If you write five articles about the topic or any topic, will they be the same?
Sealioning:
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
I pointed out that your knowledge has a random element, too.
You fall back to
already explained multiple times how a glorified autocomplete predicting words is not knowledge.
I am not saying that LLM are not statistical. I am saying that your knowledge is statistical, too.
There is no request for evidence but I would be interested in understanding why “predicting words is not knowledge”.
So you’re just gonna keep sealioning and not take the hint. I’m done discussing, if you’re incapable of reading my previous comments on the discussion, then leave, stop commenting. This comment section has no room for bad faith sophistry with no relevant substance to the discussion at hand.
That’s not a counterexample, thats JAQing Off and your JAQoff is a false dichotomy. The form information takes and the information itself are not the same. If I make a video about how G is Grab in Blender, and then write an article about how G is Grab in Blender, and then make an audio recording about how G is Grab in Blender, and then I make a pictogram about how G is Grab in Blender, and then create an interpretive dance about how G is Grab in Blender, they all look different but are communicating the same piece of information: that G is Grab in Blender.
The forms are different, the information is the same. AI doesn’t do that. It predicts tokens of what is most likely without any understanding of the concept.
The form information takes and the information itself are not the same.
Like that dance, your imagination is also a representation and not the information itself, which makes it subject to the random processes that happen in your brain.
My comment was a counter-example. The situation is similar but not the same. It could be considered a statistical match.
No it wasn’t, stop lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Sealioning:
I pointed out that your knowledge has a random element, too.
You fall back to
I am not saying that LLM are not statistical. I am saying that your knowledge is statistical, too.
There is no request for evidence but I would be interested in understanding why “predicting words is not knowledge”.
So you’re just gonna keep sealioning and not take the hint. I’m done discussing, if you’re incapable of reading my previous comments on the discussion, then leave, stop commenting. This comment section has no room for bad faith sophistry with no relevant substance to the discussion at hand.
A counter-example is not sealioning. Otherwise you could claim the earth is flat and win all debates by calling all counter-arguments sealioning.
You never gave any counter examples, you have only been spending your time in this thread JAQing off.
That’s not a counterexample, thats JAQing Off and your JAQoff is a false dichotomy. The form information takes and the information itself are not the same. If I make a video about how G is Grab in Blender, and then write an article about how G is Grab in Blender, and then make an audio recording about how G is Grab in Blender, and then I make a pictogram about how G is Grab in Blender, and then create an interpretive dance about how G is Grab in Blender, they all look different but are communicating the same piece of information: that G is Grab in Blender.
The forms are different, the information is the same. AI doesn’t do that. It predicts tokens of what is most likely without any understanding of the concept.
Like that dance, your imagination is also a representation and not the information itself, which makes it subject to the random processes that happen in your brain.