dambi0

I understand the English words you are using. I’m still not convinced I understand what you are saying. In this particular case recall doesn’t seem to be the problem.

The understanding comes from knowing when to use that phrase compared with other phrases that might mean similar things. Idiomatic usage to some extent. If learning a language was just remembering direct phrases then machine translation would be trivial

They may have enjoyed more privileged accommodation upon being evacuated, but their being evacuated was not a privilege, if that what we want to call it.

I don’t know that describing evacuation as a privilege for middle class children is strictly accurate.

The second article also mentions a whole raft of other measures alongside phonics that could have contributed to the success.

So every generalisable group should be free?

Would you include single member groups?

What precisely is your definition of freedom.

Asking whether someone should be free isn’t just about human rights

It’s also about self-determination. We can keep asking about the latter down to the individual level. It very much depends on context.

Thanks, I’m not thinking clearly at all. I had it in my head that programming instruction are not the only way that a computer might do as it’s told. For example, if we delete a folder in a UI by accident we shouldn’t be surprised the folder is gone. But it doesn’t really quite fit the parent analogy. Sorry about that.

What part of the comment makes you think they are claiming that?

Would you have written it in five minutes has you not just spent 30 minutes ruling out wrong solutions?

Interesting. If we look at the idea of subsides between region, and we accept that this the right way of thinking about it and assume it's factual and that simple. Then I think one of the questions worth asking is effectively do we want to try reduce that inequality or do we want to perpetuate it. Neither is obviously right or wrong, but I think that's the core question. If we are believe to the idea in the article then we can see a reasonable case that the disparity between the regions has been, if not deliberate, than an obvious outcome of previous policy. Which makes the argument that we shouldn't invest in the regions requiring subsidy circular.

There are investments beyond transport that we could make. Not all investments generate or should be judged against short-term returns. That a 1B tram system in Leeds may be less than effective does not mean we shouldn't invest at all. I don't see why we need an insane bet rather than a programme of improvement across the board.

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. For one the author tells us they think this is an example of success story. Although I guess it depends on when you are measuring from, and they may be being somewhat tongue in cheek with their choice of East Germany

I think the point is that we would expect East German cities to have reasonable relative growth post-unification because we are taking a relatively structurally deprived area within a wider more successful economy.

That Manchester has kept up with areas where you'd expect to see reasonable growth, is positive. I suppose there's also the hint that this suggests that this has been allowed to happen by central government, but I could be making that up.

If it is, and it probably isn't, they are really not very good at it.

I was responding to the point that the thought experiment was meaningless.

if you go and s/Chinese Room/LLM against any of the counter arguments to the thought experiment how many of them does it invalidate?

If you are willing to use Apple Shortcuts on iOS it’s pretty easy to add something that will be trigged when a message is received and can call out to a service or even use SSH to do something with the contents, including replying

I don’t think I understand this entirely. The point of the thought experiment is to assume the possibility of the room and consider the consequences. How it might be achievable in practice doesn’t alter this

Isn’t it at least equally likely that one would be more prone to confusion if one was a visual thinker?

I don’t think we can infer anythin about how LLMs think based on this.

Isn’t it possible thst there could be multiple , equally systematic, candidate notations. Isn’t the decision as to which one gains traction arbitrary?

If you follow your line of thought we could never point out that processes have made mistakes in the past. Yours is the only strawman.

For the addresses it might be a bit easier because they are a lot more structured and in theory and the vocabulary is a lot more limited. I’m less sure about medical notes although I’d suspect that there are fairly common things they are likely to say.

Looking at the (admittedly single) example from the National Archives seems a bit more open than perhaps the other two examples. It’s not impossible thst LLMs could help with this

Well yes perhaps I am confused, because if the cards strength lies in their ability to capture understanding beyond what is written in the text directly then the ability to create them via copying and pasting means that your claim that digital resources are superior to paper based ones because of this is lacking

Do you have any reasons for this beyond ease of reproducing portions of the text to drill yourself to remember it verbatim?

I don’t think education is purely about remembering facts.

For one, often we teach things initially in simple terms as a way of building up to more complicated explanations. Failing to forget the simpler facts would be a learning failure to a degree.

Secondly, we want people to learn what to do with facts, how to handle and interpret new information, focusing solely on recall doesn’t cover this either.

Optimizing repetition for things we do want to be remembered is certainly a useful technique, but it isn’t the only or perhaps even primary goal of education.

1) The article stated that using bootable images for backup was a preference. That doesn’t invalidate asking whether that’s an ideal preference

2) Arguing that it might be better to avoid such methods because of possible problems with data integrity isn’t a lack of an approach to data integrity.

Isn’t performance relative?

First they came for the taxi drivers…

Deference to authority is a mantra. General complaints about the prevalence of opinion is a mantra, general complaints that everyone is looking for offence is a mantra.

It might not have been at a commencement speech, but didn’t Feynman say, “Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look at what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?“. You are doing your hero a great disservice. Or perhaps you have a specific opinion on the article.

I appreciate you might be trying to be funny. But this deference to authority goes vastly beyond just appeal to authority. What did you make of the argument?

Unfortunately, I missed out a key word “… what knowing that things are not the case tells us about what we can know is [absolutely] the case…”

My apologies for this and with the omission I don’t disagree one bit with your reply.

On the other hand I can see how we might imagine ways we could scientifically sarisfy ourselves beliefs are not absolute, but I’m not sure how we could satisfy ourselves they are