How are the two cases you present fundamentally different? Aren't they both the same _type_ of knowledge? Why do you attribute "true understanding" to the case of knowing what the Dr said? Why stop there? Isn't true understanding knowing why we trust what the doctor said (all those years of schooling, and a presumption of competence, etc)? And why stop there? Why do we value years of schooling? Understanding, can always be taken to a deeper level, but does that mean we didn't "truly" understand earlier? And aren't the data structures needed to encode the knowledge, exactly the same for both cases you presented?

▲

awesome_dude 6 days ago | parent [-]

When you ask that question, why don't you just use a corpus of the previous answers to get some result?

Why do you need to ask me, isn't a guess based on past answers good enough?

Or, do you understand that you need to know more, you need to understand the reasoning based on what's missing from that post?

▲

quantummagic 6 days ago | parent [-]

I asked that question in an attempt to not sound too argumentative. It was rhetorical. I'm asking you to consider the fact that there isn't actually any difference between the two examples you provided. They're fundamentally the same type of knowledge. They can be represented by the same data structures.

There's _always_ something missing, left unsaid in every example, it's the nature of language.

As for your example, the LLM can be trained to know the underlying reasons (doctor's recommendation, etc.). That knowledge is not fundamentally different from the knowledge that someone tends to eat cereal for breakfast. My question to you, was an attempt to highlight that the dichotomy you were drawing, in your example, doesn't actually exist.

▲

awesome_dude 6 days ago | parent [-]

> They're fundamentally the same type of knowledge. They can be represented by the same data structures.

Maybe, maybe one is based on correlation, the other causation.

▲

quantummagic 6 days ago | parent [-]

What if the causation had simply been that he enjoyed cereal for breakfast?

In either case, the results are the same, he's eating cereal for breakfast. We can know this fact without knowing the underlying cause. Many times, we don't even know the cause of things we choose to do for ourselves, let alone what others do.

On top of which, even if you think the "cause" is that the doctor told him to eat a healthy diet, do you really know the actual cause? Maybe the real cause, is that the girl he fancies, told him he's not in good enough shape. The doctor telling him how to get in shape is only a correlation, the real cause is his desire to win the girl.

These connections are vast and deep, but they're all essentially the same type of knowledge, representable by the same data structures.

	▲	awesome_dude 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> In either case, the results are the same, he's eating cereal for breakfast. We can know this fact without knowing the underlying cause. Many times, we don't even know the cause of things we choose to do for ourselves, let alone what others do. Yeah, no. Understanding the causation allows the system to provide a better answer. If they "enjoy" cereal, what about it do they enjoy, and what other possible things can be had for breakfast that also satisfy that enjoyment. You'll never find that by looking only at the fact that they have eaten cereal for breakfast. And the fact that that's not obvious to you is why I cannot be bothered going into any more depth on the topic any more. It's clear that you don't have any understanding on the topic beyond a superficial glance. Bye :)