>Blood is blue until it makes contact with the air
>>17086315I've not once heard that claim, I have only heard people insist it's false (more than a hundred times by now).So I hate hearing you people more than whatever faggot from 1982 you think you're pwning.
>superposition of quantum states
>>17086315>referring to races like biological reality rather than social class>"Complete proteins">viewing humans as non-animalsOne time I was talking to a friend about something and the topic of brains came up and I said something about how amazing they are and I had a friend tell me there's no way to map the human brain because it's infinitely complex. I thought he was joking. He was not. I had to break it to him that this is literally not true but also mathematically nonsense. And then he proceeded to dig his heels in. And so I simplified it down to: the skull is a finite space and he basically started boiling down into a string theory argument of everything being super complex when you get small and I was like okay you're not hearing me. And everyone there was acting like I was crazy. I think he still thinks about this sometimes as do I cause the topic has never come up again and he shows his ass regularly with not understanding some basics. This is one of the character traits that led me to not want to befriend him anymore. He views himself as a science man out of interest but he didn't study it in college and it's super apparent. He cannot handle when people say he's wrong.
>>17086321Your models are trash that do not reflect reality.
>>17086318>I've not once heard that claimGet out more. I have. So it's more annoying to me and others than your faggoty meta "akchyually" annoyance.
>>17086318>>17086349It's one of those things I used to hear a lot as a kid in the early 2000's. Idk when the last time I heard it was though.It probably died around the time everyone had internet access in their pocket.
>I have a right to my own opinionOh, show me the Constitution already!This one causes my blood to boil by removing all atmospheric pressure.
>>17086352>It probably died around the time everyone had internet access in their pocket.You'd think people would be less wrong when they can be fact-checked instantly, but misinformation and idiocy abound.
>>17086333if the model can accurately predict what happens next, then it's doing its job
>>17086318I had a nurse telling me that veins are blue and arteries are red, she wouldn't believe me until I looked it up on my phone.
>>17087154Your model predicted that blacks would become equal in achievement when they were given equal rights and African countries would become more developed if they were just given foreign aid. This has remained false for many decades.
>>17086315>Humans evolved from chimps>Humans are peak evolution>The first humans arose 300,000 years ago>Neanderthals and Denisovans went extinct>X trait in human spread cause of natural selection>Light skin first arose in humans 5,000 years ago>Prehistoric man ate meat everyday in their diet>Humanity's "original state" were small nomadic hunter-gatherers with no fixed settlements before agriculture>Hunter-gatherer societies were all egalitarian, while Neolithic agricultural societies were all oppressive>The idea that any phenotype in the world now was present tens of thousands of years agoJust some common evolutionary/anthropological misconceptions I'm tired of hearing.
let me post one thing that is on the border of “wrong”>inflationary cosmology has been proved correct>the big bang is essentially the inflationary epoch>inflation is eternal meaning that the universe extends backward infinitely before the inflationary epochthere are lots of misunderstandings about inflation. First, it is not a proven fact by any means. Even before recent observations have caused tension with the old inflation models, it was always a completely ad-hoc model that is so incredibly approximate and obviously a toy model. For example it requires an “inflationary field” as well as a particle known as the “inflaton”, neither of which have any basis in experiment or any basis in anything really. The idea that the Higgs boson was also the inflaton is debunked, by nowSecond, idiots say that “the big bang was just the inflationary epoch”. This is wrong. Inflation is based in whole on the idea of a big bang happening a short time before the inflationary period, and the whole theory of inflation makes no sense without some concept of a big bang just before it. And in all cases the age of the universe is always about 13.8 billion years, absolutely not infinity. Even in “eternal inflation” or “chaotic inflation” nothing changes this factBut again this is all ad-hoc toy models, and in reality the theory is nowhere even near as solid as, say, string theory (which itself is wildly speculative)Alan Guth is pretty up-front about these facts but Andre Linde, the shill trying to steal credit for the theory, wildly exaggerates the solidness of the theory in true Kaku style
>>17086315>B
>>17086321>referring to races like biological reality >viewing humans as non-animalsAnon, I...
>>17086315i dont know i dont memorize incorrect facts
"death is guaranteed"difficult to not hate that one.
>>17087168>cosmologyNobody cares about the cosmology or universe. Its useless to extract information about universe destroying itself after 1 quadrabillion years. I won't be alive at that time and It's non of my business.
>>17087206So you are one of those...Infinite race individuality, no biology here no sir
>>17087278Why do European people cluster together genetically when compared to Africans?
>>17086315>"Humans are not going to be genetically and cybernetically modified to make women large and men small"
>>17087166Evolution is Just A Theory™
>>17087465What's funny about that one is all the media out there explaining that "theory" means something very different in this context got a lot of midwits to pick up on something equally wrong (ie. "Scientific theory = proven fact" or the notion that any given hypothesis can "graduate to" a theory with enough evidence).A theory is a broad framework under which a set of observations can be explained and predictions about the world may be made. My hypothesis that my hot coffee will eventually match the temperature of the room if left alone long enough is not something that could ever become a "theory" no matter how many times I repeat it. Though the fact that this does, indeed, occur does comply with the presently accepted theory regarding thermodynamics.
>>17087277I wish other people shared your sentiments. But the field of cosmology is very important to a lot of (mostly deranged) people. For atheists, inflationary theory is a lynchpin of their belief system because the standard big bang theory (a “universe from nothing” to use the words of Atheism Shill cryptojew Lawrence Krauss) combined with modern quantum field theory makes predictions that would create a universe riddled with contradictions with what astronomers see in the sky, so inflation is the crucial kludge they need to patch on top of Big Bang theory to get anything even remotely consistent with their ideas about the origin of the universe (which are clearly infantile, especially considering that their main guy shilling it is a molestor Epstein buddy).For the other end of the spectrum you have New Age LARP-buddhism fools who insist that the universe eternally reincarnates, and many of them have some weird attachment to trying to claim that New Age yoga theology is somehow “scientific” (or at least more scientific than the deplorable religious people they are so much better than) and they do an intentional misreading of inflationary theory to claim that an eternal universe is what the physics is saying (and as I explained it is exactly contradicted by actual inflationary theory at a basic-assumptions level)I wish more people would ignore cosmology as basically stoner ramblings, but unfortunately it is one of those topics that is very influential on pop-sci and in significant subsets of the general populace
>>17086357Error has no rights.
>>17087293Intragroup phenotype variance is higher than differentiation between populationsBut I get that is inconvenient for racial fantasies that can’t account for the dick size of Italian white men.
>>17087293they also cluster in terms of diet, language, religions... that is to say even if you find genetic differences you have to prove they actually cause any meaningful changes that would be worth categorizing "races" as a biological feature and not a psyco-social one
>>17087634>intragroup>populationsyour language tacitly implies racial differences
>>17088348>any meaningful changes that would be worth categorizing "races" as a biological feature and not a psyco-social onechildren of black parents tend to be black, children of asian parents tend to be asian, etc, too often to be mere coincidence
>>17086315every time somebody brings up double slit experiment, I have to fight the urge to strangle him
>>17086321Can infinity fit into finite space?Of course not but really?Of course it can, how many reals there's between 1 and 2? Here's your answer about brain being infinitely complex.
>>17088452Your mom is a double slit experiment.
>>17086321>raceLogic and truth are viewed by social constructivists as social constructs.Race is just ancestry and genetic similarity that affects cognitive and non-cognitive phenotypes.Any attack against the existence of biological race (the purpose of which is unanimously to serve an egalitarian agenda) can be made against the existence of families, subspecies, or species.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZo2qhkOUYohttps://abc102.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/a-semantic-defense-of-the-ordinary-race-conceptArabs, Egyptians, and the Japanese understood race thousands of years ago. Three-month-olds understand race. There is no "expert" consensus on the existence of biological race anywhere other than China, and in China, they unanimously accept the existence of biological race. Biologists and biologists with greater academic credentials are more likely to accept the existence of race. Best-fit genetic cluster aligns 99.86% with Self-identified race, and increased admixture increases self-identification.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9sdlvlwD8https://archive.li/TDZemhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc8DWmOX5Achttps://rumble.com/v3ngfq1-the-ridiculous-idea-that-race-isnt-real.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o%2Csrc_v1_rsohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_LPzsPqvKkhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2566511https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357254046_Genetic_ancestry_and_social_race_are_nearly_interchangeable
>>17089359Can you please explain how race works in South America (at least in the period between Bolivar and WWII)?I seem to recall that the entire South American continent had an elaborate system of defining different “castas” of lots of different people with mixed ethnic heritages. Like for example people who were half-indigenous and half-black formed a distinct social stratum in the society. They had a very elaborate system that even would create specific communities of people who were like half white and quarter-black/quarter-indigenous. Already the racial blending there was insane like 200 years ago and by now “races” are not really anything but a social status hierarchy with many levels that include levels for various inter-ethnic groups. But in reality the “racial” mixing there is so complete that their social hierarchies based on past ethnic strata are not very scientific at all.What do you say to that? I know what you will say: I place some extra importance on the ethnic groups that existed in say 1000 AD—that is my stick in the slippery slope where I can claim there was a clean separation of races for one reason or another.But the fact is this is arbitrary and not based in any actual science. Even 23andMe and ancestry.com admit that their methodology is based on some absolute bullshit.Of course “race” is sort of some general pattern you might massage out of the data in certain scenarios, but you need to admit that exceptions to the rules are all over the place, and that the rules are based on some obvious arbitrary boundaries (like the idea of “Russians” for example, which is in no way related to the boundaries of the Russian Federation)
>claiming language models "don't really think" or "can't truly understand"not a single bright person who's rigorously engaged with this stuff takes those claims seriously anymore, but normies seem to think they're clever for talking about how LLMs "just predict the next token"
>>17089364>not a single bright person who's rigorously engaged with this stuff takes those claims seriously anymoreyes, applying matrix multiplication on a vector of input tokens is “true understanding”kill yourself anon. I appreciate you may be taking in shill buxx for your sophistry but the greater good for humanity is for you to just end it all (and imagine how bad it would be for you when Roko’s Basilisk takes over, according to your high priests)
>>17089372so what is "true understanding", retard? neurons squirting chemicals at each other? what part of human cognition can't be mathematically modeled? do you think it's magic?
>>17089376It’s certainly not a big matrix of weights and then you perform a left-multiplication and Presto! This is True Understanding!you are implicitly implying that this is how human brains work but every neurobiologist or cognitive scientist would point out that LLM architecture is not even attempting to replicate actual human brain neuronal structure. LLMs are based on basically a word-predicting algorithm with very much more inspiration from Autocomplete than anything from cognitive science.Stop being a shill, you are obviously way out of your depth. Maybe ask your Claude swarm to try answering for you next time instead of using your propaganda-addled smoothbrain
>>17089377>It’s certainly not a big matrix of weights and then you perform a left-multiplication and Presto! This is True Understanding!okay, why? this is an emotional argument. "it sounds dumb" doesn't matter. if it can behave like systems we do know to "understand", one should have understanding as their prior anywayand no, this is not how brains work, but that's not what I claimed. they can be modeled as such, though. any system can be, with an arbitrarily large networkand don't get so worked up big man
>>17089380also I'll add that, yeah, I get paid for research in this field. if that makes me a shill write me off I guess, but I'll hope you have an actual argument
>>17089380It is pretty obvious why this is not the case (why you can’t model “true understanding” as a static set of weights that simply take an input vector of tokens and output some autocomplete bullshit) but let me just give you an example that proves it without a mechanistic reasoning of how real brains work.Did you ever attend a class in your life? Where you interacted with a teacher who taught you stuff? (i will assume the answer is “no” because you are a zoomer techbro who probably did online classes instead and ChatGPTed the whole thing but bear with me). In a classroom scenario like that a teacher can rapidly introduce new ideas, even ideas which are completely new to the person. Complex algorithms or theoretical paradigms. In the span of minutes. Undergrads can go from knowing only classical physics to having a grasp on quantum mechanics during a 1-hour lecture on the particle-in-a-box problem. There are clearly multiple levels of thinking and understanding going on in parallel and updating their weights in real time for this to be possible. To do it with an LLM would require burning an oil field of fossil fuels and even then it would probably hallucinate half the time until you trained it on the next classroom session.It’s clearly not the right approach to model human understanding using LLM architecture
>>17089364Any attempt to form a hierarchy of understanding and classify different forms of cognition as "more true" or "less true" is inherently gay, but as >>17089372pointed out, the cognition that is performed by LLMs has numerous fundamental differences from human cognition. It doesn't make LLM cognition in any way inherently inferior (though so far it's incredibly inefficient in practice), but LLM cognition being a different process performed from a different substrate to a different outcome when compared to human cognition is an entirely valid statement.
>>17089364>>>/g/
>>17089364>not a single bright person who's rigorously engaged with this stuff takes those claims seriously anymore>rigorously engagedList your degrees. What's your ML expertise level and how did you assess it? :^)
>>17089376>what part of human cognition can't be mathematically modeled? do you think it's magic?What part of human cognition does a text predictor "mathematically model"? Be specific and provide references.
>>17089380>it can behave like systems we do know to "understand"If it "understands", how come it lacks a preference for useful high-perplexity texts over nonsensical ones? This demonstrable lack of understanding is a direct corollary of it being a text predictor, so the normies who kill saying it's just a text predictor are actually more intelligent and better informed than you.
>>17089408>killkeep*
