I’m not sure I agree, but then it goes to my second question:

What’s the effective difference?

Chat GPT had the book entirely memorized

I feel like this exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs are trained.

This is a vague non answer, although I agree it’s done very differently because our process is biological and ai is not.

But as I asked elsewhere, what’s the effective difference?

I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what “know” actually means.

But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I’m asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.

But this is why I asked the follow up question…what’s the effective difference? Don’t get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.

So, it’s either perfect right now, or never capable of anything. Great critical and nuanced thinking.

spicy autocomplete clearly cannot.

What you are basing this “it clearly cannot” on? Because an early iteration of it was mediocre at it? The first ICE cars were slower than horses, I’m afraid this statement may be the equivalent of someone pointing at that and saying “cars can’t get good at going fast.”

But I specifically asked “in this regard”, referring to taking a test after previously having trained yourself on the data.

No, I don’t. Trump came dangerously close to creating a constitutional crisis that day, that he could have leveraged to retain power, by getting his dumbass cultists to attack the capitol. Had they succeeded in killing the VP, the one who is supposed to certify the election, there would have legit been a constitutional crisis.

I absolutely agree. However, if you think the LLMs are just fancy LUTs, then I strongly disagree. Unless, of course, we are also just fancy LUTs.

My question to you is how is it different than a human in this regard? I would go to class, study the material, hope to retain it, so I could then apply that knowledge on the test.

The ai is trained on the data, “hopes” to retain it, so it can apply it on the test. It’s not storing the book, so what’s the actual difference?

And if you have an answer to that, my follow up would be “what’s the effective difference?” If we stick an ai and a human in a closed room and give them a test, why does it matter the intricacies of how they are storing and recalling the data?

Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We’ve been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.

This is part of what makes ai so “scary” that it can basically know so much.

I responded literally directly to what was said by pointing out that article notes that the gag order includes a ban on him directing other people to speak for him.

And I didn’t actually address it? How does one even reason themselves into such a ridiculously mindless position?

I figured it was just some turn of phrase I had never heard before.

If you just rtfa you would see that he’s also barred from directing a third party to say something.

But, nah, reading and educating yourself takes precious time away from being outraged. Hell, sometimes it makes it even harder to find a reason to be outraged.

You ignored data twice

I addressed all of the data you provided, even asking for further clarification for one of the sources. You just hand-waved my point, with data, away. Even now trying to claim that I didn’t provide it. And you’re accusing me of ignoring data. Lol Just another projection. You’re good at doing this.

Because nobody is upset that he found her attractive.

You should absolutely read the rest of this thread because someone outright said that I deviate from the norm by finding some of them attractive, and even tried to equate being attracted to them to having the desire to murder.

But that being said, as I already very clearly and explicitly said, I agree laws should be in place to protect minors from predators. I’m also fine with it being based on age.

It’s just that you are, on one hand, saying legality and morality are not the same (correctly, imo) but then arguing with me that it’s morally bad in many cases so we need to have a clear law (which I also agree with), which makes what he did immoral. Maybe they were emotionally and intellectually compatible. I don’t know, as I don’t know either of them, and everyone close to it has said it was a good relationship. Who am I to say it was bad?

Of course it matters because I certainly don’t believe we should go back to that at all and I have no idea how you could had possibly gotten yourself there.

So not being open to changing your mind was a projection. I figured as much, its almost always people thinking they see themselves in other people when they make baseless accusations.

How did you possibly get yourself to this being a reasonable question?

That doesn’t appear to separate out the ages, it just says it typically happens 15-19, but can be as low as 10.

I have a feeling no matter how many facts or how much data I present to refute your position you aren’t going to be open to changing your mind.

Let’s see if you’re projecting:

“A woman’s fertility peaks between her late teens to late-20s after which it starts to decline”

But that being said, you recognize that this was typical, which seems you should also recognize that this is what we evolved around. If women were reproducing at a young age, but were dying slightly more by their 30s, this wasn’t creating downward evolutionary pressure.

girls under the age of 15 are five times more likely to die in pregnancy than women in their 20s

I put prime years at late teens to late 20s. This seems to confirm that, not contradict it.

The second link I cant see if or where they broke it out by age…only teen vs non-teen. I would be curious to see what would change if you moved the number to 17.