> Synthetipologists, those who study Synthetic beings.

I see you took the prudent approach of recognizing the being-ness of our future overlords :) ("being" wasn't in your first edit to which I responded below...)

Still, a bit uninspired, methinks. I like AInthropologist better, and my phone's keyboard appears to have immediately adopted that term for the suggestions line. Who am I to fight my phone's auto-suggest :-)

▲

xerox13ster 9 hours ago | parent [-]

They are state machines so they have a state of being therefore they are beings. Living is an entirely different argument.

▲

ninjagoo 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> They are state machines

I might have to hard disagree on this one, since my understanding of state machines (the technical term [1] [2]) is that they are determistic, while LLMs (the ai topic of discussion) are probabilistic in most of the commercial implementations that we see.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine

[2] have written some for production use, so have some personal experience here

	▲	adrian_b 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Even at your link it immediately says that there are 2 kinds of automata (a.k.a. FSMs): deterministic and non-deterministic. In the former, the transition function provides the next state, while in the latter the transition function only provides a probability distribution for the next state, i.e. exactly how running an LLM is implemented.
	▲	ggsp 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]