Yeah, this is clearly just someone phoning it in from Langley.

God is great!

Please keep being great.

I was also thinking I’d love to hear some adagios being sung.

I’ve learned a lot from Lemmygrad/Hexbear posts!

I would consider political education to be praxis.

Parking enforcement?

I was about to ask “Did you read Stalin?”

Millennial/Gen Z doom spending?

Honestly from my end as well. I wouldn’t have entirely disagreed with you about a year ago. As much as I have always wished for a Palestinian one-state solution, it seemed out of reach realistically and like a dream.

But that goes to show you. I was wrong and comrades were right to disagree with me. Each day we get closer to the Zionists going the way of Nazi Germany and Rhodesia. There is no way they will defeat Hezbollah, Ansrallah, and Iran in a full out war when they aren’t even able to defeat Hamas. I don’t even think the US will be able to turn the tides towards victory for them. If they go full out war and they lose, then that could lead to de-Zionification of Palestine. The material conditions, so far, make it possible for a free Palestine. Solidarity to the Palestinians and Lebanese in their struggle against the Zionist settlers.

Of course, the Zionists may go down nukes blazing which is entirely a very real possibility.

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know!

Pick me!

But, ironically, the Chinese Room Argument you’re bringing up supports what others are saying that LLMs do not ‘understand’ anything.

It seems to me like you are establishing ‘understanding’ with a functionalist meaning to be able to say that input/output is equivalent to understanding in order to say the measurable process in itself shows ‘understanding’. But that’s not what Searle, and seemingly the others here, seem to mean by ‘understanding’. As Searle argues, it is not purely the syntactic manipulation in question but the semantic. In other words, these LLMs do not “know” the information they provide, they are just repeating based off the input/output process with which they were programmed. LLMs do not project or internalize any meaning to the input/output process. If they had some reflexive consciousness and any ‘understanding’, then they could have critically approach the meaning of the information in order to assess its validity against facts rather than just naïvely proclaiming that cockroaches got their name because they like to crawl into penises at night. Do you believe LLMs are conscious?

I knew you were going to say that.

The tweet literally says what it’s quoting. But, fine, here’s your precious source link.

Okay. Fair enough.

But this does.

One would hope, but it took her long enough to even slightly call out the Zionist entity.

I’m assuming it depends on how the grift is going. I don’t see her holding up signs next to Tlaib anyway.

God, I know it’s petty in light of everything, but I would love to hear what she and Omar think of AOC now.

I was about to ask the same.

Might as well be elderly then.

A mix of things. Religious studies, scriptures, philosophy, literature, poetry also but not as much lately.

It’s startling and confusing at times, honestly.

I feel like I must be misreading or having a stroke until I figure it out.

Tolkien said that his works didn’t intentionally contain any specific allegories. In other words, Gandalf is not supposed to be a direct stand-in for Christ for example. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t Christian influences on Gandalf that the reader can infer, along with other types of influences, or read into Gandalf futural aspects that didn’t even exist at the time of writing. There is complexity to Gandalf.

He just didn’t like simplistic meaning like that because it kills the depth and layers of interpretation to the story. Instead of saying “Gandalf is a fully fleshed out, independent character” people say “Gandalf is just Christ!” and either leave out or don’t need or want the Gandalf character development because they already know he’s just Christ.

I use that example specifically because he disliked how C.S. Lewis (close friend of Tolkien, by the way) made the Lion in Chronicles of Narnia a literal and direct allegory for Christ, like the Lion is literally Christ, which Tolkien found to be lazy and hated allegories for this reason.