The Alpha-Radiation from Plutonium is already undetectable on the other side of a piece of paper. And, incidentally, Plutonium based nuclear weapons are lighter than Uranium based ones. Such a coincidence. Sounds to me like this person is full of crap.

True. Except for some wines, peanuts and almonds, I cannot think of a single US food product I could easily get here.

Whatever gave you that idea? Please provide reasoning.

Well, I can guess: You lumped "conscious" and "has general intelligence" together without any proof or even a plausibility argument. But your non-insight is exceptionally outdated: These days, we think that some Animals have consciousness, e.g. dogs and cats. Some may even have some limited types of general intelligence, for example primates or some species of birds, like the African grey parrot, which according to current neuro-science models cannot do what they can do.

Apparently, you did not quite understand some things in there, and hence you overlooked some words in that statement, namely "perfect" and "understanding". The NLP layers of LLMs do neither and there are very much non-perfect forms of NLP and also ones that do not provide "understanding". In fact, these two are true for all forms of computational NLP these days and it is unclear whether that will ever change.

So your statement is correct but useless in the given context. And I do understand exactly what the Manning meant, because I make similar statements in my own teaching.

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.

That must be it. Us weak-ass Europeans just cannot deal with PFAS chemicals. We also cannot manage dying earlier (https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/), which creates a host of problems, same as our overpowered and far too affordable health-care systems.

Purified wastewater is very carefully monitored (some of it real-time) for a large range of things, because it has to be. It is much safer than regular drinking water.

Doing that is probably not in this person's skillset. What we are really finding out with the LLM craze is how mentally limited a lot of people are. I am beginning to suspect that only a relatively small part of the human race is actually equipped with general intelligence or the meta-skills to use it competently.

Nope. They know they know even less than people generally assume they know. They can describe some characteristics in a statistical manner, but they have no clue how it works. Kind of like describing a pen as something that makes lines when dragged over paper, but having no idea of the concept of "ink".

That is just pseudo-profound bullshit. There is nothing misguided here on my side. The claim that consciousness could not exist without a physical universe is a completely empty claim, stated as "fact" and given without any evidence at all. All this shows is severe limitations on the side of the person making such a claim. Science works a but different than this. In Science you have to give evidence, and for extraordinary claims (such as the one made here), extraordinary evidence is needed. Instead you have ... nothing.

The problem here is that you try to push your beliefs (!) as facts. That is dishonest and not helpful at all. Incidentally, it is exactly the same approach as religion uses and just of the same nonexistent scientific value.

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).

And they barely managed to get away with a far, far more limited form of doin it. Your point?

What if that is just a completely nonsensical statement you made up on the spot just to be able to say something contrarian, no matter how stupid?

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).

Indeed. Always the same crap. As soon as there is an understanding on how to do something right, some assholes come along and try to game the system for profit or personal aggrandizement. The only real problem the human race has is too many assholes have membership.