overview for ageedizzle

Costly Disappointment 💸 in c/memes@sopuli.xyz

[–] ageedizzle@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Even burger king is hard to get a job at these days.

Lindsay Clancy holdout juror had no doubt she deliberately killed her children in c/wildfeed@sh.itjust.works

[–] ageedizzle@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

Can you please be more specific?

Lindsay Clancy holdout juror had no doubt she deliberately killed her children in c/wildfeed@sh.itjust.works

[–] ageedizzle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Finally, a sane take. Thank you

Lindsay Clancy holdout juror had no doubt she deliberately killed her children in c/wildfeed@sh.itjust.works

[–] ageedizzle@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

women’s rights

What rights are at stake here? Women’s right to kill their toddlers?

Bernie Sanders proposes 20 year prison sentence for AI devs who plow ahead with Artificial Superintelligence plans - penalty on par with illegally developing rogue nuclear weapons in c/technology@lemmy.world

[–] ageedizzle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

I’m not the guy you’re arguing with, but it will be interesting to see if/how LLMs deal with novel Gödel sentences in a way that is more than just mimicry. I’m sure there is a way to set this up that is mathematically rigourous.

The idea is that there are some statements which are true but unprovable in a formal system. Since LLMs run on a computer they are technically a formal system of sorts. So it will be interesting to see if they can pinpoint the true yet unprovable sentences. If they can it will lead to a lot of interesting questions about how exactly they know it’s true without “proving” it in some roundabout way.

I’m not doing this issue justice. A lot has been written on this by Roger Penrose (you don’t have to agree with his stance to appreciate that he’s touching on an interesting problem, here).