(define-relation (layero layer in out) ;; [2]
(conde
((== layer `(Linear ,in ,out)))
((== layer `(Relu ,in ,out))
(== in out))
((fresh (percent)
(== layer `(Dropout ,in ,out ,percent))
(== in out)
(countero percent)
(<o '(1) percent)
(<o percent '(0 0 1 0 0 1 1))))))
> We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.
It sounds like you're saying "We don't know how brains work, they're mysterious, there's something 'extra' happening", and using that as justification for why you're saying a computer, an AI, can't "understand".
I think most people on Hackernews now who would use the phrase "my AI worked overnight and hypothesized, compared, etc..." already know how an LLM works, and still chooses to use those words. So the issue isn't that they don't understand. It's that they understand and still use those words. So the disagreement is somewhere else.