Are there any real-world time-series that are known to be easy to forecast? Something I could use as an example of "this is what forecasts look like when it's actually possible to predict your time-series and your model is actually doing it"?
Yes, I'm diving a bit too deeply because I don't really know what "thinking" is and therefore I don't understand how we can so confidently say that LLMs don't think, even though they definitely LOOK like they're thinking. They even have a "Thinking" section in their responses! If I say that a rock doesn't think, it's pretty convincing: does a rock look like it's thinking? No — it doesn't even do anything! But an LLM does look like it's thinking, at least while generating a response. When it's "offline" it's just a bunch of "dead" bytes, sure.
So when it's not active, not responding to a prompt, it's of course not thinking. I'm pretty sure nobody actually questions this. Is your computer "thinking" when it's powered off? Can a piece of metal think? Probably not. So there are no thoughts between prompts, this seems obvious.
Thus, this is a question of "discrete time vs continuous time". LLMs "live" from prompt to prompt. Humans are alive continuously. In some sense, we're prompted by a lot of things all the time. As I'm writing this, I'm seeing stuff, I'm hearing stuff, I can feel various parts of my body, I'm thinking about my problems, my goals, other people's problems and goals, etc. When I'm in a sensory deprivation tank, my brain keeps "entertaining" me by "self-prompting", like a recurrent neural network (I guess it literally is a massive RNN).
So it seems like your definition of "thinking" hinges upon the LLMs being discrete-time and single-threaded (can't think about multiple things in parallel).
IMO a more interesting question is whether an LLM is thinking WHILE IT'S GENERATING A RESPONSE, while it's "alive".
LMAO at how the two of you sound authoritative and knowledgeable, but neither linked to ANY studies (or at least personal anecdotes) to support your claims.
Yet here we are, warning each other about the dangers of LLM hallucinations. Humans "hallucinate" (provide random authoritative-looking information without anything to back it up) pretty often too.
If "agency" is making decisions and performing corresponding actions in the real world, then LLMs most definitely LOOK LIKE they're making decisions (what's the next token? which tool to use? what's to say, in general? what idea to convey?) and performing actions (tool use). Can we tell whether they are ACTUALLY making decisions? Well, are the people around me "actually" making decisions? Or are they simply pushed around by circumstances and external forces?
Am I actually making decisions? Did I like DECIDE to write this comment? Maybe? I have no clue...
Petition to force everyone saying "you need to read about XYZ" to provide at least 2 sources where one can actually read about XYZ.
- If you can't provide any sources, it's safe to assume you don't actually know what you're talking about.
- If you can, but choose not to, why? This simply weakens your argument.
- When you say "you need to read about XYZ", you probably WANT people to read about this, right? So why not point them at least to Wikipedia?
> Streaming services rent you access. Digital stores sell you a license that can be taken away. Physical media gives you an object that is yours, offline, and in your hands.
>
> Physical media can be given away, inherited, or found at a thrift store decades from now. A digital license becomes inaccessible when an account is closed or deleted. A vinyl record or printed book can remain usable across generations.
Right, so "they" can (and do) take away your purchased content basically at any time. You don't even purchase the actual content anymore. Is anyone actually doing anything about it? How successful are they? The only well-known way of actually owning your content seems to be piracy.
Yeah, the article reads like they suddenly realized that trees are alive and rushed to make their discovery a law. Look how ridiculous this sounds:
> Desrochers' film, called Des arbes et des arts convinced citizens that trees are living entities that breathe and communicate with each other through their root systems.
Did the citizens... not know that trees are alive? Have they never seen a tree? What do you mean a film convinced them that trees are living entities??? Did schools not convince them of this? Seems like a massive failure of the education system.
> "A tree is like a human being," Bourdeau said. "It breathes, it lives, it takes in water..."
Yes! They're ALIVE and thus are "like a human being". A tree is like a human being, a cockroach is like a human being, a horse is like a human being. Everything that's alive is "like a human being"!
> ...the tree declaration is special because it acknowledges that a single tree is an ecosystem of its own, which can provide shade, food and habitat for other species.
Special compared to what? It seems like the lawmakers went outside for the first time, saw trees and were genuinely fascinated with them. Yes, even a single tree can be an ecosystem of its own. Is this not common knowledge? How is this special?
> ...[trees] have dignity and they have senses," she said. "Not sentiments, but senses ... They can feel and they communicate with each other in a very specific way."
I'm not an expert in trees, but it would make a lot of sense if trees could communicate with each other. Complex root systems, various pheromones, sure, communication could totally be possible. Dignity, though? Of course, a robust, tall tree definitely looks like a worthy person. But they seem to mean this literally, which sounds like nonsense.
> "What do trees do if not standing?" she said. "If anything has standing, it's a tree."
This sounds profound, but I'm not sure what it means.
It seems like the major difference between plotnine and lets-plot is that plotnine wraps Matplotlib (and thus works everywhere Matplotlib is available, but doesn't offer much interactivity), while lets-plot is written in Kotlin and seems to provide interactive plots.
So does this mean that, say, Apple actually doesn't have access to our FaceID data? Otherwise there'd be no need for no laws: just force Apple, Google, etc to share face information with "the government". Well, I guess technically "they" would probably need some kind of law to do this anyway. I feel like tons of people use various kinds of FaceID-type technologies for unlocking their phones, laptops, etc. So it would make sense if "they" already had all of our faces.
I personally don't use FaceID because I'm not thrilled about having my face scanned with utmost precision. BTW, I'm looking at my phone typing this and I know my phone has its face-scanning device pointed right at me. Is it sending "them" my face data all the time? Or sometimes? I can't tell. What if I'm showing something on my phone to another person? Is it going to scan their face too? Maybe, maybe not.
Wait, this isn't real, is it? Is there actually an intermediate model that translates DeepSeek's thinking from its "alien language" into human languages? That's not actually the case, right?
I thought "thinking" is literally the model generating additional text in a human language that shows its "thought process". It's added to the model's context, which helps it reason better because it now has this self-generated context.
The "their own language" idea seems to come from some recent science fiction where LLMs develop their alien language and take over the world by 2037 or something.
According to https://github.com/rawbytess/hissab, it's not even close to being an alternative to Wolfram. Hissab is described as "A strict, unit-aware natural-language calculator" and its syntax looks nothing like Wolfram. It reminds me of Wolfram Alpha, though.
> ...no stable identity to it ... what's doing the thinking?
The model (its parameters, its architecture and the inference algorithm) is doing the thinking. That's what we call "ChatGPT" or "Claude": it's the same model residing God knows where, somewhere in "the cloud" on some random GPUs. But when you're talking to a model, you can feel that you're talking to the same entity — the same model.
It's a bit like the SciFi notion of "uploading your consciousness". Normally, consciousness is tied to hardware: "consciousness is confined to the body" indeed. Hypothetically, clone the consciousness into a computer algorithm and run it on any machine. Now consciousness is detached from its original body, like the LLMs and MMAcevedo (https://qntm.org/mmacevedo).
So the difference between meat and "weights" is that we can easily clone and run "weights" (LLMs), but we can't clone (copy exactly, bit-by-bit) and execute "meat".
Yeah, pretty sure the vast majority of people in general doesn't understand what "consciousness" or "subjective experience" even mean or what the brain does. Or it's just me and I'm projecting my thoughts onto others. I studied some philosophy, so I know that some philosophers are preoccupied with "existence" and the mind and "consciousness". However, I don't quite understand what these words even mean. So who am I to judge whether LLMs have consciousness? I don't even know what consciousness IS! Do other people know? I'm not sure.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't misunderstand the original. The original says that the aliens don't understand how meat (humans) can be conscious, have language and be basically like the aliens (thinking conscious beings). Their main idea is: humans are meat, meat can't be conscious, therefore humans can't be conscious, but they somehow act as if they are????
The "AI slop" here says that just like the aliens in the original, we humans don't believe that LLMs can be conscious because, in essence, WEIGHTS CAN'T BE CONSCIOUS. Original: "meat can't be conscious" (but we humans know it can). This version: "weights can't be conscious" (and we humans INSIST that this is true).
So the message here is: what if we're as mistaken about the consciousness of "weights" as the aliens are mistaken about the consciousness of "meat"?
Initially I thought this was a joke (Julia doesn't seem to be popular enough to be one of the cornerstones of Jupyter, compared to Python and R), but indeed, Jupyter's documentation says it's true:
> The name Jupyter comes from the three programming languages the project originally supported: Julia (ju), Python (pyt) and R (r).
LLM tell? Inanimate objects and concepts are treated as actors all the time: the series converges, the function reaches its maximum, the sun shines, the wind blows, history repeats itself, words rhyme, interest compounds, etc.
What's wrong with "configs store parameters"? I guess "parameters are stored in configs" could be more correct, but IMO it means exactly the same thing and sounds just as natural. "Six bytes match ten" is shorthand for "the performance of the algorithm that uses six bytes of storage matches the performance of the algorithm that uses ten bytes of storage". But here we have "performance matches", which is an inanimate concept doing something, so is this an LLM smell too?