This is so funny, I know him personally; we went to school together. I'll watch it and comment later.
Veraticus
joined 2 years ago
I was in this case -- but the overall point I made is still correct. If winning this minor battle is what you were seeking, congratulations. You are no closer to understanding the truth of this or what we were actually talking about. Not that that was either your point or within your capabilities.
I am upset: you don't know what you're talking about, refuse to listen to anything that contradicts you, and are inflammatory and unpleasant besides. If I wasn't clear enough -- go talk to an LLM about this. They have no option but to listen to your idiocy. I, of course, do have a choice, and am blocking you.
You clearly don't actually care; if you did, you wouldn't select your sources to gratify your ego, but actually try to understand the problem here. For example, ask GPT4 itself if it is intelligent. It will instruct you far better than I ever can. You clearly have access to it -- frame your objections to it instead of Internet strangers tired of your bloviating and ignorance.
Here, let's ask GPT4 itself since you've decided it's suddenly an okay source:
Your statement is correct in asserting that the vector representation in a language model is not an abstract representation. It's purely a mathematical construct. However, saying it's "unrelated to anything that actually exists" might be an overstatement. These vectors do capture statistical patterns in human language, which are reflections of human thought and culture. They're just not capable of the deep, nuanced understanding that comes from human experience.
I accept it's an overstatement. But it is neither "incredibly wrong," nor is it thought. (Or intelligence.)
Are you kidding me? I sourced GPT4 itself disagreeing with you that it is intelligent and you told me it's lying. And here you are, using it to try to reinforce your point? Are you for real or is this some kind of complicated game?
Oh, you again -- it's incredibly ironic you're talking about wrong statements when you are basically the poster child for them. Nothing you've said has any grounding in reality, and is just a series of bald assertions that are as ignorant as they are incorrect. I thought you would've picked up on it when I started ignoring you, but: you know nothing about this and need to do a ton more research to participate in these conversations. Please do that instead of continuing to reply to people who actually know what they're talking about.
So, no point? Cool.
Did you have a point or are you only trying to argue semantics?
This is a great article, thanks for linking it!
Yeah, that would be a good usage of an LLM!
No? Humans are not algorithms except in the most general sense.
For example, there has not been any discovery of an algorithm that allows one to predict human actions, and scientists debate whether such a thing could even exist.