The Purdue intention is quoted as:

> Purdue wants its new initiative to help graduates:
> — Understand and use the latest AI tools effectively in their chosen fields, including being able to identify the key strengths and limits of AI technologies;
> — Recognize and communicate clearly about AI, including developing and defending decisions informed by AI, as well as recognizing the influence and consequences of AI in decision-making;
> — Adapt to and work with future AI developments effectively.

The closest that gets to "not worshipping the AI" is "being able to identify [...] limits of AI technologies".
Note also it says "including developing AND DEFENDING decisions informed by AI".
Plus also "adapt to" future AI developments effectively.

Not one part of that is "improve AI" or "guardrail your work so AI doesn't send it over the edge". Note the METR study that talked about programmers thinking AI made them 20% better when it made them 20% worse. Note the BBC test that said AI got the summaries of news articles wrong 45% of the time.

It assumes that AI is the third coming of the love child of Jesus, Mohammed and Steve Jobs and that the only thing you should be encouraged to do is assume the blame if you use AI somewhere that it's completely unworkable.

> I don't think so. LLM-type AI [...] First, they still do not have

You're not answering the question "When everyone was talking about AI gutting jobs, is it safe to say that future is now here?".

You're answering the question "Is it a good idea, is it feasible to let AI gut jobs?".

Your answer does not take into account that the people doing the job-gutting may not have the understanding-of-function you have.

The future is here.

What in hell GPT-generated word salad did I just plow through?

> It is a result of the thought processes that create it. To create language

LLMs are not thinking. Nor are they creating language.

> You cannot build a LLM from a Markov model

Really? 'cause I'm looking at research papers on Arxiv right now looking at the equivalences in their methodologies. Zekri, Odonnat, Benechehab, Bleistein, Boullé and Redko, last revised Feb 2025.

> If you could store one state transition probability per unit of Planck space

It's not that I don't trust you, but until you show your working I am absolutely not trusting you.

> For LLMs to function, they have to "think", for some definition of thinking

'For LLMs to function, they have to "shit", for some definition of shitting'. That is the idiocy of what you just gave us, right followed with "You can debate over terminology", so I'm more inclined to think you're a GPTbot than a human.

> so you have to "round" your position to nearby tokens, and there's often many tokens nearby

Omigod, it's as if I just heard a quick description of the Temperature parameter of an LLM.

> As for this article, it's just silly

jesuschrist did the irony just send me blind?

> argument that LLMs do not operate in the same way as a human brain, and hallucinates that to "LLMs can't think"

On the one hand, I've yet to see your definition of "think".

> isn't actually supported by the data; novelty metrics continue to rise, with no sign of his suppossed "cliff"

Well that's funny, because again looking at Arxiv I'm seeing "inference-time measures of improving novelty often trade-off gains in originality with a cost in output quality", "Measuring LLM Novelty As The Frontier Of Original And High-Quality Output", October 2025.

> ignoring that the language models *are* reasoning

SHOW IT. Because you haven't yet.

Have you ever read why Peter Thiel resigned from PayPal, then was brought back and Elon Musk got fired?
Guess why. Just guess why.
please just get educated.

This tells me you know very little about the world of contemporary physics journalism and very much about the world of pedophilia, so please tell me all about your crimes.

> Can an LLM handle contradictions?
LLMs are beautifully, powerfully and fundamentally capable of producing contradictions in any exchange.

I am not a physicist and even I know you're wrong. The act of observation on those scales IS literally an interaction.

Plus: if interactions only "just grow an entangled system", the entire universe would be a single entangled system by now. Interactions with the environment, like an observation, can break entanglement. That's quantum decoherence. An unisolated system, sharing coherence with the environment, plus time causes quantum decoherence.

But knowing this requires at least a little knowledge of Quantum Mechanics. Your argument on its own grounds is bad and says you don't get the basic principles or philosophy of science. And you're gonna get super pissed at that and what, I dunno, start throwing around your math credentials? Which is even worse.

Because you're saying people doing calculations and experiments are wrong on the basis of "what the math suggests"; when the whole of Quantum Mechanics got its start on the basis of J. J. Thomson JAMMING ELECTRICITY THROUGH A BUNCH OF GASES and discovering the parameters of what turned out to be THE ELECTRON. Not to mention, the whole of Quantum Mechanics got its start because people observed phenomena that WEREN'T EXPLAINABLE using classical mechanics.

> when you know as well as I do that interactions just grow an entangled system

Whatever phenomenon you use to observe a system at that scale is going to impact the system and therefore your "entangled system" has grown. Observation is a class of interaction. Not all interactions are observations but observations are all interactions. Plus as mentioned above, some interactions BREAK an entangled system.

Let's point out that Quantum Mechanics has been successful not only because it provides a pretty picture of the way things are, but provided a USEFUL picture which, most importantly WORKED WHEN TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY.

The physicist above you decided to slam gets the difference between a mathematical model and a reality. The difference between him and you is he understands math, he understands the math of QM, he understands the physics of QM, he understands the relation of the three; and you don't seem to understand what math actually DOES.

For you to throw out the sentence "That's what the math suggests" implies you shouldn't be throwing shade at "some guy who watched a youtube video" because you don't understand GRADE SCHOOL SCIENCE let alone undergrad let alone physics. Your personal mental model of QM is very much like yourself - uselessly detached from reality.

I hate that talking to a computer does not give me the precision of input and therefore the correctness of output that typing and mousing does. That PLUS all the spywaring being the fundamental base of the technology... the cost is high, the benefit is low, what the hell is the damn point?

It's terrible! How DARE anyone do anything so anti-American as look at numbers or facts!

The existence of literacy is what made it possible for you to have your message spread beyond your immediate neighbourhood.
Any man could twist your words without having them in the preservable form of literacy.
And I would not have been able to communicate to you that you are not merely a posturing fool, but a deluded moron who couldn't understand the self-contradictions in his own stupid, stupid, stupid words.

"the tariffs are illegal, only Congress can set tariffs"?

I mean, what do I know, I'm not American I'm just following the news even when it doesn't make sense. Like, how you people could have possibly allowed your stupid fat orange maniac rifle target into power in the first place.

I'm still not going to care how much energy the prompts cost, because I'm not going to USE your stupid prompts, because the answers are hallucinated trash and the YouTube autogenerated subtitles may as WELL be hallucinated trash.

I used to ask my home Google assistant what time sunrise or sunset was, it would tell me. Then Google made an internal shift to move things to AI and I disabled AI for my responses.

Now I ask when sunrise or sunset is, it says it doesn't "know, but here's a definition of 'sunset' from $INSERT_SITE_HERE". ... but my housemate, who has NOT disabled her AI setting, gets the old behaviour.

So AI me this, Google: what's the best way for you to go fuck yourself all the way to hell out of my life?

Solar panels on top of buildings. Or on the side of towers. More doubling-of-utilisation of land.

I mean, the idiot was camera-caught walking ON THE ROOF of the White House and... oh screw it, what's the use.

F'godsake, I mean the last time I went to vote, I realised that democracy (especially the "American experiment") has obviously failed. Trump has demonstrated that democracy too can be used, abused, subverted and destroyed from within.
So maybe the political system doesn't matter as much. Let's have democracy. Let's have Anarchism. Let's have socialism. Let's have communism (not sure about fascism or anything overly nationalist).
I mean, the British Empire was considered to be at its peak in 1921 under George V; who made royalty reflect middle- rather than upper-class lifestyles. He wasn't authoritarian, but more a moderator and mediator. Fictionally, we have the examples of, say, Arthur or Aragorn.

It's not that I'm necessarily saying "empire!". I'm just saying that Churchill's paraphrasing with the statement "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"... ... maybe democracy isn't the holy grail. Maybe what makes the difference is the nature of the people who take those reins regardless of the system in question.

I digress. As somebody on the other side of the planet, my point was GOING to be: how in the name of whatever gods you like did your idiot-nation ALLOW someone within SNIFFING distance of such a powerful position without any kind of ETHICAL investigation or COMPETENCY TEST? What happened to the checks and balances that were supposed to PREVENT such subversion?

s/understand/underestimate/ sorry.

A degree of ego tied to a desire to do better would lead to that. A degree of ego that swamps all and makes him purely egocentric has no useful ties. Or restraints.