6 ms·
Because the experts weren't cited, and without provenance or review this is just "fancy slop".
by why-o-why 9mo ago
Because the experts weren't cited, and without provenance or review this is just "fancy slop".
- brokensegue 9mo agothis isn't a peer reviewed journal article though. do you have expertise in the field to say whether an expert would be able to decipher this?
- SirSavary 9mo agoThe book is written in Latin, not exactly a dead language.
- brokensegue 9mo agoThat isn't what the claim is about. I mean I don't think the source is particularly convincing but the claim is that it figured out the significance of the text not the literal meaning of the words
- roywiggins 9mo agoThe interesting claim is that this would be hard for an expert to do, which is basically unsupported outside of anonymous experts who spent an unknown amount of time on the question. It also doesn't quote any experts on whether Gemini's conclusions are reasonable.
- smallnix 9mo agoI know experts who deciphered this. But I will not tell you their names.
- why-o-why 9mo agoI don't think you understand the word "knowledge". Just because an LLM spews out an answer doesn't mean it is correct. It needs to be verified by experts in the field, that's how it becomes factual knowledge. Lord help us that I need to explain this.
- brokensegue 9mo agoI don't think this particular discussion has to do with the idea of knowledge. We're discussing whether human experts had previously deciphered the sections
- why-o-why 9mo agoWe are discussing whether the LLM deciphering is accurate. That hasn't been demonstrated as measured by review, provenance, cross-referencing among historical record, etc.