Why would we

"Quantity has a quality all of its own,” Mabus liked to say.

Mabus sounds like a real dumbass

Not even a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, a tortilla, and one other thing

It doesn’t sound like you’ve met any Catholics

The Fast and Furious franchise

Ugh. The sick sense of relief I got when they announced it was cancelled, and the disgusting, fleeting hope I felt when they announced it was coming back 🤢

You’re with the normies in spirit, at least

"But surveillance of ⁠Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got.”

I get what she’s saying, but like… It’s shouldn’t take a whole fucking lot of deliberation to be like “mass surveillance? Lethal autonomy? How about no”

Is anyone else really skeeved out by the term “wetware”, or is that just me

It didn’t come off as nuance to me. Seemed more like you were providing an “um actually” semantic-wordplay type response, like you were striving for technically correct instead of just understanding the (pretty clear) implicit meaning in the comment you were replying to.

You’re disingenuously equating your full-size sedan and your crossover’s gas tanks and using that single piece of anecdotal (and completely unrelated) evidence to incorrectly imply that the drivers of sedans are going to suffer just as much as the dumbasses that still drive gas guzzlers.

Subcompact and compact cars generally have 8-10 gallon tanks, midsize cars generally have 10-14 gallon tanks, full size cars generally have 14-18 gallon tanks. The middle of that range is actually 13 gallons, so I was off a gallon. My b.

I like how you limited your data specifically to American sedans to fit your narrative though, despite neither of your cars being American, and despite American sedans not being even close to the top choice for sedan drivers, not even in America.

Sick flex, Tommy Two Cars

Average tank size for a sedan is like 12 gallons, btw. Imagine that, your experience isn’t representative of the whole. How mind blowing is that

it’s worth mentioning that being a decent christian should just require the knowledge of the important parts and certainly not the whole of it.

As soon as you can get the ~40,000 different denominations of Christianity to agree what “the important parts” are, which atrocities to heed, and which to ignore, you let us all know

You’re not gonna convince me, and I’m not gonna convince you. I’m done with this conversation before you devolve further into personal attacks.

Yeah your response sounded like it was generated by an LLM, so I had to check. If you think that’s bad faith on my part, idk what to tell you

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for scrambled eggs

It needed the rules, and it needed carefully worded questions that matched the parameters set by the rules. I bet if the questions’ wording didn’t match your rules so exactly, it would generate worse answers. Heck, I bet if you gave it the rules, then asked several completely unrelated questions, then asked it your carefully worded rules-based questions, it would perform worse, because it’s context window would be muddied. Because that’s what it’s generating responses based on - the contents of it’s context window, coupled with stats-based word generation.

I still maintain that it shouldn’t need the rules if it’s truly reasoning though. LLMs train on a massive set of data, surely the information required to reason out the answers to your container questions is in there. Surely if it can reason, it should be able to generate answers to simple logical puzzles without someone putting most of the pieces together for them first.

I can be convinced by contrary evidence if provided. There is no evidence of reasoning in the example you linked. All that proved was that if you prime an LLM with sufficient context, it’s better at generating output, which is honestly just more support for calling them statistical auto-complete tools. Try asking it those same questions without feeding it your rules first, and I bet it doesn’t generate the right answers. Try asking it those questions 100 times after feeding it the rules, I bet it’ll generate the wrong answers a few times.

If LLMs are truly capable of reasoning, it shouldn’t need your 16 very specific rules on “arithmetic with extra steps” to get your very carefully worded questions correct. Your questions shouldn’t need to be carefully worded. They shouldn’t get tripped up by trivial “trick questions” like the original one in the post, or any of the dozens of other questions like it that LLMs have proven incapable of answering on their own. The fact that all of those things do happen supports my claim that they do not reason, or think, or understand - they simply generate output based on their input and internal statistical calculations.

LLMs are like the Wizard of Oz. From afar, they look like these powerful, all-knowing things. The speak confidently and convincingly, and are sometimes even correct! But once you get up close and peek behind the curtain, you realize that it’s just some complicated math, clever programming, and a bunch of pirated books back there.

No, they cannot reason, by any definition of the word. LLMs are statistics-based autocomplete tools. They don’t understand what they generate, they’re just really good at guessing how words should be strung together based on complicated statistics.

I think we should start questioning the ways of the worm