Yes, thinking involves signals firing in your brain. But, not just any signals. Fire the wrong signals and someone’s having a seizure not thinking.

Just because LLMs generate words doesn’t mean they’re thinking. Thinking involves reasoning and considering something. It involves processing information, storing memories, then bringing them up later as appropriate. We know LLMs aren’t doing that because we know what they are doing, and what they’re doing is simply generating the next word based on previous words.

They have beliefs, and if you don’t understand that you can’t understand them. If you don’t understand them you can’t beat them. Sticking your head in the sand or lying to yourself isn’t going to help.

Why so defensive buddy?

You also don’t need to lie about their beliefs. When you do that, it just makes people wonder why you’re lying and why you can’t stick to the truth if your point is so strong.

Apparently you don’t understand Schrodinger.

One could almost call it… thinking

No, one couldn’t, unless one was trying to sell snake oil.

so they can emulate thinking

No, they can emulate generating text that looks like text typed up by someone who was thinking.

The rest of us are laughing at you, so you could try that?

I’m just letting you prove it yourself.

Op Eds are obviously influenced by the bias of the newspaper that runs them. But, there’s no need to veer into conspiracy theories just because two of them happen to be anti-Obama for different reasons.

They’re not even “stupid” though. It’s more like if you somehow trained a parrot with every book ever written and every web page ever created and then had it riff on things.

But, even then, a parrot is a thinking being. It may not understand the words it’s using, but it understands emotion to some extent, it understands “conversation” to a certain extent – taking turns talking, etc. An LLM just predicts the word that should appear next statistically.

An LLM is nothing more than an incredibly sophisticated computer model designed to generate words in a way that fools humans into thinking those words have meaning. It’s almost more like a lantern fish than a parrot.

Not to any particular person, just fair to the truth of the situation. You know, not whacking at straw men.

Apparently so. You seem surprised that there were two people who had different opinions on the same page in the Op Eds. That’s what Op Eds are.

Again, I ask, are you familiar with the concept of an Op Ed? Or are you just confused that people might have different opinions?

She should prove that she would do it, and the only way to do it would be to set up a realistic scenario in which someone is taking a shot at Trump and she jumps in front of him. Everything else is just bragging or idle speculation.

To be fair, they have a problem with trans women in women’s sports. They don’t have a problem with trans men in men’s sports because they can’t imagine a situation where a trans man could possibly compete with “real” men.

It goes along with their idea that women are weak, so women are weak athletes and women’s sports teams are weak. If you accept that, it’s not a big stretch to think that someone who has gone through puberty as a male will have an automatic huge advantage in every women’s sport because their body has male characteristics.

On the other hand to them, the military is the ultimate in manly activities. Anybody other than a pure, manly man will be at a disadvantage in anything military. That includes trans men, trans women and regular women. Right now the focus is on trans people, but I’m sure they’ll want to kick women out of the military too eventually.

So, if you accept that logic, it makes sense that trans women are too weak for the military, but too strong for women’s sports. There’s no contradiction there.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an Op Ed?

Not only is it what Op Eds are for, it’s also extremely common practice to have two contrasting views on the same page to give voice to a variety of different opinions.

Complaining about two Op Eds on the same page with different opinions is like complaining that a dictionary has two definitions of two different words on the same page.

To stealman it

Is that when you steal your talking points from someone else?

That’s how some democracy sometimes works. Sometimes supermajorities are required in democracies. Who cares about what the majority wants? Why should that be the only thing that counts?

Yeah, and that’s why it should be a cautionary tale for all other hugely important referendums.

I really didn’t like the Midnight story. You can’t go “behind” someone, but you can safely go partially behind them. The set design on that episode was annoying too. Aliss is perched exactly in the middle of a circular room, and never moves from that spot.

The Robot Revolution was also a really annoying episode. They had an opportunity to make Budd a three-dimensional character who was realistic in becoming a misogynist. Instead they showed him as normal, then suddenly revealed him to be horrible, and did a little flashback. It felt like they were checking boxes rather than developing a real character. It also had this really weird 1950s sci-fi vibe but with actual people getting actually disintegrated in a not-very Dr. Who way.

Lux was fun, but that nod to 1950s racism was really weird. I was watching it thinking “there’s no way that a black man and a brown woman would be simply accepted in 1950s Miami”. But, I was prepared to say “ok, they’re just ignoring the racism” and was prepared to suspend my disbelief. But, then they included the racism, but only in a “dream sequence”? That both acknowledges that the racism was massive in the 1950s, but somehow simultaneously pretends that in the “real world” it didn’t exist?

And then in the 4th episode, we have… yet another psychotic boyfriend. Out of the 4 episodes so far, 2 of them have revolved around asshole boyfriends? That one also annoyed me that they let the asshole boyfriend get a powerful machine gun and shoot on full auto for something like a minute and nobody was apparently worried that he might hit them. Also, the Doctor going off on the boyfriend while he is in prison felt very out of character for the doctor. Sure, sometimes the doctor gives speeches in tense moments in an attempt to prevent disaster. But, he has never taunted someone who was captured before. Much more doctorish would have been to attempt to reform him.