qarl

> And I have yet to have an experience with an LLM...

I hope you agree that this question is too important to leave to gut feelings.

Humans have a poor track record in that regard.

> Why would someone believe that the brain is just a physical system?

Because we've never in the history of science discovered a non-physical (supernatural) system. So it would be quite a surprise.

I agree - many are. But there's another camp to watch - LeCun/etc don't believe in a soul but also don't believe that LLMs are capable, because they don't contain the right neural network.

I'd argue that they're still intuitively trying to keep intelligence in the gaps, as humans like to do. Or maybe they're mad they bet on the wrong horse... or maybe both. Hard to say.

You're reading him too narrowly. He's answering the question of whether the brain can be modeled (math or magic), and arguing against it. Or maybe he's arguing for a middle ground. Hard to say exactly, he's not very clear.

Except the brain can be modeled with arbitrary precision - so he's got an uphill battle in either case.

TLDR: Yes, he literally said "binary computer" but from the context it's clear he means more than that.

You're arguing about whether it's possible or not. You're saying it's not possible.

It is possible.

As long as you believe a brain is just a physical system - then it can be simulated to any degree of accuracy with plain ol' binary computers.

Turing complete means being able to compute any computable output.

So what about reasoning is not computable in your mind?

Do you agree that an LLM in a harness is Turing complete?

Seems so to me.

So explain then what you mean by "not possible".

Emergent behavior in otherwise simple rulesets.

Kind of like how a brain is just a bag of molecules. Molecules can't reason either.

It's gaslighting. It's emotional invalidation. About the most serious and dangerous things.

Of course it's terrifying. It terrifies me, and I am not as vulnerable as you. I wish you luck.

A large segment of the human population is extremely uncomfortable with conflict. They will go to great lengths to maintain status quo in the face of insane injustice.

HN has become the home base for many of these people.

Of course, this is exactly what MLK Jr. was talking about when he described the problem caused by the "white moderate". But these people have never read MLK Jr., so it doesn't matter.

Speaking as a man in his late 50s - I think you're in deep denial.

No need to make fun of me, friend. It's very unlikely - you can't disprove that because it's true.

If it was a coincidence then you have nothing to worry about. I flag it because the overwhelmingly likely thing is that it wasn't.

And again - insults are against the rules here. Shame shame.

You said:

> I didn't downvote, but wow you're being aggressive

He said:

> I didn't downvote you, but your last paragraph is unnecessarily aggressive.

Both comments arrived within two minutes of each other on a thread with no other comments for 18 hours.

That's quite a coincidence.

Also - insults are against the rules here, friend. Naughty naughty. I hope they don't spank you.

I agree. The analogies are interesting but only go so far.

I think it's safe to trust the decisions of the courts. Judges aren't easily fooled by slippery language.

For example, in Bartz v. Anthropic, Judge Alsup ruled that training is fair use because training is transformative. In his words "spectacularly so".

Because two agents are faster than one.

My question was and still is this:

> If I should not use anthropomorphic language, how do you suggest I handle the following situation

And so strange that in a 24 hour period I got three comments all at the same time about being too aggressive and still not answering the question.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

> Ask anyone outside SWE what they think “training” means, and they'll usually picture something being taught.

You mean how early-on people thought that planes flapped their wings while they flew?

These aren't problems. This is the way language works.

> What’s the question?

I thought putting the question in my comment would be sufficient. I guess not. It was and still is:

> If I should not use anthropomorphic language, how do you suggest I handle the following situation

Here's a question I am asking lately. If I should not use anthropomorphic language, how do you suggest I handle the following situation:

   Sometimes my coding agents will seemingly refuse to follow my instructions.  When I ask them why - they say that they do not think my design is a sound one, and they have a better way to do it.  We will then sit down and come to a consensus on how best to move forward.

I argue that if we're using software that acts like a human - the only way to interface with it is to speak to it like a human. Otherwise we have no language to speak to a non-sentient object without anthropomorphization.

I'm starting to wonder if the people arguing against anthropomorphization actually have any experience at all working with agents.

EDIT: It's a simple question. When you downvote me without answering, I must assume you don't have any answer and dislike what that implies.

Yeah. I like to think of myself as the Nathan Fielder of HN.

It's almost as if the current government is trying to cause as much damage to the country as it can.

I hate to rain on your parade... but I used it too.

Change is hard.

> Training effectively embeds the book's contents into the model's weights. Changing the format doesn't change the content

Reading a book embeds its contents into your brain. And yet, that is considered fair use.

I agree, the analogies are meaningless in a legal context. In the legal context, the courts disagree with you.

> If you would go on a tv and read out loud a book

That is not the situation we are discussing. No one is arguing that what you describe is infringement.

What we are discussing is the training - which happens BEFORE the broadcast. It is analogous to reading. Is simply READING the material an infringement.

So if we invent a way for those people to talk to everyone in the world - then they would be a criminal for reading books whether they recited or not?

You're not making sense.

The problem is the reciting. Not the reading. And hence, not the training.

> Fair use doesn't magically make piracy legal.

Of course it doesn't. No one is arguing that.

We are arguing the bigger issue of whether training is an infringement.

> The only reason they haven't been punished

The reason they haven't been punished is because copyright infringement is not a criminal offense, it's civil. And the labs are settling those cases.

> is considered theft

Not by the courts it's not.

I think it might be against the terms of service.

Training is fair use - the torrenting was infringement. Sorry if that was confusing.