You really, really aren't.

It would have been shorter to just say, "I love Anthropic and will always defend them."

Tokenizing might be a problem for some neural networks, but more generally they fail at the balanced parenthesis problem (scroll down to the section "What Really Lets ChatGPT Work?" and scroll down to the pictures of parenthesis).

It's related to the clock problem.

If you ask a neural network to recognize "A" then all As will be tokenized the same way, so it's will be able to recognize it as well as anything else.

I can tell you are a fanboy, and not a person with a scientific background because you keep ignoring the main point:

The philosophical claim is a hypothesis that isn't supported by the evidence presented in the paper

Difficult is not impossible.

What I mean is, when you wrote this:

It's not even clear what you are trying to say.

Actually that sounds really good, you seem to have calmed down. Nice.

The next step is to be more clear in your language. LLMs clearly didn't "solve context sensitivity," but you know that (having implementing rule-based natural language grammars). However, you did seem to have an actual point, although I can't figure it out. So it would be interesting if you dug it out and expressed it a bit more clearly.

In your last comment you talk about performance, but the numbers are a little unclear here, so we would want to clarify that. Also, there is frequently a tradeoff between accuracy and performance (always with neural networks, since if the data set is small enough, you would just calculate an exact solution).

It's politer, but it's not nuanced. He clearly says there was no evidence in the paper to move him to accept the philosophical claim.

He's polite because he was hand selected by the company, but the meaning is the same: The philosophical claim is a hypothesis that isn't supported by the evidence presented in the paper. Being that is the primary claim of the paper (and title), it would therefore be rejected in peer review (or modifications requested, since the other hypotheses are supported).

I don't know which cases you are talking about, but recently the 'reviewers' have been hand selected by the authors (or company or whatever). Anonymous peer review is a good thing.

It's one thing to post a paper on Arxiv.
It's another thing to post a paper that wouldn't pass peer review on Arxiv.

There is only one hope that is ever truly justified in Robert F Kennedy, and that is he will do something unexpected at a cocain/heroin party.

With a bit of PCP he's the perfect match for the Trump administration.

And now you're emotional and not thinking clearly, your questions aren't helpful.

That pain you are feeling, that's the pain of cognitive dissonance, let it go and post again when you see clearly.

Numb nuts, that's the reason we don't understand human psychology. Turn your brain on, show you can think.

Taken at face value, the interpretation of their ocean metaphor is plain, "we don't understand the brain."

As a rhetorical tool, it makes the reader aware of their own ignorance, hoping to increase the perceived authority of the author. It's a similar rhetorical technique to negging a romantic partner. It's not a scientific rhetorical technique.

This paper would not pass peer review.

It's a problem easily solvable by putting a space inbetween each of the letters in the word.

That solves the tokenization problem. The counting problem is much harder to solve.

Drawing conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence presented in the paper (and titling your paper based on those conclusions) would not pass a normal peer review.