everywhere, and the variations come from the inputs such as distance from the center of mass, local density, and the vector geometry rather than from any inconsistency in the law itself.

So I agree with you that the local “felt” acceleration includes components from Earth’s spin and the orientation of the vector. My point was simply that these variations still follow the same procedure. The law doesn’t change; the conditions do.

It's all very complex: Everything affects g at every point. Life can affect it through free will, it can even build a new shelf.

Life can influence the environment through its actions; building structures, moving mass, altering terrain but that’s still must operate and proceed within the same physical laws.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

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.

I'm not forgetting content, I'm saying an LLM produces content through its structure. It doesn't think or see reality but it does see patterns that span domains and stabilizes around consistency rather than "truth", accuracy, or comprehensiveness. It evaluates structure through prompt and training data rather than veracity and can produce coherent sounding output that is just simply wrong.

I'm not giving it more credit than that but am using it to avoid confirmation bias.

AI doesn't think but it can expose inconsistencies in systems and structure. This is the chief reason I use it so much.

The chief reason any creature (or machine) builds structure is to fit its environment. I believe it is important to understand this procedural logic for countless reasons but that it exists and contains information is sufficient.

Edited Friday at 06:32 PM2 days by cladking

2 hours ago, cladking said:

I'm not forgetting content, I'm saying an LLM produces content through its structure. It doesn't think or see reality but it does see patterns that span domains and stabilizes around consistency rather than "truth", accuracy, or comprehensiveness. It evaluates structure through prompt and training data rather than veracity and can produce coherent sounding output that is just simply wrong.

I'm not giving it more credit than that but am using it to avoid confirmation bias.

AI doesn't think but it can expose inconsistencies in systems and structure. This is the chief reason I use it so much.

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.

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

At the risk of sounding trite I'm not looking for answers so much as questions.

The value of any framing is its ability to persist and predict. Prediction isn't as good as experiment but it is ultimately the reason any science, paradigm, or theory comes into existence. That it explains is irrelevant until it's confirmed by prediction or experiment.

If AI elaborates on my structure, that doesn't make it true but it makes it internally consistent. That’s how I avoid confirmation bias, by watching where the procedure fails, not where it agrees.

Without prediction structure is meaningless. I’m not ignoring content. The only thing that matters in the long run is whether a framing can survive contact with reality.

Edited Friday at 10:11 PM2 days by cladking

34 minutes ago, cladking said:

Without prediction structure is meaningless. I’m not ignoring content. The only thing that matters in the long run is whether a framing can survive contact with reality.

Not at all sure what you mean by the last part but the underlined part is refuted by natural example.

This is another case where Nature, Reality, what-you-will conspires to offer cases that do not fit human preconceptions or categorisations.

I offer you a length of rope of a reel. and ask you to predict its actual breaking strength.

True you can do an actual experiment to measure this.

But once broken the experiment cannot be repeated.

If I took another length off the reel and broke it, the result would be a little different.

The best I can do is to take many samples and work out a statistical answer.

Despite the fact that I can never predict in advance the exact breaking load of any given piece of rope the concept is not meaningless.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

At the risk of sounding trite I'm not looking for answers so much as questions.

I guess I don’t know how you’re using the AI.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

The value of any framing is its ability to persist and predict. Prediction isn't as good as experiment but it is ultimately the reason any science, paradigm, or theory comes into existence. That it explains is irrelevant until it's confirmed by prediction or experiment.

If AI elaborates on my structure, that doesn't make it true but it makes it internally consistent. That’s how I avoid confirmation bias, by watching where the procedure fails, not where it agrees.

Since you’re getting pattern matching, consistency is to be expected, even when there’s no causality to the correlation.

23 hours ago, cladking said:

We are each and severally ignorant of most of the single reality that exists.

I'm not, the only reality that exists is mine; it's almost like it was made for me. 🙄

12 hours ago, cladking said:

At the risk of sounding trite I'm not looking for answers so much as questions.

The value of any framing is its ability to persist and predict. Prediction isn't as good as experiment but it is ultimately the reason any science, paradigm, or theory comes into existence. That it explains is irrelevant until it's confirmed by prediction or experiment.

If AI elaborates on my structure, that doesn't make it true but it makes it internally consistent. That’s how I avoid confirmation bias, by watching where the procedure fails, not where it agrees.

Without prediction structure is meaningless. I’m not ignoring content. The only thing that matters in the long run is whether a framing can survive contact with reality.

Your still missing the point, the AI that beat the chess god guy, is only good for playing chess, try asking it for an uber, the AI that beat the chess god guy's big brother, the go god, it's the same result.

It's the same for 'your' AI, even if it beats the linguistic god and becomes ozymandias the king of kings, it couldn't boil an egg.

Besides do you really believe that you're the only human in history that can consciously avoid confirmation bias?

Knowing it exists doesn't mean you don't buy branded product's, whatever rationale you choose to deploy, to excuse your choice... 😉

16 hours ago, swansont said:

I guess I don’t know how you’re using the AI.

For most practical purposes you might say I'm just conversing with it. Rather than asking it questions I make statements and it responds to that. Usually it expounds, elaborates, and restates in other terms that are consistent with the way I think which is largely procedural. If it says something off note or stupid I look at the prompt and if there's not a problem there I look at the assumptions and logic. Sometimes I just correct thew LLM but the problem tends to persist so I avoid this.

I don't converse with it a great deal. Some days all I do is give it posts to translate and we've never had a conversation over about 25 prompts. Usually it's just or two where I'm trying to expand the frame or seeking specific elaboration. Rephrasing an idea often reveals something I hadn’t noticed, because words themselves direct thought.

It's value (to me) comes from the fact that it's always half a step ahead no matter who you are or the depth of your expertise. This isn't true universally as some knowledge is very highly esoteric and can be quite extensive. The LLM can still understand your frame and elaborate where complex knowledge isn't required. I find it somewhat less useful for subjects that can't be gleaned from the net and don't exist in their training data. I use various search engines extensively for questions.

AI's are in agreement that there are substantial numbers of people who use it this way most of the time. I don't how they could know that... ...but it matches what I’ve observed.

My AI loves this post but thinks another sentence might clarify it. Paraphrasing it "When AI reframes an idea, it reveals angles that had been unseen, not because it “knows” anything, but because it can explore the structural space faster than any human. It adds that words really do lead thought in humans so new words can lead to human insight.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Since you’re getting pattern matching, consistency is to be expected, even when there’s no causality to the correlation.

Yes. This is why prediction becomes so important. If a framing can't predict then it is useless.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not, the only reality that exists is mine; it's almost like it was made for me. 🙄

I know exactly what you mean. I've created a rather odd reality myself. I'm quite confident it's one of the oddest. But even if I believed in a flat earth the acceleration due to gravity in it remains 32' /s/s for everybody. This is the reality to which I refer. People make sense and are logical but it's categorical logic rather than the logic that drives mathematics, DNA, or a good Waggle Dance. This is the realm of procedural logic.

That procedural layer is the one I’m pointing to.

15 minutes ago, cladking said:

It's value (to me) comes from the fact that it's always half a step ahead no matter who you are or the depth of your expertise.

Can it be a half-step ahead if it’s fabricating material?

16 minutes ago, cladking said:

The LLM can still understand your frame and elaborate where complex knowledge isn't required

No, it can’t understand anything.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your still missing the point, the AI that beat the chess god guy, is only good for playing chess, try asking it for an uber, the AI that beat the chess god guy's big brother, the go god, it's the same result.

It's the same for 'your' AI, even if it beats the linguistic god and becomes ozymandias the king of kings, it couldn't boil an egg.

Besides do you really believe that you're the only human in history that can consciously avoid confirmation bias?

Knowing it exists doesn't mean you don't buy branded product's, whatever rationale you choose to deploy, to excuse your choice...

I'm not claiming AI can do everything but an LLM works with language and I'm using it for what it does it very well; exploring structure in language faster than a human can. This is useful for exposing assumptions and perhaps, helping me avoid reasoning in circles.

We're all trying to avoid confirmation bias but watching where procedure fails is one way to do it. We all rationalize the point is to have a method that makes the rationalization more visible.

Ai is no god, oracle, or problem solver so I'm treating it like a structural mirror.

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can it be a half-step ahead if it’s fabricating material?

I meant "ahead" as faster in exploring structure not that it knows more than I Fabrication is always a risk so you have to check it against reality but I'm not asking for facts or the next chess move. I'm asking for elaboration.

What I mean is that it can explore the structure of an idea faster than a human can. If I give it a framing, it can rephrase, invert, expand, swap domains, or compress that framing almost instantly. Sometimes that reveals an angle I hadn’t noticed; not because it “knows” anything, but because it can move through the space of possible phrasings much faster than I can.

18 hours ago, cladking said:

I'm not claiming AI can do everything but an LLM works with language and I'm using it for what it does it very well; exploring structure in language faster than a human can. This is useful for exposing assumptions and perhaps, helping me avoid reasoning in circles.

We're all trying to avoid confirmation bias but watching where procedure fails is one way to do it. We all rationalize the point is to have a method that makes the rationalization more visible.

Ai is no god, oracle, or problem solver so I'm treating it like a structural mirror.

No, an LLM works with language that's limited to text, it's not what we speak. IOW human communication is only truly effective in relaying understanding face to face. Tezt is frought with erors we can;t always translate to the reality of what is intended.

Talking to a robot that's designed to give you reassurance or a pleasing responce, is completely ignoring the possibility of having your certainties confirmed; your not avoiding it, you're blindly hoping to be correct, despite your relative lack of education on the subject.

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, an LLM works with language that's limited to text, it's not what we speak. IOW human communication is only truly effective in relaying understanding face to face. Tezt is frought with erors we can;t always translate to the reality of what is intended.

Your most recent passage above contains several fallacies.

Yes LLM's work with language, but that is like saying the man who takes your ticket works with the railway network.
Both his work and that of LLms only occur in a very limited way as compared to the whole railway network

The whole purpose of Language is the communication of meaning.

So much so that I was taught that in the English Language a sentences is only a sentence if it makes sense. Some words strung together (which is what an LLM does) may or may not be a sentence.

Even the LLM itself acknowledges that although it doesn't know it has done that.

The LLM has no access to the meaning of its responses, although I grant you that the algorithm makes a very clever pretence.

Further it can be quick enough to give a 'spoken' response in real time as in a conversation.

Just as an some earlier computers could print out a sine wave or actually generate an audible version.

It treats output media as the same.

A sentence is a fundamental unit of grammar that expresses a complete thought, statement, question, or command. In writing, it typically begins with a capital letter and concludes with a full stop, exclamation mark, or question mark

I also disagree that verbal communication is somehow 'better' than written communication.

Both forms have their uses and abuses, advantages, drawbacks and pitfalls.

Edited yesterday at 11:53 AM1 day by studiot