jibalt

10 ms·

1.
by jibalt 3y ago
Something odd happens with that Tokyo woman's legs. First she skips a couple of times, then her feet change places.
2.
by jibalt 3y ago
No, you. I was neither mean nor confrontational, I merely expressed my personal skepticism. I could have gone into detail as to why his statement is implausible, but that would have been mean. So as to minimize confrontation, I won't r
3.
by jibalt 3y ago
Obviously not.
4.
by jibalt 3y ago
There is not only one definition of a circle. There are many definitions, all of which are consistent with each other.
5.
by jibalt 3y ago
> Ah, but in a circle the circumference is always equidistant to the centre, which is never true of an ellipse. It's never true of an ellipse that isn't a circle . i.e., this is a--ahem--circular argument.
6.
by jibalt 3y ago
"I've thought very carefully on what kind of evidence could be presented to me to show that Christianity was wrong" I don't believe this. "I'd be interested in what kind of evidence Dennet would accept to show
7.
by jibalt 3y ago
"An important part of being able to truly ask oneself if they are wrong is the humility to seriously consider an alternative." Which he did, at length. "The author's treating of ID research as a foregone conclusion"
8.
by jibalt 3y ago
Having spent months trying to track down bugs that turned out to be due to occasional timing errors in esoteric mechanical devices, it is indeed a relief when I discover that a bug is due to something I did wrong and am able to fix.
9.
by jibalt 3y ago
Especially for this philosopher, whose life work has been in Theory of Mind, delving into what thinking is, how it happens, and how it works.
10.
by jibalt 3y ago
Have you considered the possibility that you're wrong? Because that's definitely not it. Consider that, as you acknowledged, you don't even know who he is, so you certainly aren't familiar with his work.
11.
by jibalt 3y ago
You can find numerous discussions of his dissertation and first book on line.
12.
by jibalt 3y ago
Dan was toying with you ... his thesis was on the distinction between consciousness and the contents of consciousness, and he more than anyone was familiar with the point you were making (erroneously).
13.
by jibalt 3y ago
Have you considered the possibility that you're wrong? Because I for one think you're seriously misreading and mischaracterizing his piece, and failing to extract from it some valuable advice.
14.
by jibalt 3y ago
Have you considered the possibility that you're wrong? Dan Dennett is one of the world's most renowned thinkers, and you would do well to take the broader lesson of his article to heart. Also look into Dunning and Kruger.
15.
by jibalt 3y ago
The generalization is absurd and it's not intellectually honest to defend it.
16.
by jibalt 3y ago
The article (did anyone here read it?) explains in some detail how it has to do with intelligence.
17.
by jibalt 3y ago
No, this is about solving problems ... that is, getting correct solutions.
18.
by jibalt 3y ago
>I find such summary ambiguous. Difficult for who? This is spelled out in the article ... difficulty is relative among problems, with increasingly difficult problems within the same problem space.
19.
by jibalt 3y ago
>This is my big gripe with the intellectual crowd - because they want to be smart solely for being smart's sake so they'll sacrifice the due diligence it takes to correctly solve a problem in order to "get further" an
20.
by jibalt 4y ago
That misses the point, which is that it only does statistical text matching, not arithmetic.
21.
by jibalt 4y ago
It has some memory of what your previous queries were that it uses for context; it does not know what its previous outputs were and never has.
22.
by jibalt 4y ago
No, you can't teach it anything, and it will tell you so--it cannot integrate knowledge you try to give it into its responses (remembering the context of previous queries is a very different thing). And even if it could, "adding&#
23.
by jibalt 4y ago
This is a basic and common misunderstanding. ChatGPT is able to do that because people are able to do it and their reasoning appears in ChatGPT's database, which it syntactically links to your queries. It has no semantic understand
24.
by jibalt 4y ago
The same way we do--by having semantic language models and conceptual models of the world. LLMs are just syntax manipulators; they have statistical models of how different pieces of text relate to each other, but no models of how they relat
25.
by jibalt 4y ago
It's simply producing the response that its database indicates is most likely. Since most people would say that they can do math, that's going to dominate the database and will be the result. When George Lemoine asked LaMDA "
26.
by jibalt 4y ago
It didn't compute anything--it manipulates syntax with no understanding of what the terms in the text mean. chomp explained how it works--it does a statistical evaluation of the most likely textual response to your query, based on the
27.
by jibalt 4y ago
It doesn't grasp any language concepts; it doesn't grasp anything. It's a statistically driven text matcher, but it has no understanding of the content of the text.
28.
by jibalt 4y ago
I've done the math; this is false.
29.
by jibalt 4y ago
"the entire US being dominated by LA and NYC as a good thing either" This is a ridiculous strawman. One person one vote is a good thing, and LA and NYC do not nearly have a majority of the population ... but if they did, then poli
30.
by jibalt 4y ago
Restricting POC from voting is indeed racism and the U.S. has a long history of it.

More ›