this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
104 points (92.6% liked)
Apple
18923 readers
258 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There’s nothing wrong with scientifically proving something that’s commonly known. In fact, that’s an important duty of science, even if it’s not a glamorous one.
Exactly. “Conventional wisdom” is often inaccurate, or outright incorrect.
You aren’t wrong by in this case, nothing needs to be proven by a 3rd party since anyone recently in programming knows how LLMs works. It’s factual.
LLMs are famously NOT understood, even by the scientists creating them. We’re still learning how they process information.
Moreover, we most definitely don’t know how human intelligence works, or how close/far we are to replicating it. I suspect we’ll be really disappointed by the human mind once we figure out what the fundamentals of intelligence are.
They most definitely are understood. The basics of what they’re doing doesn’t change. Garbage in, garbage out.
But others have been showing this for years...
You don't often hear about the 17th time an experiment reaches the same conclusion.
But like I said, people will care about it. Because capitalism drives science so it matters more when a billion dollar corporation says it than countless subject matter experts.
Investors don't listen to them, but they'll listen to apple.
OK, then, when was the last time this was scientifically proven? By whom? Please provide citations and references.
Just to be clear...
You want me to show you a study that shows AI needs to be trained to do something?
Because I can do that, I just realized this is apple and don't want to get in something that never ends with a fanboy.
But what would make you happy is something that shows what AI developers spend billions of dollars and violate all types of laws or n pursuit of isn't just some optional step they can skip and it'll still do what it does now.
Cuz thats what it sounds like youre asking for, it's just a little hard to believe.
Exactly as I thought: you’re full of shit.
That explains a lot