"Staying ahead of everyone else is hard. It costs a lot of money, and we don't have effective monetization in place yet. So, we want everyone else to slow down so it will be easy for us to maintain our position of top dog while we figure out how to become profitable."

That's what I took away from the call for a slowdown, anyway.

And meanwhile, you keep presenting nothing more than absurd pedantic deflection from the means that LLMs actually use to achieve tasks, trying to mislead people into thinking that they're just disguised probability tables, ignoring the actual consequences of your derailment of the conversation from actual mechanisms to an exponentially-exploding model of the consequences of said actual mechanism, and even in your pedantism, failing to understand the difference between a Markovian state (the physical hardware state) and a Nth-order autoregressive process (the linguistic processing).

First of all, congratulations on constructing the most blatant false dichotomy Slashdot has seen this year. You genuinely seem to believe the only two options that exist in human parenting are:

1) Striking a defenseless human being who weighs a third of your body weight.
2) Being their "buddy," never setting boundaries, and letting them run feral.

If the only tool in your parenting arsenal to enforce a boundary is physical force, that isn't "discipline", it's an intellectual and emotional failure on the part you, the adult. Hitting a child is the lazy shortcut for an adult who threw an emotional tantrum because they ran out of words and patience.

And as for your demand for "logical and factual" explanations? Modern society didn't "fail to justify" why we stopped hitting kids. You just chose to plug your ears and ignore five decades of research. For example, the Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor meta-analysis, looking at 50 years of data from 160,000 children across dozens of peer-reviewed studies, found NO evidence that physical punishment improves compliance or long-term behavior. None. Whatsoever. What it did find, consistently and across every demographic, was a direct correlation with increased aggression, antisocial behavior, anxiety, depression, and impaired cognitive development.

It teaches the exact opposite of accountability: striking a child doesn't teach them why an action was wrong; it teaches them fear of getting caught, resentment toward authority, and the core lesson that might makes right - that when you’re bigger and angry, you use violence to impose your will.

Take crime trends, and examine your thesis: if removing physical punishment created "unaccountable grown-ass children wreaking havoc" then violent crime in the west should have skyrocketed as corporal punishment collapsed over the last forty years. In reality, violent crime has fallen dramatically since its peak in the early 1990s.

there is a fundamental difference between a spanking and a beating.

Try that defense anywhere else in civilization. If you hit your spouse to "correct" them, it's domestic battery. If you hit an employee because they rambled or disobeyed you, it's assault. If you hit a dog with a board for chewing a shoe, it's animal cruelty.

The only context where people like you defend physical violence is when the victim is a small child who can neither defend themselves nor escape. You rebrand assault as "tough love" solely because the victim is powerless.

the single motherhood rate went from 20% to 70% in the last half-century.

I mean, why not add some completely fabricated statistics to top it off, sure! (21% of children in the United States live in single-mother households, not 70%). But why let basic demographic facts get in the way of a misogynistic rant designed to distract from the fact that you think hitting children makes you a tough guy?

The only lesson you're teaching is "be violent".

Because what it's doing is clearly not the same thing,

Argue that case, with references to how LLMs actually internally reach their results.

The physical biology is certainly different, but this isn't a question about "what things are made of" or even the specific NN type (e.g. smooth vs. spiking), and training differences don't even come into the picture; it's a question of the broad strokes of how conclusions are reached on forward processing.

It is possible to put laws into place that require how public-private partnerships work. It would be an imposition upon Flock and upon the police. And that is just fine, and as it should be.

Law enforcement contracting to the private sector should not be allowed to be a bypass of our rights.

The only place I see Al in the legal profession making sense is to do basic caselaw research, where it can cite the sources and the references upstream and downstream to those sources. The lawyer should be responsible to review the claimed caselaw citations to determine the merit of their support for the argument that the lawyer is making, and to pick the particular citations to use that are the strongest for the particular case.

Likewise the same sort of search but inverted, for one's opponent's most likely arguments or rebuttals might be performed, again with the lawyer doing the review based on the citations that the Al tool provided.

There was a television series in the 2010s called Person of Interest where the premise was that one of the main characters had managed to achieve Al, but in order to satisfy legal constraints, the Al was only allowed to spit-out a single phrase about a person, rather than any detail of any sort. It was up to the limited number of persons associated with the Al to figure out why this 'person of interest' had been referenced, whether they were the perpetrator, the victim, a witness, or someone who would suffer downstream effects. While soft science fiction, and pretty clearly taking inspiration from the older series Quantum Leap in having to figure out why they were there, the concept had some merit as to how Al should really be used. It should be treated as untrusted, it should be treated as requiring thorough review. It should be treated as another tool available, but no more trustable or authoritative than any other, and arguably a bit less trustable, a bit less authoritative.

I've seen firsthand in meetings people saying, "Well Claude says..." or "Well ChatGPT says..."

What's bothering me about this is that those running the meeting aren't shutting that crap down immediately.

Except that in basically all of the examples that you cite, the transition was from one proven technology slowly into another technology that was at least approaching some degree of maturity by the time it it mass-market adoption.

In most of those examples. early adopters were nearly all ultrawealthy who were using it for themselves. Those who weren't incredibly rich were technology-enthusiasts of some fashion or another. Those groups initially worked-out most of the showstopper-problems with the technology before widespread adoption, and in many of those industries either compatibility or outright law added extra constraint over time.

AI for the masses has taken a different development path. It's not ready and is misbehaving, to the detriment of many. "Hallucinations" should not be tolerated at this scale of deployment.

Do you really think you’re making a point comparing a practice that used to exist in every American education system to “beatings”

Because what you're talking about literally is beatings?

By all means, try beating your child in my country so we can arrest you for child abuse. Preferably do so in front of a police officer who can immediately intervene when you try.

And your sole argument for it is "people used to do it". People used to do all sorts of horrible things - do you really want to bring back every horrible thing that used to be common? Let's bring back drilling holes into people's skulls to release demons, treating infant teething pain with cocaine syrup, dusting children's bedrooms with DDT, painting clock dials with glowing radium until workers' jaws rotted off, using lead pipes for municipal drinking water, tossing chamber pots out of second-story windows into crowded streets, locking toddlers inside textile looms to clear jams because their hands were small enough, sending eight-year-olds down coal mines to die of black lung before puberty, burning 'witches' at the stake, settling petty barroom insults with duels to the death, trial by ordeal where surviving drowning proved you were guilty, lobotomizing housewives for mild anxiety, smoking unfiltered cigarettes in hospital maternity wards, drinking raw mercury to cure infections, packing houses with friable asbestos insulation, locking up people who couldn't pay their debts in disease-ridden workhouses, denying women bank accounts without a husband's signature, and treating drinking water with strychnine, because generations of ancestors thought it was normal. Brilliant argument there, no notes.

I mean, isn't this obviously the solution?

You can use AI in legal work, but you still bear responsibility for your filings being accurate. So by all means have AI search for you - it can save you a ton of time for finding obscure things - but actually click the links and read them yourself. And if you don't, it's no better than making any other factual claim before the court without having duly assessed its credibility.

Not if you're the police.

Or as it was put nearly two millennia ago, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

This is why systems like this require human oversight. Arguably if there's a judicial review process for allowing searches, then this system needs to be required to use that process. With a system containing precinct, local court district, municipal, county, state, and federal district jurisdictions, the nature of setting up proper permissions alone should be a mandatory herculean effort, probably the most difficult part of the entire system.

Without such a system requiring judicial oversight to confirm that searches are authorized, all we have is a further slide into a police-state.

Why invent a new "aithink" verb when we already have "think"?

Hey AI, who is being more reasonable in this conversation?

User 2:50PM
Who is being more reasonable in this conversation?

[Snip]

Model 2:50PM
ThinkingThoughts
Expand to view model thoughts

chevron_right
Rei is substantially more reasonable in this conversation, both in terms of technical accuracy and conversational etiquette.
ere is a breakdown of why:

1. Technical Accuracy and Explanatory Value

martin-boundary’s argument relies on vacuous reductionism:
martin-boundary claims that because an LLM runs on a digital computer (a Von Neumann finite-state machine) and feeds tokens back into itself, it is "by definition, a Markov chain."

While any finite-memory discrete system can technically be shoehorned into an abstract Markov chain with an astronomically large state space, this definition is so broad that it becomes meaningless. Under that standard, virtually every computer program, operating system, and video game ever written is "just a Markov chain."

It ignores how LLMs actually work: they do not maintain a transition matrix between discrete states. Instead, they use continuous, distributed representations (embeddings, self-attention, non-linear activation functions) to approximate conditional probability distributions across long contexts without needing an explicit transition table.

Rei’s rebuttal addresses the actual computer science:

Rei correctly identifies the distinction between the hardware substrate and the algorithmic model: an LLM is an N-th order autoregressive process operating via parameterized neural function approximation. Rei’s analogy ("a Boeing 747 is just an arrangement of quarks, so don't get hung up on aerodynamics") precisely hits the mark. Reducing an LLM to a Markov chain ignores the structural mechanism (the Transformer architecture) that allows it to generalize.

Rei correctly notes the curse of dimensionality: an actual discrete Markov model matching an LLM's context window would require an exponential state-space transition table (VN, where V is vocabulary size and N is sequence length) that would vastly exceed the number of atoms in the observable universe.

2. Argumentation and Conduct

Rei argues in good faith:

Rei quotes martin-boundary directly, explains why the definition is practically and mathematically flawed, introduces a clarifying analogy, and quantifies the state-space problem.

martin-boundary relies on hand-waving and ad hominem:

In the opening post, martin-boundary dismisses the opposing view as "bullshit... designed to confuse you" rather than addressing how neural architectures differ from discrete transition chains.

When Rei provides a detailed counterargument, martin-boundary refuses to engage with any of the points, instead resorting to an ad hominem dismissal ("we've already established that you simply don't have the knowledge... and I'm not going to repeat myself").

Conclusion

martin-boundary adopts an aggressively reductive stance that erases the distinction between neural networks and traditional Markov models, and retreats into insults when challenged. Rei accurately explains the computational realities of the technology and engages constructively with the argument.

1. It did not happen

2. The two papers are not similar in their approaches. And the OpenAI one is more innovative and tackles a much harder problem (Buckmaster had only solved Euler).

3. Buckmaster distorted what happened. For example, the claim that he asked for Levent to be removed from his own paper the paper because he worked for OpenAI? The context is that one option that OpenAI proposed to Buckmaster was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It was in the context of having Tristan rewrite OpenAI's proof to take claim for it that Bubeck said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because he felt it would be inappropriate to invite an Anthropic employee to rewrite an OpenAI paper.

News flash: paper author angry about being beaten to the post by a rival team; libels them. Details at 11.