“Claude gets it”
No. It does not. It does not understand anything. Stop anthropomorphizing bots!
No. It does not. It does not understand anything. Stop anthropomorphizing bots!
They hate that.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness
> The colors of traffic lights can be difficult for red–green color-blind people. This difficulty includes distinguishing red/amber lights from sodium street lamps, distinguishing green lights (closer to cyan) from white lights, and distinguishing red from amber lights, especially when there are no positional clues (see image).
Publication from 1983: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1875309/
> All but one admitted to difficulties with traffic signals, one admitted to a previously undeclared accident due to his colour blindness, and all but one offered suggestions for improving signal recognition. Nearly all reported confusion with street and signal lights, and confusion between the red and amber signals was common.
You really think that people have been debating for thousands of years if colour blind people exist, with no conclusion in sight?
The most famous of these discrepancies is Japan and green vs blue, or why does Jenkins by default use red, yellow and blue instead of red, yellow and green.
So I would urge using something other than colors as an example of shared human experience.
This is the contention with the person I am replying to, they're acting as if objective reality doesn't exist. Humans can think, LLMs cannot.
If you can't admit to this there's nothing else worth discussing, but please don't mind my hands covering my wallet as I slowly back out of the room.
Some of us color-deficient people can’t. I only accept that stop signs are “red” because all the normies say it is. Your point stands, but color perception is not the best example for it.
LLMs do not think. That's reality.
Let's remove AI or LLM from this question and ask if there is anything any non-biological system could do to convince you that it was thinking?