There is not enough activity to sustain niche communities.
In this case it is more a feature being called a bug
If we ignore the other poster, do you think the logic in my previous comment is circular?
That was what I was trying to say, I can see that the wording is ambiguous.
I agree, it's a massive issue. It's a very complex topic that most people have no way of understanding. It is superb at generating text, and that makes it look smarter than it actually is, which is really dangerous. I think the creators of these models have a responsibility to communicate what these models can and can't do, but unfortunately that is not profitable.
If a solution is correct then a solution is correct. If a correct solution was generated randomly that doesn't make it less correct. It just means that you may not always get correct solutions from the generating process, which is why they are checked after.
It's not circular. LLMs cannot be fluent because fluency comes from an understanding of the language. An LLM is incapable of understanding so it is incapable of being fluent. It may be able to mimic it but that is a different thing. (In my opinion)
It's not a bug, it's a natural consequence of the methodology. A language model won't always be correct when it doesn't know what it is saying.
How is it wrong? First it makes some assumptions about the question and answers the typical version of the riddle. Then it answers the trivial version where there are no additional items. Seems like a complete and reasonable response to me.
Because if we weren't then no class would ever learn anything, as the teaching would move at a glacial pace and cover material that isn't relevant until you start on your PhD.
Meta holds the record for the largest gdpr fine at 1,2 billion euro.
From a logical perspective that implication is true, choosing your sexuality implies you have a choice. However, I disagree with the premise that there is a choice to begin with.
I do not choose to be straight, I just am. I'm not gay, and no amount of choosing will change that. I'm a guy, and I can choose to look for a boyfriend, but it won't change the fact that I'm attracted to women. Now maybe I discover that I'm actually attracted to both men and women, but I would argue that discovering is different from choosing. Choosing would mean that I can choose to not be attracted to a gender, which I can't. I can only choose whether or not I act on it.
The lack of nuance in any discussion on Lemmy is making me less and less interested in comment sections.
They're not saying it is the only factor, only that it is a relevant factor. Which it obviously is.
Flying commercial would be disregarding everyone's safety.
It's easier to nitpick than it is to interact with the actual argument.
I agree with you. The headline is misleading, and I think it devalues the article.
This is still based on fit, evolution, and technology in the context of Earth and humans. Who knows how (or if) evolution could or would work on other planets. Who knows which traits fit would select for, and what process that selection would be based on.
Also, who knows how else technology could look. We have tech that HUMANS couldn't imagine just 100 years ago. How are we supposed to imagine what technology would look like on alien planets.
My point is: you shouldn't look at the probability of human technological intelligence. And we naturally can't look at non-human technology since we haven't found any. We can't know the probability. All we know is that it has happened at least once.