Are you saying the election was fixed and the billionaires didn't actually win the election?

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.

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.

We've discussed this already on Slashdot here https://science.slashdot.org/story/26/09/08/2228220/openai-says-it-has-cracked-one-of-maths-millennium-problems. Bubeck, the research at OpenAI has a very different take on this entire situation here https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7503148080888893440/. I will quote his reponse:

As I said in that thread, I don't know whose version of events is accurate here, but some of the details due support Bubeck's version. I suspect that a breakdown of communication occurred where both then misinterpreted what the other saying in a more hostile way than it was intended until the conversation then became genuinely hostile. In terms of the math, although I'm a mathematician, differential equations is pretty far from my expertise, so I cannot deeply evaluate how close the methods were. However, it is the case that the both were building on the methods of Cordoba-Martinez-Zoroa. In this context, my being far from this sort of work is relevant, because this was a well known enough approach that even though I'm in a pretty different subfield, I had heard of CMZ's work as an approach and that this was considered a promising approach to Navier-Stokes. Given that, my inclination is that the case that any theft occurred here is very weak.

And since that thread, I've become more convinced, as experts reading both papers point to substantial differences in the details of their approaches. One of the ironies here is that a lot of the anti-OpenAI views are coming very loudly in part due to a general anti-AI attitude. But Bumaster and Alpoge, the people who are claiming to have had work stolen (well, primarily Bumaster, Alpoge is mostly staying out of the fray) were heavily using both Claude and Codex in their work.

"A labor union wants to be, and often is, the exclusive provider (that is, seller) of labor to a company or industry. "

Labor Union do not provide exclusively labor to companies. What they do is have the power of collective bargaining, job protection, safety - which is utterly different to being "exclusive provider of job".
You may confusing normal labor union, with hiring hall union (e.g. in construction/actors/voice actor). That is a widely different type of union. Most union are NOT hiring hall union.

Feel free to correct me.

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.

Yeah, I used to do that too. Decided to stop bothering with the quotation marks a couple months ago.

We're not going to spend the rest of our lives putting quotations around words when talking about models. "Think" and "reason" the words we have in English for what is going on. No need to tiptoe around it. Again: models are not humans. They are not the same as us. But those are the words we have in English for what they're doing.

They are, by definition, Markov chains.

Even in your attempt to be pedantic here (in which the universe and everything within it is a Markov chain), no, it's not. The hardware state is Markovian but the linguistic processing is a Nth order autoregressive process; it depends on the N previous states. Also, your argument is akin to saying "a Boeing 747 is just an arrangement of quarks, so don't get hung up on aerodynamics." it entirely ignores the relevant architectural details, and instead substitutes a model that blows up exponentially explodes in size within a small number of states.

If you tried to build a Markov model to do what LLMs do, and could store one probability in every unit of Planck space across every unit of Planck time, it couldn't handle a prompt longer than about 2/3rds of the first sentence to A Tale of Two Cities.

Except Americans have voted to gut

Guess that's why most professional sports have unions and have been known to strike. Fungible workers who are easy to replace.

Are you thinking of the 2021 Texas winter storm, when renewables held up great but production from gas and coal collapsed? Of course, the governor then lied about it and tried to claim the opposite:

Is this actually a substantial amount of energy? I'm in Utah (Rocky Mountain Power) and RMP also pays me to use my batteries... but the amount of energy they draw is tiny. 8-10 times per week they draw on my batteries, but it's like 4 kW peak draw (my batteries can sustain 20 kW), and generally for less than 30 seconds, so in any given week I'm only contributing like 0.2 kWh. As I understand it, this is because RMP uses my batteries not really to "serve loads", per se, but just as grid stabilization; brief backfill to keep the voltage from sagging.

Obviously my batteries do serve *my* loads, which reduces the load on the grid, but that's not what RMP pays me for.

Does CA make heavier use of residential batteries to feed the grid?

It's ironic that some people still keep claiming we can't switch to renewables because they aren't reliable. The facts keep showing the opposite. When a drought causes rivers to fall too low to cool your nuclear power plants, renewables keep on working. When someone starts a war that shuts down oil shipments in the middle east, renewables keep on working. When demand spikes and transmission lines get overloaded, distributed solar and batteries are your best friend. They produce energy right where it's needed and keep it off the grid.