Sabitlenmiş Tweet
🇩🇿
7.5K posts
@aboupinel @YosarianTwo Fair, at least not without further justification, which I give later.
English
I really want "AI can not be intelligent by defintion" people to explain what they mean by "intelligence". Or better yet, to make concrete predictions about what they think LLM's won't be able to do because they lack "intelligence" and then notice when they do those things.
onion person@CantEverDie
my biggest pet peeve around LLMs is when people (usually those invested in its success) call it “intelligent”. it definitionally, how it functions on a base level, is not intelligent. the way LLMs are built, it can never hit real intelligence. it’s just predictive
English
@Oevide @jeuneboss93 penser que l’ordre politique est établi par le vote populaire est assez naïf, en réalité c’est le pouvoir qui l’établit et l’union européenne en a bien plus que la france
Français
@jeuneboss93 Jamais compris les gens qui disent que l'état de droit ne doit (ou ne peut) changer. Les politiques sont là pour changer l'état de droit en votant des lois. On n'apprend pas ça en cours de droit? J'en doute.
Français
On peut en tout cas désormais être sûrs que monsieur Jordan Bardepasla n’a pas assisté aux cours de droit en L2
Jordan Bardella@J_Bardella
Je considère que la libre circulation dans l'espace Schengen devrait être réservée aux seuls ressortissants des pays européens. Obtenir un titre de séjour en Espagne, par exemple, ne doit pas permettre de circuler librement dans tous les pays de l'Union européenne.
Français
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo then yes what i’m asking for is simply the procedure that would let me verify whether a syllogism is valid or not without caring about the syntax of the propositions in the syllogism. if you meant something else, then please elaborate
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo you seemed to imply here that what claude does is merely substitute the english sentences for metavariables from the schemata it got in its training data, like i described, and that there is some other way to verify whether an argument is valid or not. if that’s what you meant
Kiwi 𐑒𐑰𐑢𐑰 ☯︎🐬@bouncingrocks
@madjam1231 @YosarianTwo it essentially sees bezee, Hab, dinner, and John as A, B, C, and D and the sentences containing them in its response as reciprocals of the sentences you gave it. It has no knowledge of what it's outputting.
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo i think it makes no sense at all to ascribe certainty to a belief, because i have simply no clue what would have to be true of a belief for it to be certain
English
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo it’s just how ‘validity’ is defined in logic textbooks such as ‘forall x’
English
@aboupinel @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo so you think a syllogism can be valid when its conclusion is wrong?
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo tbc i mean ‘valid’ here and not ‘sound’, but it should be obvious from the fact that i used ‘p’ and ‘q’ instead of english sentences
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo no clearly this is false, if i take the syllogism: p, p -> q |- q, i know that it’s sound as i can find an inference rule (namely, modus ponens) that licences the move from p, p -> q to q. but figuring out whether i can use the inference rule is a purely syntactic matter
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo that is, i have a schema « ϕ, ϕ -> ψ |- ψ » which i can substitute the metavariables therein for the propositional variables in my syllogism. as you can see, the concept of certainty was needed nowhere. also, a syllogism isn’t sound or valid in virtue of the truth of its
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo the fact that i don’t believe certainty is a coherent concept has no bearing on whether such a series of steps exists, so again, you can just give it. your refusing to give this series of steps makes it seem as though there is no such series of steps
English
@aboupinel @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo but you just said you dont believe in certainty. i cant if you believe that
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo you can just give me the steps to verify the proposition « this syllogism with premises p, q, r… and conclusion ϕ is valid » such that the syntax of the propositions in the syllogism is overlooked
English
@aboupinel @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo if you reject any veracity and first principles, nothing can be known for certain. your question has no reasonable answer. wed have to discuss a completely different topic
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo but if there is a way for you to e.g., verify whether an argument is valid that doesn’t involve looking at the syntax of its premises and conclusion, it would have no bearing on my current beliefs about these things and vice versa
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo i’m not sure how it’s relevant, i reject the existence of propositions that we somehow just intuit, irregardless of our background facts, and certainty is just an absurd concept
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo okay, can you tell me how you would verify whether a syllogism is sound or whether a proposition is entailed from a set of propositions without representing the propositions in this syntactic way (i.e., while overlooking their contents)
English
@aboupinel @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo because i know when i do that and when i dont. i can differentiate those processes in my mind because they differ in quality
English
@JamRam96 @YosarianTwo the inference from « consciousness is a physically instantiated process » to « computers can only simulate consciousness » is obviously not warranted
English
@YosarianTwo Intelligence requires understanding, and understanding requires consciousness. No computer can be conscious, because consciousness is a physically instantiated process, and therefore something that computers can only simulate. A simulation of weather will never become the weather
English
@bouncingrocks @madjam1231 @YosarianTwo i’m confused as to why you would believe that human beings don’t do this
English
@madjam1231 @YosarianTwo it essentially sees bezee, Hab, dinner, and John as A, B, C, and D and the sentences containing them in its response as reciprocals of the sentences you gave it. It has no knowledge of what it's outputting.
English
@Prototype27F That's not the point; the point is labour doesn't depend on a single economic system,in this case,capitalism/profit.
The communists' project is to creste efficiency on a large scale without profit
Today it's assumed that AI and computer systems can be used to replace profit.
English
Growing food takes up labor, and said labor has a cost.
Profiting off of food is just a way to compensate the people putting food on our tables
Albin 🇨🇺 🇵🇸 ☭@50ShadesOfEndo
Why should anyone profit off of food?
English
@bmwisswell but i think we both know this. it seems like you’re being daft for some reason
English
@bmwisswell because it either constitutes denial of the fact that jews got expelled from arab countries, or irrelevancy. if she wanted to make the point that europe had a worse track record, she could have just said that instead of seemingly denying arab antisemitism
English
