@alexgrenier @skdh project much?

@Phanatic1a @skdh It shows a relationship between hardware and software.

@eterevsky @b1rkh0ff @skdh "Trained to play..." It does not WANT to play, it is programmed - Trained - to play.

@Phanatic1a @skdh Statistically, it appears that they are not.

@SnarkyASI @skdh So you approve one position and disapprove the other. Nice.

@alexgrenier @skdh Are you willing to wager on that?

@eterevsky @b1rkh0ff @skdh Why do you think it can? The concept of wanting is antithetical to the concept of an algorithm.

@Steven_T_Abell @skdh No amount of "Stepping out and learning things" will make logical impossibilities logically possible.

@TheFund47 @skdh That's a claim.

@alexgrenier @skdh We could say (2) is possible and a matter of time; We could say that a stick with one end is a matter of time. But in both cases we would be ignoring what the words mean.

@TheFund47 @skdh Back at you.

@Steven_T_Abell @skdh Thank you, Dr. Freud.

@FlanningFames No.

@SmotWicket @skdh If it can't beat you at tictactoe it's a bad algorithm. TTT is a fully known game.

@spooky3do @FlanningFames Keep working on it.

@eterevsky @b1rkh0ff @skdh A large language model is merely an algorithm. It's looking for the statistically most likely next word. It has no point to make. It does not know what a point is. It's stringing words together based on a set of rules. Rules do not want. It is a category error to think they do.

@IsaacKing314 @skdh That's a lovely religion that you have there.

@Steven_T_Abell @skdh Impossible does not become possible given enough time, and examples of people mistaking functional impossibility for logical impossibility will not change that.

@SmotWicket @skdh Why do hands have seven fingers?

@Phanatic1a @skdh Consciousness and reason, respectively.