← Back to context Comment by greenflag 2 hours ago What is the difference between reasoning and predicting what reasoning would look like? 6 comments greenflag Reply phyzome 2 hours ago The same as the difference between a thing and a statistical model of a thing.They don't always match up. mickdarling 1 hour ago In theory, theory and practice should be the same; in practice, they are not. programmarchy 2 hours ago Human reasoning also does not match up with reality. Isn't it statistical modeling all the way down? fyredge 42 minutes ago That statement demands an explanation.As far as I'm aware, when reasoning does not meet reality, it is called a delusion, and I'm fairly certain that majority of humans are not delusional. 1 reply → whattheheckheck 2 hours ago One has a human behind it and one has a matrix latent space. Usually human understanding is more "real"Stallman vehemently states llms are bullshit generators with no true understanding.But sometimes you can approximate your problem and unfold an llm interlocator to producing the strings you need for your task
phyzome 2 hours ago The same as the difference between a thing and a statistical model of a thing.They don't always match up. mickdarling 1 hour ago In theory, theory and practice should be the same; in practice, they are not. programmarchy 2 hours ago Human reasoning also does not match up with reality. Isn't it statistical modeling all the way down? fyredge 42 minutes ago That statement demands an explanation.As far as I'm aware, when reasoning does not meet reality, it is called a delusion, and I'm fairly certain that majority of humans are not delusional. 1 reply →
programmarchy 2 hours ago Human reasoning also does not match up with reality. Isn't it statistical modeling all the way down? fyredge 42 minutes ago That statement demands an explanation.As far as I'm aware, when reasoning does not meet reality, it is called a delusion, and I'm fairly certain that majority of humans are not delusional. 1 reply →
fyredge 42 minutes ago That statement demands an explanation.As far as I'm aware, when reasoning does not meet reality, it is called a delusion, and I'm fairly certain that majority of humans are not delusional. 1 reply →
whattheheckheck 2 hours ago One has a human behind it and one has a matrix latent space. Usually human understanding is more "real"Stallman vehemently states llms are bullshit generators with no true understanding.But sometimes you can approximate your problem and unfold an llm interlocator to producing the strings you need for your task
The same as the difference between a thing and a statistical model of a thing.
They don't always match up.
In theory, theory and practice should be the same; in practice, they are not.
Human reasoning also does not match up with reality. Isn't it statistical modeling all the way down?
That statement demands an explanation.
As far as I'm aware, when reasoning does not meet reality, it is called a delusion, and I'm fairly certain that majority of humans are not delusional.
1 reply →
One has a human behind it and one has a matrix latent space. Usually human understanding is more "real"
Stallman vehemently states llms are bullshit generators with no true understanding.
But sometimes you can approximate your problem and unfold an llm interlocator to producing the strings you need for your task