Communist

Nah

A shitty one, then

How did you buy 50 for 20?

Ah, so it’s not that you want it for any functional purpose, you just think it would be cheaper, understood.

My thinking is that having a desktop, laptop and phone that sync data to eachother accomplishes all of that and will do it better because they’re designed for their usecase, why not that?

Why though?

I mean to do a little devils advocate here he did say in terms of cost… not in terms of quality.

and quality is as we all know not important for self driving vehicles…

/s

What are you talking about this phone is established, this is their 6th one… and the bootloader is unlocked.

It found out who made it so it knew what to do

It will never be possible to use this for ftl communications. This is like saying in 100 years we will use very long steel rods to communicate ftl by pushing on them. The problem is fundamental.

No they didn’t, they sent a conventional signal that was encrypted with an entangled particle. Nothing was sent ftl, this is like if I had two boxes that I know have the same thing in them, an encryption key, and traveled across the world, and sent you a message, you have the other box, the information in that box didn’t go ftl you just opened it later.

there is no path to ftl communication here.

have a basic video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oBiS_Yb9Ac

Is that useful for completing tasks?

How do you define consciousness?

That’s not the only way to make meaningful change, getting people to give up on llms would also be meaningful change. This does very little for anyone who isn’t apple.

Meaningful change is not happening because of this paper, either, I don’t know why you’re playing semantic games with me though.

It does need to do that to meaningfully change anything, however.

that’s very true, I’m just saying this paper did not eliminate the possibility and is thus not as significant as it sounds. If they had accomplished that, the bubble would collapse, this will not meaningfully change anything, however.

also, it’s not as unreasonable as that because these are automatically assembled bundles of simulated neurons.

It is, but this did not prove all architectures cannot reason, nor did it prove that all sets of weights cannot reason.

essentially they did not prove the issue is fundamental. And they have a pretty similar architecture, they’re all transformers trained in a similar way. I would not say they have different architectures.

those particular models. It does not prove the architecture doesn’t allow it at all. It’s still possible that this is solvable with a different training technique, and none of those are using the right one. that’s what they need to prove wrong.

this proves the issue is widespread, not fundamental.

That indicates that this particular model does not follow instructions, not that it is architecturally fundamentally incapable.