In fact LLMs are trained to predict the next token in the training set. Of course sometimes a new text input doesn't match the training set, or it matches two or more places in the training set. LLMs use a neural network to interpolate, so that's fine. Please look this up if you have any doubts.
Ok. Now. I think you're adding something to the description above. Maybe what you're describing is something "emergent," or maybe it's basically just word vectors that were built in on purpose. You may be adding something correct, or something incorrect. Fine.
But it's not reasonable to say that the "reductive" description above is a "lie". It's not. It's more like a recipe. If you look at correct instructions for making steak, and you call the author a "liar" then you are missing something important.
Look, some folks are more impassioned about this stuff than I am. Maybe that's a good thing. But LLMs do in fact just try to predict the next token, using a very big training set. They're very impressive (at tasks the training set prepares them for). But that's how they work.
No, they were correct. In fact an LLM stitches together stuff it observed in its training data. That scales up way better than a lot of us expected, but it's still correct.
If you train it on lots of working code, then it's useful for coding. If you trained it primarily on non-working code it would produce nonsense.
Wallhack is locked into the DNA of CS for some reason. The most common defense by far is mass denial. For the great majority of players that seems to be good enough.
When exposed to air at room temperature, or any other gas containing oxygen, pure aluminium self-passivates by forming a surface layer of amorphous aluminium oxide 2 to 3 nm thick,[4] which provides very effective protection against corrosion. Aluminium alloys typically form a thicker oxide layer, 5–15 nm thick, but tend to be more susceptible to corrosion.
I'll pick one incorrect claim out of many: Public ledger systems have no privacy at all, by design. You can hope nobody knows which wallet is yours, but that's not serious privacy. Today that's not even really hide-it-from-your-kid-brother privacy.
lol "self plagiarism". Max Planck got an "extra publication."
Counting papers is death. Everything connected with it is death. This is Max fucking Planck, who gave us the photon. We're judging him according to today's "standards." He's "failing."
>the idea of wave-packet collapse, when a measurement is done, is by itself completely unsound.
It sounds crazy if you read about the math first. Which almost everyone does ... now. But in the lab, if you set up a detector array that reports individual discrete particles arriving one at a time, that is exactly what you see. You just see random arrival times. You don't see a smooth wavefunction that then collapses.
The problem was never to start with the math and try to understand what's happening to a "wavefunction" or how the heck it could possibly "collapse." Instead they started with the crazy experimental results and made math that seems to always fit so far.
I think this is the real issue. Consumers love shiny cool stuff, but they don't like Clippy the paperclip. They like Siri when it helps but they don't like Siri when it impedes them.
What a conundrum! Why oh why are consumers reacting this way?