The Wikipedia editors who hang out here might thank you for calling to their attention pages that clearly need to be fixed, since they cite non-peer-reviewed preprints on the arXiv, the shit journal Entropy, and the fucking LessWrong blog.

Me, I'm going to block you anyway. Bye!

They also said that the Earth doesn't have a 4 corner simultaneous 4-day TIME CUBE!

did you have a point?

Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

First of all. You could make facts a token value in an LLM if you had some pre-calculated truth value for your data set.

Why stop there? Just make consciousness a token value. See, AI is such an easy problem that me, a non-expert, is able to solve with just one sentence.

It can figure anything out with perfect reasoning, provided that that it has an oracle to verify facts.

For my next trick, watch me collapse the polynomial hierarchy [1]

^[1]^ ^quadraticaly^ ^faster^ ^than^ ^the^ ^time^ ^your^ ^mom^ ^sat^ ^on^ ^it^

That’s not how it works now but it’s a weird assertion to make about an unknown new generation of AI.

Your quote is about LLMs, not "an unknown new generation of AI". Research on LLMs dates back at least to 1990s, they're neither new nor unknown.

What Strawberry apparently is, is a machine that reasons, which is NOT similar to what Open-AI ever claimed ChatGPT ever was.

Sammy boi claimed waaay wilder things than just "it reasons" about his grift so gtfo, this is some incredibly disingenuous apologetics for OpenAI.

Also, "apparently" is such a load-bearing word there.

First of all. You could make facts a token value in an LLM if you had some pre-calculated truth value for your data set.

An extra bit of labeling on your training data set really doesn't help you that much. LLMs already make up plausible looking citations and website links (and other data types) that are actually complete garbage even though their training data has valid citations and website links (and other data types). Labeling things as "fact" and forcing the LLM to output stuff with that "fact" label will get you output that looks (in terms of statistical structure) like valid labeled "facts" but have absolutely no guarantee of being true.

This is a weird kind of assertion. First of all. You could make facts a token value in an LLM if you had some pre-calculated truth value for your data set. That’s not how it works now but it’s a weird assertion to make about an unknown new generation of AI.

fuck almighty where do you people pull this absolute horseshit from

What Strawberry apparently is, is a machine that reasons, which is NOT similar to what Open-AI ever claimed ChatGPT ever was.

well shit, you’ve got a long list of supposed AI researchers to tell that to. here, I’ll make sure you’ve got plenty of time to read their back catalog of utterly fucking stupid claims!

I'd like to see any evidence of openai concretely saying what chatgpt is for.

@Donkter @dgerard have you bumped your head?