Yes, and that is precisely what you have done in your response.
You saw something you disagreed with, as did I. You felt an impulse to argue about it, as did I. You predicted the right series of words to convey the are argument, and then typed them, as did I.
There is no deep thought to what either of us has done here. We have in fact both performed as little rigorous thought as necessary, instead relying on experience from seeing other people do the same thing, because that is vastly more efficient than doing a full philosophical disassembly of every last thing we converse about.
That disassembly is expensive. Not only does it take time, but it puts us at risk of having to reevaluate notions that we’re comfortable with, and would rather not revisit. I look at what you’ve written, and I see no sign of a mind that is in a state suitable for that. Your words are defensive (“delusion”) rather than curious, so how can you have a discussion that is intellectual, rather than merely pretending to be?
kromem@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Are you under the impression that language models are just guessing “what letter comes next in this sequence of letters”?
There’s a very significant difference between training on completion and the way the world model actually functions once established.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 9 months ago
No dude I’m not under that impression, and I’m not going to take an quiz from you to prove I understand how LLMs work. I’m fine with you not agreeing with me.