Comment by f_klem
6 hours ago
Agreed, formatting was kind of f, but there is no need to be rude.
I wasn't saying there was any difference. All I'm saying is that the claimings the AI research field does are based on false assumptions. And from false assumptions, you cannot reach a proper conclusion.
Whether an AI system can reason and think like if it where a human being, or not, I don't care. I'm fine with either: it is just technological advance. But making claims based on false assumptions, and then being fooled by how 'wonderful' or 'spectacular' the results are, is, at least, naive.
> Nothing but human insecurity, in my eyes. There was never a principled difference. Just a way to operationalize some "I'm unique and special and better than a matrix math machine" vibes.
This is just something I don't get. People ignorant of technique are insecure and afraid. People that know how technology works, and thus investigate and know how it works fundamentally*, were never afraid or insecure.
A lot of people who "know how technology works" just went looking for copium, and found some. Now, they "know" a comforting lie - something like "it's just next token prediction".
Very comforting, that, but actively harmful to understanding.
The understanding starts with: we don't actually know how LLMs do what they do. They're more grown than designed. And it only gets worse from there. Very little comfort to be found in modern AI.