Scale matters. For example, at large scale you might be able to essentially ignore the friction between two materials, but at 1/1000 scale it might be the same order of magnitude as the forces expected during operation.
While a large piece of sheet metal might slide down a given ramp, a 1/1000 scale bit of foil of that same metal would probably just sit on that same ramp and not move.
There are lots of constants that, by definition, don't scale.
Language is an inseparable part of modern humans. It’s likely language evolved as an internal tool for thought and executive function, and externalization of language came afterwards as a means to transmit our thoughts to the minds of other humans.
As such, writing (another form of externalizing our internal language) is a reflection of our essential human qualities.
LLMs can certainly mimic that quite effectively, but they can’t exceed it. I think that’s why LLM writing still never quite hits the mark. It’s the right shape, but it’s missing intent. The words were not chosen to represent real thoughts in someone’s mind.
Even if AI intelligence exceeds humans, it still won’t be human.
> It’s likely language evolved as an internal tool for thought and executive function, and externalization of language came afterwards as a means to transmit our thoughts to the minds of other humans
Isn't this in contradiction to the observations of severely neglected or feral children who having never learned language as a child cannot learn it later in life?
How would any form of inner language evolve in the first place for executive function?
Communication first makes a lot more sense evolutionarily since the ability to communicate more information creates a clear improvement in fitness e.g. being able to signal danger improves survival. It is also more amenable to small improvements in capacity e.g. going from "danger" to "danger wolf" to "danger wolf behind" etc. and we observe these language primitives in other species.
Internal language seems much more likely to be a later development especially given that there are people today who claim they have none / need none and yet still possess the ability to communicate with others and manage their lives normally.
> LLMs can certainly mimic that quite effectively, but they can’t exceed it. I think that’s why LLM writing still never quite hits the mark. It’s the right shape, but it’s missing intent. The words were not chosen to represent real thoughts in someone’s mind.
Well yeah. That's because they aren't actually intelligent. They can be useful in the right circumstances despite that, but it's very important to remember that LLMs categorically cannot think, know things, or reason. They are a statistical model, that's it.
And when they fall, they need to be dealt with. Responsible land management would assess whether the deadwood should be mulched and resoiled, left untouched, moved, etc. If a tree needs to be moved or broken down, you can't just bring heavy equipment or controlled burning to federal land.
It feels like the top commenter is simply sharing personal insight, not recriminating and pleading woe, so Idk why these responses act like they're being egregious. The situation simply requires cooperation with a government that apparently is loathe to go through the process with.
I trim and clean up my trees before they become high risk for falling over. If my neighbor fails to maintain their trees, then I may have legal grounds to remediate property damage caused by their negligence.
My presumption is the state does not regularly audit and trim high risk limbs or branches near the property line. Since the fence is owned by the state, they will not sue themselves in civil court for their own negligence.
Right? Why have walls? Why have humans when we have wildlife? And dogs? Humans have only been sharing their company for more than twenty thousand years. Get over it, stop destroying the environment.
which is your next argumentative step? say your not disrupting an ecosystem that probably outlives the early human specie by hundreds of thousands of years? average North American that thinks just because you have money the planet and species living within are after your narcissistic ideals
But how do you know the unnecessary treatment isn’t necessary? There is likely always something happening in your body that would suggest an unnecessary treatment. So if you start doing scans when you have no outward reason to, you’ll always find something that looks like it needs treatment.
There’s no perfect information in medicine.
The more scans you do, the more times you’ll make the wrong choice and unnecessarily treat something.
Well, first of all, if it were possible to do these scans on everyone, we would be able to better study what things that show up actually do benefit from treatment, and which are better to ignore.
Absent that, it would be a matter of judgment. Some people do get fairly extensive annual physical exams, so there is data out there. For each issue the scan found, it would be a matter of researching and making a judgment call on whether the risk/benefit weighs toward action. I would prefer to make those decisions with as much information as possible vs just remaining ignorant and hoping the things I don't know about are best left alone.
reply