| |
| ▲ | gnfargbl 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Grossmann collaborated with Einstein on GR, supplying quite a bit of the mathematical capacity required (which initially didn't come easily to Einstein). They published jointly, until Einstein was competent enough to work independently [1]. That's not equivalent to the situation being claimed here. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4068 | |
| ▲ | defmacr0 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah and we get a nice list of attributions for who developed which idea, while OpenAI just takes credit for everything its model spits out. | | |
| ▲ | znnajdla 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Correction: OpenAI takes credit for what it's model spits out in response to other people's prompts. That's even worse. |
| |
| ▲ | znnajdla 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sounds like you just copy-pasted from AI without even understanding what you're talking about. Based on what you're saying, you're claiming this is Grossman's work, not Einstein's. Why don't we rewrite scientific history too based on your copy-pasted AI slop? It's so pointless talking to idiots who don't what they're talking about when they use AI, just because they think AI does everything, that reflects their own experience, not the experience of people who actually do real work. Some people are driven by AI, others drive it. As for those who are driven by it, they don't have sufficient imagination to think otherwise. | | |
| ▲ | madaxe_again 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | That’s Wikipedia I copy pasted but sure, you do you. And yes - without Grossmann, Einstein likely would never have posited relativity. Grossmann literally prompted him, saying “look at this, read that, learn this, then try this approach”. Without riemann’s metric tensor, not a fucking chance. And for what it’s worth my PhD is in physics. You? | | |
| ▲ | calf 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you're just equivocating on terms like "prompt", "synthesis" and the like. Clearly a PhD in physics does not free people from scientistic modes of thinking and poor philosophy. To think this discussion is about Einstein who had a much better mind on these things as well. | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They used words to mean what the words mean. What specific issue do you take with that? "prompt", as in prompting an AI, has the same definition as "prompt", as in prompting a person. They mean the same thing, that's why the term was applied to AI after already applying people. | | |
| ▲ | YeGoblynQueenne 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a jingle fallacy. *Jingle-jangle fallacies are erroneous assumptions that either two different things are the same because they bear the same name (jingle fallacy); or two identical or almost identical things are different because they are labeled differently (jangle fallacy).[1][2][3] The term was coined by Truman Lee Kelley in his 1927 book Interpretation of educational measurements.[4] In research, a jangle fallacy is the inference that two measures (e.g., tests, scales) with different names measure different constructs. By comparison, a jingle fallacy is the assumption that two measures which are called by the same name capture the same construct.[5][6][7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle-jangle_fallacies | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN an hour ago | parent [-] | | You are simply incorrect. It is not a fallacy of that type, or any other type, because the words do, in fact, mean the same thing, as multiple people have pointed out here. Whether referring to chatbots or people, "prompt" means "to move to action". If you have some reliable source supporting your unilateral claims that "prompt" does not mean this, please share. Otherwise, the consensus seems to be contrary to your claims. |
|
| |
| ▲ | madaxe_again 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Actually, my undergraduate degree was physics and philosophy. And yes, synthesis is synthesis whether a human, a machine, or a duck does it, and people prompt one another all the time - “have you thought about trying X?” Or “I need the TPS report by EOB”. I suppose my underlying point is that human cognition is not the unique and beautiful thing that we anthropocentrically suppose it to be - it is a physical process, with stochastic outcomes. Much like transformers. Me, I’m just a machine made of meat. You can suppose yourself to be God’s perfect creation, and that’s your right, but I disagree. | | |
| ▲ | calf 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Clearly your degrees did not make you immune from fallacies and simplistic reductions. "Synthesis" is obviously of different kinds. A duck has a different level of intelligence than a human. We do not say both are "just doing synthesis". So the question is how can you be so disingenuous about such terminology? Answer, you are relying on a classic form of scientistic reductivism. The fact that intelligence is physical, emerges from chemistry, etc,. has nothing to do with there being also objectively different levels of computational sophistication. If you want to be scientific about that you could look at neuropsychology on one hand and computability/complexity on the other. There are levels and so equivocation of "mentorship" as "prompting" and fallacious variants thereof is a) frankly intellectually obtuse, b) par for the course for SV-levels of philosophizing, c) and a disservice to philosophy, physics, and Einstein's own philosophical outlooks himself. I am well aware of the Hinton-style physics argument about human cognition, and unlike others I am partial to it. That "there is no special magic." But it is wrong to go about misunderstanding and/or conveying this physicalism/computationalim so grossly. I also don't have to start replies thumping my chest about my credentials, also another kind of intellectual boorishness that works to cloud understanding and serious discussion. I'm not sure which move is worse or more telling, those above or the one backhandedly accusing someone who disagrees with you of religious thinking. It is bad faith and undisciplined behavior. Having privileged and advanced degrees is clearly no antidote, as Asimov famously wrote. | | |
| ▲ | madaxe_again an hour ago | parent [-] | | “obviously of different kinds” What’s your basis for that “obviously”? You have a unique insight of the phenomenology of duck-ness? You can prove that your consciousness is somehow real, somehow different? A duck synthesises with its cognition, or it would be incapable of, well, anything. Synthesis is purely the process of the integration of inputs into outputs - ie behaviour, language. Here’s an article on a paper on duck synthesis: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/ducklings-make-way-abst... “objectively different levels of computational sophistication” Says who? We still have a very poor understanding of how cognition works in animals, humans included. For all we know ducks have rich inner lives - a remarkable amount can be achieved with a very small neurone count - cf. insects. Can you coordinate flight? Can you echolocate? Are you less intelligent because you cannot? “equivocation of "mentorship" as "prompting" and fallacious variants thereof” You are arguing semantics. Take Harry Nyquist. He sent people down new paths with insightful questions. You could call this mentorship if you choose, I could call it prompting, but this splits hairs. The core idea is that a novel input can produce a novel output, that synthesis can be induced through guided and deliberate external input. I invoked credentials only in response to the previous derogatory comments about my cognition - which may or may not exist, anyway. As to religiosity - the idea that human cognition is somehow unique and special and impossible to replicate, which is the prevailing argument in this comment tree is religious, and anthropocentrism of the highest order. I apologise for accusing you of it - I was evidently wrong - I had mistaken you for a previous poster. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You're wrong about the ducks. But getting back to your previous wrong argument from 14 hours ago, you basically deny the meaning of terms like "uninspired", "insipid", and "derivative", on the grounds that we're all standing on the shoulders of giants and therefore it's all good. This is incorrect, it's not all good, and the things the LLMs do really are unoriginal, a term that really does mean something. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
