So your position boils down to “the only real knowledge is that which is provable”. Tautological. And probably not self-consistent, given Gödel.

▲

nilkn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

As a response to my overall position, no, I think you threw out almost all of it.

On the question of a single word out of my entire position, that is a reasonably fair statement for mathematics (which is the topic under discussion). The fact that you think it's tautological supports both that you agree with its correctness and that this is a mostly irrelevant side conversation. And whatever you think the answer should be is not somehow not subject to the constraints of logic.

	▲	shwaj 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Apologies, I was referring only to your idiosyncratic and non-explicit definition of what knowledge is and isn’t, and it’s tautological and dubious nature. Not your contention that LLMs likely have something analogous to what you call “ideas” (you’re almost certainly right). Mostly irrelevant? Dunno, maybe according to your rigid ontology ;-p Cheers!