Because schools have been focused on "not-getting-sued", and to a lesser extent, "graph of standardized test scores go up and to the right", for a while now. In fairness, the outcomes we generally want - students with working-understandings of the world, life skills, problem solving, critical thinking, social awareness, self-awareness, and emotional stability - are all *very* difficult to quantify. It's even more difficult if we understand that every child has the same finish line, but different starting lines. So, we end up with the lowest-common-denominator of "effective and consistent regurgitation", which is simply the easiest thing to quantify and compare.

Well...that's because the real problem was both hard and easy to bury. Tech in the classroom works when it has a defined purpose, teacher training, tangential connections to existing curricula, and an underlying understanding of the principles the tech is intended to streamline.

Anyone who has ever seen a SmartBoard demo will attest to this - those demos are expressly designed to showcase exactly how new tech can supplement the teaching of old principles, and it looks *amazing* when the tech is shown in such a capacity. The problem is that the Smartboard salesmen can polish a 20 minute demo to a mirror shine, leaving teachers to figure out how to use the thing effectively in their classroom for six hours a day for 180 days...and it invariably ends up being used as a 'next-slide-button' for Powerpoints and an expensive projection screen for Youtube videos 95% of the time.

Tech in the classroom works well when there is an instructor expressly seeking to use it as an augment to existing lessons. Tech in the classroom stops working well when an admin signs a big check to a vendor, dumps a pile of Chromebooks and an instruction manual on a teacher's desk, and says "figure it out"...especially when it's paired with "you must use it".

Last piece of the puzzle: "it's what everyone else is doing" is a depressingly effective way to mitigate criticism and litigation.

Put it all together, and THAT's why everyone tried to do OLPC...and the backlash against it isn't necessarily stupid people sliding from "tech good" to "tech bad", so much as a group of average people - some smart, some dumb - saw the general shift of education in general, combined with sales demos and best-scenario case studies, gave it a shot, and now have their *own* data which indicates that the product being sold didn't yield the intended outcome, and responding accordingly.

This isn't a defense of the districts who pushed it, just the opposite - it's an indictment of the districts who could have avoided the whole problem before they burned millions of taxpayer dollars on a system with a fundamental flaw for which they did not adequately budget, and was obvious to any focus group of teachers and technologists who were given enough say to shoot down the proposal.

The real invasion of privacy -- aside from traffic cams, three letter agencies hoovering up everything that passes through fiber, parallel construction, abuse of the interstate commerce law, permanent emergency bills -- Nevermind. Another invasion of privacy is id.me, wherein to access government services people are forced to send their identity to an unaccountable non-government third party operating under rules not restricted by the constitution.

My definition of consciousness is irrelevant. If there is a dependency of determinism on your particular definition of consciousness you should be able to explain what that dependency is and why it is necessary. I am NOT the one making assertions about determinism and consciousness. I have no duty to provide anything.

So why are you wasting my time by demanding that I provide YOU with a definition when you are the one making the claims?

Nondeterminism for the context of this discussion is when it is physically impossible to predict the output of a system from its inputs in advance.

If you execute an LLM using a PRNG with a known seed value the output of the LLM is deterministic.

If you execute an LLM using a hardware random source based on thermal noise the output of the LLM is nondeterministic.

This isn't rocket science. Still the same question remains WTF does determinism have to do with consciousness?

Consciousness != determinism. Unless you are arguing consciousness is the same thing as determinism you should be able to explain WTF the relationship between the two even is and what the relevance of determinism is WRT consciousness.

Green is a color
Red is a different color
Red is not green.
Green is not red.

Consciousness is a concept.
Determinism is a different concept.

Consciousness is not determinism
Determinism is not consciousness

I am asking for an explanation of assertions related to determinism and consciousness that someone else made. These claims were not made by me. I have no duty to provide any definition of anything. I'm asking for information not quibbling over definitions.

Both methods suffer from the same issues of offline attack.

Passwords are a concept just as PKI is a concept. Both require implementation to exist in the real world. In the case of passwords an example of an implementation is strcmp or a ZKP like TLS-SRP. In the case of PKI examples are client certs or their poorly re-implemented cousin passkeys.

Again passwords are not the issue, it is only the current ubiquitous misuse of technology that is the problem. The argument it is better to deploy something "stronger" by changing all clients and servers anyway doesn't make any sense because it is the same work either way.

The knowledge factor is useful and worth protecting regardless of other technology such as client certs (e.g. passkeys)

Yes, but now you have it too complicated for 95% of the vibe coders. So they simply won't do it. Because skipping all of those steps still results in something that compiles.

They fuck up spreadsheets as well. A truckload of business-critical spreadsheets have errors in them that often go undetected for years.

It's hard enough to get actual developers to properly consider security. Not surprised at all that vibe coders don't.

Plus, of course, most of the training data is insecure to begin with.

But let them learn by fire that there's a reason actual programmers take time to ship a product, and it's not that the AI can type faster.

Sadly, here's basically the scoreboard:

--Google Chrome
--Microsoft Chrome (Edge)
--Apple Chrome (Safari)
--Chinese Chrome (Opera)
--Crypto Chrome (Brave/Vivaldi)
--AI Chrome (Comet)
--Firefox
--Not-Firefox-Firefox (IceWeasel, Palemoon, Waterfox, etc.)

And, while I prefer Firefox myself...the fact is that web developers hated the drudgework of having to work in anything but a browser monoculture...and Google wanted the browser to be an OS unto itself, which is why the browser has hooks into everything else - overwriting the firmware on a phone is something that Microsoft got no shortage of crap for making such a thing technically-possible with ActiveX, but when Chrome does it to update a Pixel in recovery mode, it's "innovative".

Table pounding is pointless. I read what you wrote. If you disagree with my assessment state what you are disagreeing with and the basis of the disagreement. You are most welcome to correct me and explain what I got wrong in my assessment of your statements.

Do you disagree you have presumed without evidence computer + software + data cannot embody consciousness?

Do you disagree you asserted computer + software + data != computer + software + data + consciousness?

Do you disagree your premise is simply begging the question?

I have no interest in defining consciousness. What I am interested in is what consciousness has to do with determinism. I see quite a lot of people making statements about determinism and have no clue what the point of it is. I am quite frustrated by the total universal lack of any coherent explanation.

Unless you are also gweihir I think there might be a mistake. This wasn't even addressed to you. To answer your question if the output of an LLM is nondeterministic then of course it is by definition nondeterministic.

If you are quibbling about technical details such as logits only being influenced by randomness and not themselves being random then randomly perturb the weights of the model or introduce noise into the calculations until you are satisfied. If there is some technical detail to quibble about please explain why the quibbling is relevant to assertions related to consciousness.

What is the basis for such an assumption?

So you are saying this is purely a self sealing argument? I define that consciousness requires nondeterminism therefore LLMs are not conscious because I deem them to be deterministic. This is completely worthless.

This is not the case. Passwords are protected from man in the middle attacks when secure authentication algorithm such as zero knowledge proofs are used.

Part of the reason I recommend use of asymmetric encryption /w special purpose authenticators to authenticate passwords is the equation changes when secure authentication is employed. Even if you use an augmented system with a strong password resistant to brute force attacks any failure to protect the verifier at the very least enables server impersonation.

Pray tell, what team am I rooting for? The Democrats don't really do anything for me either. And I have no problem roasting the hell out of them for their ineptitude. Without which, Donald Trump wouldn't have been able to achieve an electoral victory. Twice.

An attack on Trump's stupidity is not praise for the other side. You've fallen into your own dichotomy with that one.

It's all statistical connections between words. It's not a conceptual model. There is no understanding of morality, ethics, or basic reason or logic. The only way to fix it is to bolt stuff on after training.

Also, you need an enormous dataset to get enough useful weighting for the model to work. For example, they didn't use chat logs because they wanted to, but because they needed the training data to get the models to function. They are still looking for more. You could prune back sources, but the models will perform worse.