229 karma · joined May 26, 2023
Sorry, what do these triple parentheses mean?
I'd call it an observation, but I'm willing to add that you are exhausting. Confusion (or, more likely a vested interest) certainly reigns.
> It is extremely clear [...] Otherwise what did you mean by epistemology?
We are talking about both because he makes both points. A) Stallman states it possesses inherently unreliable knowledge and judgment (hence gambling) and B) When someone is being imperious there is a need to state the obvious to clarify their point. You understood correctly and seem more concerned with quibbling than discussion. Much in the same way as your persnickety condescension I now wonder if you know and understand things in real terms or are simply more motivated by dunking on Stallman for some obscure reason.
> They are AI systems by long standing use of the term within the field.
No. ChatGPT is not. It is marketed (being the operative term) as a wide solution; yet is not one in the same manner as the purposeful gearing (whatever the technique) of an LLM towards a specific and defined task. Now we reach the wall of discussing a closed-source LLM, which was my point. What I said previously does not elide their abstract usefulness and obvious flaws. Clearly you're someone familiar, so none of this should be controversial unless you're pawing at a discussion of the importance of free will.
> Yes, I quoted it to you already.
I'm aware. Your point?
> That is not a test.
The world wonders. Is this some sort of divine test of patience? Please provide an objective rubric for the proving the existence of the mind. Until then, I'll stick with Descartes.
> I'm also not sure why you included the words "to exceptionally simpler systems" after snipping out another part, that doesn't make a sentence that works at all and doesn't represent what I said there.
Must I really explain the purpose of an ellipsis to you? We both know what you said.
Feel free to check out a longer analysis [1] (which he also linked in the source).
> You are making that point for him. He is not. He is actively making this fruitless argument.
Are we reading the same thing? He wrote:
> Another reason to reject ChatGPT in particular is that users cannot get a copy of it. It is unreleased software -- users cannot get even an executable to run, let alone the source code. The only way to use it is by talking to a server which keeps users at arm's length.
...and you see no connection to his ethos? An opaque nondeterministic model, trained on closed data, now being prepped (at the very least) to serve search ads [2] to users? I can't believe I need to state this, but he's the creator of the GNU license. Use your brain.
> I don't get what you are missing here then. [...] I notice he conveniently puts some of his kind of work in this field as "artificial intelligence" that somehow have understanding and knowledge.
You're not making an argument. How, directly and in plain language, is his opinion incorrect?
> Can we? In a way we can test another thing [...] to exceptionally simpler systems.
Yes... it is one of very few foundational principles and the closest thing to a universally agreed idea. Are you actually trying to challenge 'cogito ergo sum'?
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Artificia... [2] https://x.com/btibor91/status/1994714152636690834
He's famously a curmudgeon, not lazy. How would you expect him to respond?
> Totally ignoring the history of the field.
This criticism is so vague it becomes meaningless. No-one can respond to it because we don't know what you're citing exactly, but you're obviously right that the field is broad, older than most realise, and well-developed philosophically.
> Ignoring large and varied debates as to what these words mean.
Stallman's wider point (and I think it's safe to say this, considering it's one that he's been making for 40+ years) would be that debating the epistemology of closed-source flagship models is fruitless because... they're closed source.
Whether or not he's correct on the epistemology of LLMs is another discussion. I agree with him. They're language models, explicitly, and embracing them without skepticism in your work is more or less a form of gambling. Their undeniable usefulness in some scenarios is more an indictment of the drudgery and simplicity of many people's work in a service economy than conclusive evidence of 'reasoning' ability. We are the only categorically self-aware & sapient intelligence, insofar as we can prove that we think and reason (and I don't think I need to cite this).
As for the garbage man... can you blame him? What reason does he have to maintain the appearance of vigilance? Their routes are long, getting longer with cuts, they're largely understaffed, and they deal with both the contempt of the public and their refuse.
Conditions are actively getting worse for some; the UK's second largest city has proposed cutting wages by up to £8,000 p/a due to a bureaucratic nightmare of their own making [1].
It is a thankless job with no opportunity for progression which most people would rather put out of mind completely. Frankly, they deserve better.
[1] Office of National Statistics via BBC: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/2560/cpsprodpb/13FD8/p...