Had to skim a bit, but it sounds to me that every claim can be used for humans also. Apparently any expectations by the observer, destroy the measurement, but that goes for all measurements made by humans on humans, etc.. I didn't get a clear sense of why the whole 'AOE' or 'llm' angle really mattered for his arguments..
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
11 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
42678 readers
285 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
What they're really saying is that we need more precise terminology because the terms people throw around right now are incredibly loose, and can mean whatever people want.
Hilarious paper, well done to the authors.
I’m getting tired of this new wave of ‘consciousness/mind’ researchers who didn’t bother to read the the existing literature on those topics and so are ‘discovering’ the exact same puzzles that have existed for ages.
Hey, this is the tech industry. That's all we do!