that’s very true, I’m just saying this paper did not eliminate the possibility and is thus not as significant as it sounds. If they had accomplished that, the bubble would collapse, this will not meaningfully change anything, however.
that’s very true, I’m just saying this paper did not eliminate the possibility and is thus not as significant as it sounds. If they had accomplished that, the bubble would collapse, this will not meaningfully change anything, however.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This paper does provide a solid proof by counterexample of reasoning not occuring (following an algorithm) when it should.
The paper doesn’t need to prove that reasoning never has or will occur. It’s only demonstrates that current claims of AI reasoning are overhyped.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 weeks ago
It does need to do that to meaninfully change anything, however.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Other way around. The claimed meaningful change (reasoning) has not occurred.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 weeks ago
Meaningful change is not happening because of this paper, either, I don’t know why you’re playing semantic games with me though.