> Interesting that Gemini said it was infeasible.

Unless there is a hardware limitation or the hardware does not support it, anything in software is possible.

Gemini and all these other LLMs are designed to convince you that they have "awareness" which they do not have any of the sort. They are neither sentient nor do they have consciousness

▲

whywhywhywhy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Something doesn’t have to be sentient or have consciousness to answer a technical question like that.

▲

dTal 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Bad take. Some things are feasible and some things are not, "anything is possible" is a useless framework. Example: go convert two smartphones to communicate p2p over their 4g radios - it's all software!

LLM "awareness" is similarly irrelevant. They process information usefully, in a way grounded in reality, and that's that.

	▲	rvz an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You seem to be all over the place, most of it by not reading the parent's comment. So let's break it all down. > Bad take. Some things are feasible and some things are not, "anything is possible" is a useless framework. It would help if you quoted the entire comment rather than removing the context and further giving a very bad example afterwards: > Example: go convert two smartphones to communicate p2p over their 4g radios - it's all software! Nice try. That is a hardware limitation in the 4G radio which is designed to connect to an operator mast. Even if you wanted to do it in software, the hardware does not support that P2P use-case which is what I already said. > LLM "awareness" is similarly irrelevant. Exactly. There is no such thing as awareness in LLMs. The parent comment I replied to believed that an element of awareness had to be present to give an answer because this was done "several times over" in open source projects. Which that is inaccurate in the context of LLM research. >> "It should be aware that using a Pico W as a transparent ethernet bridge has been done several times over in open source projects..." > They process information usefully, in a way grounded in reality, and that's that. Useful to those who know when it is either mostly correct or outright wrong. Clearly in this example, Gemini doesn't even know if its own answers are grounded in reality and consequently people using them are unable to determine if the results they bring are true or not and there are countless examples of that. So you know what you just said is not true.