nice analogy between the output of llms with stream of thought conversation - wherein statements are made off the cuff and possibly confabulated.
as opposed to correlating statements with knowledge structures
knowledge structures as we construct it are symbolic, with symbols representing abstractions (ie classes), along with relations between these symbols. human ingenuity consists of coming up with new symbols or new relations between existing symbols (which is a process of abduction) based on new perceptual inputs (either our senses or instruments). Such knowledge structures are powerful because, they allow us to build giant towers based on solid foundations.
> For the things that you have deep knowledge on you
> will sometimes find yourself solving a problem
> just by constructing sentences.
This is another way of saying that you have clarity in that subject, and so your stream of thought aligns with knowledge structures - which is another to say that you really understand something. However, in my experience very few people are able to stay within their lanes (competence), and most of us tend to babble on topics we really dont have knowledge structures for. also, few people have the self-awareness of what they really have knowledge structures for (ie, know what they dont know).
this is anecdotal but a friend who owns a tesla has had no repairs except 2 battery replacements - each of which would have been prohibitive out-of-warranty.
A battery expert i spoke to said that battery management is a complex mechanism, with lots of software and electronics - and it is not yet modular to enable easy repairs by the local joe mechanic
I dont think the assertion that "EVs have lower maintenance cost" is backed by hard data yet.
And for DIYer like me who want a "right to repair" - EVs dont even have repair manuals - why would i want to buy one - and have the manufacturer own me ?
modern cars are too complex for their own good. the electricals in the car are the worst offenders here. it is too time consuming to debug and fix them.
no, but in other parts of the world, there is no sense that you will imminently a) change the world with some doodad gadget or b) be a millionaire by picking up a startup lottery ticket.
I guess we are at that part of the hype-cycle where the initial excitement is turning into doubt.
At this point, the vested interests (ai-vcs, startups, ai-researchers etc) must unleash a new wave of propaganda to keep the faith.
eg: sama drops a tweet: "saw AGI yesterday in a dark alley", or musk says "optimus did a cartwheel - whoohoo", or lecunn publishes "chain of thought is all you need" on arxiv.
methinks crypto had more legs than AI - at least the initial adopters made some quick cash out of it.
ok, here you go. another slight tweak to a standard puzzle and it falls.
btw, i am very impressed with how well chatGPT does on this puzzle thanks to the elaborate tuning that seems to have been done by the training.
---
A farmer has a wolf, a goat, and some cabbage - and he must cross a river by boat with his items. The boat can carry only the farmer and a single item. If left unattended together, wolf would eat the cabbage, or the wolf would eat the goat or the goat would eat the cabbage. How can they cross the river without anything being eaten?
---
To ensure that nothing gets eaten during the river crossing, the farmer can follow these steps:
Step 1: The farmer takes the goat across the river and leaves it on the other side.
On the other side: Farmer | Goat
On the original side: Wolf | Cabbage
Step 2: The farmer returns alone to the original side.
On the other side: Goat
On the original side: Farmer | Wolf | Cabbage
Step 3: The farmer takes the cabbage across the river.
On the other side: Farmer | Cabbage
On the original side: Wolf | Goat
Step 4: The farmer leaves the cabbage on the other side and takes the wolf back across the river.
On the other side: Cabbage
On the original side: Farmer | Wolf | Goat
Step 5: The farmer takes the wolf across the river.
On the other side: Wolf | Cabbage
On the original side: Farmer | Goat
Step 6: The farmer returns alone to the original side.
On the other side: Wolf
On the original side: Farmer | Goat | Cabbage
Now, all three items (wolf, goat, cabbage) and the farmer have safely crossed the river without anything being eaten.
LLMs are failing on tasks as simple as this. you can call it a trick question but what the hey.
"prove that there are no non negative numbers less than 3"
Claude puts out this elaborate BS - whats funny is the pretension.
----
This is trivial to prove by contradiction:
Assume there exists a non-negative number n < 3.
Then either:
n = 0. But 0 is not less than 3, so this is a contradiction.
0 < n < 3. But the only numbers between 0 and 3 are 1 and 2, and neither of those are less than 3, so this is also a contradiction.
Therefore, our assumption that such an n exists must be false. By contradiction, there are no non-negative numbers less than 3.
In formal logical terms:
Assume ∃n ∈ R, n ≥ 0 and n < 3 (There exists some non-negative number n less than 3)
Then either: a) n = 0. But 0 ≥ 3 is false, so this is a contradiction. b) 0 < n < 3. The only numbers in (0,3) are 1 and 2, neither of which is less than 3, so this is also a contradiction.
Therefore the assumption in (1) must be false. By contradiction, the statement ∀n ∈ R, n ≥ 0 → n ≥ 3 (For all non-negative numbers n, n is greater than or equal to 3) must be true.
So the proof by contradiction shows that there are no non-negative numbers less than 3.
----
boosters can hype all you want, but the damn thing cant compute. and please dont say - "but most humans will fail at this too"
meanwhile...: claude-coders working furiously to add this test case - lol.
suprised that cs peirce is not brought into this debate. he provided a coherent (almost scientific) theory of consciousness - sadly, he remains a forgotten philosopher due to his fragmentary writings.
The output of many professions is bag-of-words emotional persuation. eg. politicians, consultants, sociologists, psychologists, writers, economists, tv talking heads, media in general.
A characteristic of these professions is that there is no accountability for output they produce. It is not like a profession that builds an engine for a car. They can bullshit with confidence and get away with it.
chatGPT will replace all of them - as chatGPT itself can bullshit with the best of them.
the person is incentivized to view the events in that manner (ie works for or is associated with cruise/autopilot etc)...