Probably because you wanted to be pedantic and unserious.

That is not as smart of a question as you want it to be. Unfortunately for you, not everything can be modeled mathematically, or if you wish to be extremely minute, not everything can be currently mathematically modeled efficiently and precisely because it would require knowledge or resources far eclipsing what we have available. If you just want to push up your glasses and ACKSHUALLY me, then it’s also possible to do anything, hurr hurr.

To even fucking PRETEND that we can model a brain right now is hilarious to me, but to equate that to LLMs is downright moronic. Human brains are not created, trained, or used in any way similar to LLMs, no matter what anyone says, but you are insinuating that they are somehow similar??? They are a simulation of a learning algorithm, trained through brute force tactics, and used for pattern completion. That’s just not how that works!

And yet, in spite of the petabytes of data they fucking jam into these pieces of shit, they still can’t even draw hands correctly. They still can’t figure out the seahorse emoji. They still don’t know why strawberry has two Rs! They continuously repeat only the things they hear, and need to have these errors fixed manually. They don’t know anything. And that’s why they aren’t intelligent. They are fed data points. They create estimations. But they do not understand what the connections between those points are. And no amount of pointing at humans will fix that.

Just as a brain is not a giant statistics problem, LLMs are not intelligent. LLMs are basically large math problems that take what you put into them and calculate the remainder. That isn’t an emergent behavior. That isn’t intelligence at all.

If I type into a calculator 20*10 and it gives me 200, is that a sign of intelligence that the calculator can do math? I never programmed it to know what 10 or 20 or 200 were, though I did make it know what multiplication is and what digits and numbers are, but those particular things it totally created on its own after that!!!

When you type a sentence into an LLM and it returns with an approximation of what a response sounds like, you should treat it the same way. People programmed these things to do the things that they are doing, so what behavior is fucking emergent?

Holy shit. This is the craziest article to write about one of the shittiest videos I have ever seen.

That video is glazing the fuck out of LLMs, and the creator knows jackshit about how AIs or even computers work. What a fucking moron.

So, like, the point of the experiment is that LLMs will generate outputs based on their inputs, and then those outputs are interpreted by an intermediary program to do things in games. And the video is trying to pretend that this is LITERALLY a new intelligent species emerging because you never told it to do anything other than its initial goal! Which… Isn’t impressive? LLMs generate outputs based on their datasets, like, that’s not in question. That isn’t intelligence, because it is just one giant mathematics problem.

This article is a giant pile of shit.

But that’s exactly how an LLM is trained. It doesn’t know how words are spelled because words are turned into numbers and processed. But it does know when its dataset has multiple correlations for something. Specifically, people spell out words, so it will regurgitate to you how to spell strawberry, but it can’t count letters because that’s not a thing that language models do.

Generative AI and LLMs are just giant reconstruction bots that take all the data they have and reconstruct something. That’s literally what they do.

Like, without knowing what your answer is for assassin, I will assume that your issue is that the question is probably “How many asses are in assassin?” But, like, that’s a joke. Assassins only has one ass, just like the rest of us. That’s a joke. And nobody would ever spell assassin as assin, so why would it learn that there are two asses in assassin?

I’m confused where you are getting your information from, but this is not particularly special behavior.

Actually, the Rs issue is funny because it WAS trained on that exact information which is why it says strawberry has two Rs, so it’s actually more proof that it only knows what it has been given data on. The thing is, when people misspelled strawberry as “strawbery”, then naturally, people respond, " Strawberry has two Rs." The problem is that LLM learning has no concept of context because it isn’t learning anything. The reinforcement mechanism is what the majority of its data tells it. It regurgitates that strawberry has two Rs because it has been reinforced by its dataset.

Just gotta generate some more means to divide ourselves!

Yeah, idk, man, those guys that infiltrated leftist groups were fucking stupid and were easily picked out because they were morons that didn’t understand why people were leftist. But, sure, you gotta gatekeep to stop those idiots, lol.

I think it is. To say that you need to perform some arbitrary action or have some arbitrary prerequisite to be a member of a belief structure is silly. I see it as simply being that you are a leftist if you have leftist ideals. Like, you can argue about the applicability of communist vs anarchist vs socialist, because those relate to organizational structures, but to say you can’t label yourself as a leftist for a reason that isn’t really related to being a leftist is just moral gatekeeeping.

Right. I think it’d be great if they have that drive. But some of them won’t. And I don’t see them as not a leftist just because they don’t. And I especially don’t see it as harmful to me if they identify as such. The label isn’t mine to dole out.

Yes, I understand that you think that. I also don’t agree with you. I think you are gate keeping a term.

Like, if I want to dismantle hierarchical structures that oppress me and all that jazz, but I know jackshit about class because I don’t read or participate because I just gotta work my day job day in and day out, am I not a leftist? I don’t think the answer is no. Now, I wouldn’t trust a person like that to make good decisions in forwarding or explaining leftist ideas, but… They’re not the problem. I don’t even care if they call themselves a leftist because they’re not contributing the problems. Like… This feels like a fake problem.

To me, I don’t think it’s possible for everyone to be knowledgeable about the things they believe in. I think it’d be great if they were, but it’s not always a great starting point for everyone, and if a stoner bro wants to call them self a leftist, ain’t no skin off my back. Anyone that was going to use that guy as baggage against me was going to also use sex workers and unhoused people and gay people and trans people and furries and anyone else that’s seen as undesirable. I just don’t give a fuck, man.

Yeah, no, I heard you the first time. I just don’t get why you give a fuck. They’re not doing anything negative, so who fucking cares what the call themselves?

Lmao. Are you gatekeeping being a leftist?

If no one cares, why didn’t they disclose they used AI?

NSFW. This links to the meme page with a citation to the original comic, but this page contains a description. The meme page is SFW, but the citation is NOT.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/im-hungry-i-gotta-poop#fn1

Don’t look at it, it’s exactly what you think it is, but y’all wanna not listen, then go ahead.

Clearly, you don’t have the maternal instincts either.

I think that’s a fair stance to take. I just don’t believe that the state protects us from the wealthy, though I do think it could. But, I would rather dissipate the power the state holds so no one can use its mechanisms against the people, and whether that be by distributing power away from centralized sources or through some other means, such as periodic redistribution, I think they’re workable solutions.

But, I’ll admit my stance is a bit too rigid, but take that as my optimal solution, and not my only acceptable one.

Groups can organize without a leader. Rules can exist without rulers. It is silly to say the only thing protecting us from the wealthy is the state, when the wealthy are far more protected by the state.

But, I do understand what you’re saying. What happens when someone breaks the rules? Who enforces those rules? But when the wealthy capture the state (and that is ultimately the goal of the wealthy), the rules will still be unenforceable against them. So, I’d say it kinda fundamentally falls apart eventually.

But, that’s not an answer. The real answer is that it is on the citizens to topple corrupt states, but they don’t necessarily need a state to make that possible.

The rich didn’t create themselves, buddy.

How can you tell me it is false at the same time you tell me there’s not a lot of information passing between the two? These statements are in contention. But, like, I wouldn’t even think they literally all have the same haircut. I would think there is a prevalence to have similar hairdos. Because nationalism is like that. You idolize the military, you get people trying to look like the military. It’s not rocket surgery.

This is a weird misinformation combat strategy, where you tell me something isn’t true that is for sure not true, and then point to something that might or might not be true and say that it is the same thing. Because they’re not. If anything, it makes me feel like the opposite. Heck, I can even say that someone eating rats isn’t particularly crazy when you make me think about it. I’ve seen some poor conditions, and eating squirrels and rabbits isn’t that different from eatings rats, and there are people that do that here in America. Like, is eating a rat even that bad? It feels kinda like shaming someone for trying to survive. And I didn’t even really care about the haircut thing! Omg!

I don’t have an issue with having an issue with all existing countries. Why would I? It doesn’t defend your point to say “oh so you hate when other people do it?” Yes! Obviously! I think military parades are bad, specifically because it glorifies violence and promotes a national identity around use of that violence to keep people insular. Like, if you dislike imperialism, you kinda should dislike nationalism, even when used in self-defense because it is a huge double-edged sword.

Real life is never so simple as to be either good or bad. Are things good in the country you live in?

Good and bad are comparators. Some places are better, some are worse. But the argument indicates that we should treat an unknown as better than a known, and that the red flags are just flags. I like the optimism, truly, but I would rather see evidence for it.