Probably because you wanted to be pedantic and unserious.

That is not as smart of a question as you want it to be. Unfortunately for you, not everything can be modeled mathematically, or if you wish to be extremely minute, not everything can be currently mathematically modeled efficiently and precisely because it would require knowledge or resources far eclipsing what we have available. If you just want to push up your glasses and ACKSHUALLY me, then it’s also possible to do anything, hurr hurr.

To even fucking PRETEND that we can model a brain right now is hilarious to me, but to equate that to LLMs is downright moronic. Human brains are not created, trained, or used in any way similar to LLMs, no matter what anyone says, but you are insinuating that they are somehow similar??? They are a simulation of a learning algorithm, trained through brute force tactics, and used for pattern completion. That’s just not how that works!

And yet, in spite of the petabytes of data they fucking jam into these pieces of shit, they still can’t even draw hands correctly. They still can’t figure out the seahorse emoji. They still don’t know why strawberry has two Rs! They continuously repeat only the things they hear, and need to have these errors fixed manually. They don’t know anything. And that’s why they aren’t intelligent. They are fed data points. They create estimations. But they do not understand what the connections between those points are. And no amount of pointing at humans will fix that.

Just as a brain is not a giant statistics problem, LLMs are not intelligent. LLMs are basically large math problems that take what you put into them and calculate the remainder. That isn’t an emergent behavior. That isn’t intelligence at all.

If I type into a calculator 20*10 and it gives me 200, is that a sign of intelligence that the calculator can do math? I never programmed it to know what 10 or 20 or 200 were, though I did make it know what multiplication is and what digits and numbers are, but those particular things it totally created on its own after that!!!

When you type a sentence into an LLM and it returns with an approximation of what a response sounds like, you should treat it the same way. People programmed these things to do the things that they are doing, so what behavior is fucking emergent?

Holy shit. This is the craziest article to write about one of the shittiest videos I have ever seen.

That video is glazing the fuck out of LLMs, and the creator knows jackshit about how AIs or even computers work. What a fucking moron.

So, like, the point of the experiment is that LLMs will generate outputs based on their inputs, and then those outputs are interpreted by an intermediary program to do things in games. And the video is trying to pretend that this is LITERALLY a new intelligent species emerging because you never told it to do anything other than its initial goal! Which… Isn’t impressive? LLMs generate outputs based on their datasets, like, that’s not in question. That isn’t intelligence, because it is just one giant mathematics problem.

This article is a giant pile of shit.

Yeah, considering I went over how there are Republicans that have actively lynched people for their race, I think I covered that pretty well, but let’s pretend I didn’t because not everyone can understand things the first time.

Tough on crime is passive because it is not about saying white people are superior, a thing Republicans do. It is also not actively telling people that Muslims are worse than dogs, a thing Republicans do. While the mechanisms of the state actively target minorities to a significantly higher degree, this is passively racist because it relies on underlying connections to tie minorities to crimes.

See, the sad part about your argument is that Republicans platform and actively defend the people who shoot minorities and actively defend the people who do so. Motherfuckers out here pretending the people who shoot up black churches and synagogues are anything other than Republicans, are hilariously bad faith. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are somehow just as racist as hate crime doers and defenders has shit for brains. That’s active racism, and yeah, it’s fucking worse.

Unless you think killing minorities and telling people to kill minorities is better than just saying “we’re tough on crime”. Do you think that?

Democrats are just as racist as the Republicans

That’s just not true. They are obviously not even close to the same. They are both racist (and even both very racist), but actively engaging in white supremacy IS WORSE and I shouldn’t have to explain why. You can argue that they are both bad, but I think the side that is okay with a former police officer chasing a black man down with his truck and shooting him might be worse.

I get that you want to equate these two, that any amount of racism is somehow just as bad, but it just fucking isn’t, and I’m tired of this “both sides” bullshit when one side has active lynchers in its midsts and brandishes at the sight of a black person. Make an argument that calls out the “tough on crime” narrative that passively destroys the lives of racial minorities, but don’t call them the same. That’s such a weenie position.

But that’s exactly how an LLM is trained. It doesn’t know how words are spelled because words are turned into numbers and processed. But it does know when its dataset has multiple correlations for something. Specifically, people spell out words, so it will regurgitate to you how to spell strawberry, but it can’t count letters because that’s not a thing that language models do.

Generative AI and LLMs are just giant reconstruction bots that take all the data they have and reconstruct something. That’s literally what they do.

Like, without knowing what your answer is for assassin, I will assume that your issue is that the question is probably “How many asses are in assassin?” But, like, that’s a joke. Assassins only has one ass, just like the rest of us. That’s a joke. And nobody would ever spell assassin as assin, so why would it learn that there are two asses in assassin?

I’m confused where you are getting your information from, but this is not particularly special behavior.

Actually, the Rs issue is funny because it WAS trained on that exact information which is why it says strawberry has two Rs, so it’s actually more proof that it only knows what it has been given data on. The thing is, when people misspelled strawberry as “strawbery”, then naturally, people respond, " Strawberry has two Rs." The problem is that LLM learning has no concept of context because it isn’t learning anything. The reinforcement mechanism is what the majority of its data tells it. It regurgitates that strawberry has two Rs because it has been reinforced by its dataset.

???

Why are you being so rude?

You know, the Germans had a word for people that voted for Hitler for economic reasons. It was Nazi. It doesn’t matter if you support people that want to forcibly de-transition people because they have a better economic policy.

In the end, if you don’t support human rights, you’re a bad person, and there are so many better people out there to be friends with who won’t disappoint you. And the logic that stems from this thinking is: If someone votes for people who will take away others’ rights… What will they do to me? If they won’t protect others, they won’t protect me. Regardless of if that is true, we can only judge people by their words and actions, and it’s a really easy way to judge.

It isn’t anyone’s duty to be these people’s friends. You can do it, but it’s really obvious why most people wouldn’t. It literally is a privilege to not be angry and threatened by these people. That wasn’t a dismissal of your argument, but a point for you to reflect on.

Once again, do not play the privilege card. Not on me, not on anyone. It’s not a convincing argument, and it has not a real base. And it’s somehow discriminatory towards particular groups that you do not consider “unprivileged enough”.

That is a really weird and illogical argument.

What happens if she ends up being right and in 2 years that party goes into power and do not do anything to hurt me? And I have to live my life knowing I cut a good relationship because something I was wrong about.

That is a really weird and illogical hypothetical. Best answered with, “But what if they kill you instead?”. We ALL have a line in the sand where if someone supports a thing, they cannot be our friend anymore. Like, if my friend started saying Nazi things, but was a “good guy” otherwise, they wouldn’t be a good guy at all. I would give them a chance to not be a Nazi, and then we would either not be friends or they wouldn’t be a Nazi. Everyone has that, regardless of what you say or think, and it is disgustingly easy to prove. I can prove it, if you’d like, but I feel like you have already lost this argument by ignoring the Amanda party.

Don’t play the privilege card on my.

I absolutely will. Because you are ignoring yours. Being a part of a disadvantaged group doesn’t mean you don’t have privilege elsewhere. In fact, sometimes, that is the reason why you might ignore your privilege.

You are able to be calm with your friend because you do not see there is a danger. People like your friend haven’t hurt you. But would everyone else do the same? Your friend supports people that will hurt people like you, but do they think they can stop those people from hurting you?

I would rather lose a friend who didn’t want me hurt but supported people who would hurt me because that is not a logical view, no matter how calmly it is spoken.

it’s not a central theme for either of us, but even when we talk about it we have never argue, just talk differences calmly and with respect, we never insulted each other because politics.

This is a privilege you have that others do not.

If, for whatever reason, you were under the threat of violence every day, do you think you could be calm and rational? If that threatened violence against you hanging over your head was perpetuated by members of a political party, would you be calm and rational about that party? If this was because of something you couldn’t change about yourself, like being queer or black or a woman, would you be calm and rational? Do you think everyone could? Do you think a child could?

I know I couldn’t. I see these people breakdown over and over again. For something they did not choose. Sometimes for not being calm or rational.

It is silly to expect people to act calm and rational in the face of overwhelming prejudice, in the face of threats to your self, family, and friends, in the face of adversity–or worse, ennui–to your situation.

Let me steal an argument from a video I saw. Pretend you are having a party, and someone comes up to you and says that your friend Amanda should be kicked out of the party, that she doesn’t deserve to be here, that she is drinking too much of your beer, and that if she goes, everyone can have more beer. You like Amanda because she is your friend and you know she is kind and funny. Let’s say you calmly and rationally debate this guy, but he adamantly repeats these things, over and over again. Do you think Amanda feels good at this party? Should you keep debating this loser? Or would you kick him out of the party, by force if necessary, because Amanda did nothing wrong? Now imagine this person says this about ALL Amandas. Do you think this changes the situation? What if someone else told you that this guy just really hates Amandas but he’s cool otherwise, even though he really harps on how Amandas are ruining this party. Do you think Amanda likes that second guy? Should Amanda be calm and rational to either of those two people?

Don’t hide behind the shitty half-assed news reports, you coward. Just name the actual Democrat that fired their vaccine board, so we can end this. Just name the actual Democrat that banned abortion federally, instead of posting fifteen useless articles. Just name the Democrat that kept child marriage protected because it’s easier. Just name the Democrat that deported my neighbor, specifically, since you seemed to have known him. Just name the Democrat that implemented a voting suppression measure, assuming you can find one within the last 25 years, instead of you saying that’s the same thing as ranked choice, which have been challenged by Republicans in every single instance (and this is the only instance you found for Democrats, if you could call it that, lol). Just name the Democrat that called queer people slurs openly and wants them tried for child sex crimes.

It should be so easy, right? If they’re the same, just fucking name them.

I don’t remember when the Democrats deported my neighbor or when they called self-proclaimed Nazis good guys or when they wanted to take away food stamps from single mothers or when they wanted to make voting harder or when they didn’t want to ban child marriage or when they wanted to take away the only source of food and housing for children, people with disabilities, and the elderly or when they wanted to ban vaccines or when they wanted to ban abortion or when they wanted to make being queer a child sex crime or when they ignored all of science, but I guess they were just too smart to do any of that.

The saying “you can’t butter a fly” is an idiom expressing that someone or something is too difficult to influence or manipulate. It’s rooted in the idea that butterflies, with their delicate nature, are virtually impossible to convince to do anything against their will, let alone “butter” them in a literal sense.