Words have meanings. You are refusing to define a word that is at the heart of your question. If you have no interest in defining consciousness, then you should have no interest in whether or not determinism has anything to do with this. To quote you, "This is completely worthless."

FWIW, I have no interest in defining consciousness either, but I do have an interest in the definition of deterministic behavior.

OK... so now you are quibbling about the definition of deterministic and nondeterministic, and I happen to disagree with you.

THIS is why I provided the example of passing Ollama a static seed - it is entirely deterministic. You seem to refuse to accept that point, and that's the sort of thing that gets people yelling, "This CANNOT be overstated. LLMs are software, they execute on machines that are entirely deterministic and do not work unless they are. Non-determinism is literally simulated in AI. This must be said over and over.", as dfghjk had stated.

We cannot proceed to explain how that relates to consciousness if we can't even get past agreeing on what nondeterminism is.

Right. That's how definitions of terms works. If I say the color "Orange" is defined by light with wavelengths between two certain frequencies, and that green can not be orange because it is not between those, how is that worthless? What other value is there to a word?
You may provide your definition of consciousness so we can discuss it within your terms, but you "have no interest in defining consciousness". What is your problem with how others are defining it?

Ah, the common refrain when one has no ground upon which to stand.

Claiming something (trans) doesn't exist when it clearly does is an extraordinary claim. The burden is on you/him. Trans people exist that recognize themselves as trans, which is self evident to them. That goes to the fundamental "I think therefore I am" level. To claim they are not is going to need more than a swarmy, "no, you prove it!"

Please provide your definition of consciousness. If you can't define it, then what's the point of your replies?

FYI, I made so such correlation. Someone claimed LLM's are nondeterministic. I simply provided evidence to the contrary. Can you at least agree, or disagree, on whether LLM's are nondeterministic?

Apparently, some people consider nondeterminism to be a requirement for consciousness. If that is part of its definition, then the question of whether or not LLM's are deterministic is quite important. If your definition of consciousness isn't the same as theirs, then you must right those definitions before you can have a meaningful discussion. So, what definition do you use?

In all practicality, yes. Look up the past competitions. The LLMs can easily pass the Turing test. Here's a blurb from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test):

One of the methods that helped older attempts was to pretend to be a young child. Imagine chatting with an actual child and an LLM instructed to behave like a child - could you tell the difference?

I'll just quote the GP that already answered this:
"This CANNOT be overstated. LLMs are software, they execute on machines that are entirely deterministic and do not work unless they are. Non-determinism is literally simulated in AI. This must be said over and over." - dfghjk

IE: introducing a "real nondeterministic random number generator" does not change the fact that the entire system is dependent on its deterministic nature. Setting that to a static value proves that the system is deterministic. That's why I showed the example.

On the philosophical debate over what conscience is, I'll pass. However, I will comment that the age old Turing Test, which gained many stories on Slashdot over the years as various Eliza bot sort of systems got closer and closer to beating it, the LLM's can crush it, for whatever that's worth.

You first. Provide a scientific basis that supports his position. I'm not doing your work for you.

FALSE (assuming same prompt means they're passing the same initialization seed).

Borrowing the example from: https://www.reddit.com/r/ollam...

curl -s http://localhost:11434/api/cha... -d '{
    "model": "llama3.2:latest",
    "messages": [
        {
            "role": "user",
            "content": "Give 5 random numbers and 5 random animals"
        }
    ],
    "options": {
        "seed": 32988
    },
    "stream": false
}' | jq '.message.content'

That will print the same random numbers on subsequent calls. It's faking it to make you think it's nondeterministic, and it seems to have fooled you (and maybe even Dawkins).

What about a small team and a bunch of LLM use? Give it a bit more time - someone is bound to make such a effort.

Agreed, but also worth noting that being employed by them is not the same as supporting them. Keep your friends close and enemy's closer. Or to simply introduce chaos to the system (this app sure seems like it was either incompetence or chaos malice). Why allow all their grifting handouts full success in handing common monies (taxpayer money) to their chosen recipients? Doesn't seem too bizarre to take the money while throwing wrenches in the works.

... and if you're building custom kernels you probably have it disabled already.

While the latter part is a good recommendation, the former part isn't possible without elevated privs, which is what this CVE achieves. IE: if the user has root already, they don't need to exploit this CVE.

IMO, a more accurate answer would be:

Q: rmmod: ERROR: Module algif_aead is not currently loaded. Does it means I'm not affected?

A: Correct. If algif_aead is not built in and is not loaded as a module, you are not actively vulnerable. If that situation changes (IE: if you load that module into the kernel), you'll be vulnerable unless it is a patched kernel or pre-2017 kernel.

FYI, seeing the same on Ubuntu server 24.04 - it's built as a module, not loaded by default, and the test exploit fails.
Same for a few versions of Devuan I tested.

IMHO, the copyfail website is doing people a disservice by stating:

This may be a far reaching issue, but they're definitely exaggerating.

There should also be a better "am I vulnerable" script. The exploit, if successful, isn't something you want to run (leaves /usr/bin/su effectively hacked). If the exploit fails, it's not clear why (unless you understand it failed to open the socket because you're not vulnerable). Someone tell Claude to make one or something lol

Agreed. I don't have the module loaded on any of the systems I've tested (about a dozen), and the exploit doesn't run either. This includes some recent and older Devuan systems, and some Ubuntu 24.04 servers.

It would be helpful if the proof of concept exploit had just a bit more to it. For example, it could print something saying you're not vulnerable to this exploit when it fails to open the socket, rather than a cryptic error. Slashdot won't let me paste what I get, mostly because the source code was obfuscated and looks like line noise, lol. But I'm basically getting "FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory" from the call to ".bind("aead","authencesn(...))" on the socket created by "s.socket(38,5,0);".

Can anyone confirm if that means that system is not impacted by this issue?

NOTE: using exploit posted here: https://github.com/theori-io/c...
NOTE: sha256sum of that: a567d09b15f6e4440e70c9f2aa8edec8ed59f53301952df05c719aa3911687f9

As others have already implied, GPL needs no such special handling for trademarks, and this is nothing new. See OpenOffice/LibreOffice, Redis/Valkey, Elasticsearch/OpenSearch, MySQL/MariaDB, Firefox/Iceweasel, etc etc etc.. And why shouldn't an OpenSource product have a trademarked name?

(sorry to reply twice... and I rambled on a bit...)

IMO, this is something that's difficult to show. The main difference between Vim and nearly all other editors is that Vim is modal (if you've ever used it, you're aware - the "[ESC]:wq" stuff). That means not only do I hardly ever need to touch my mouse, but my fingers rarely leave the home row. It doesn't need Emac's like claw hand key combos, and I never touch any menus or need to do any hard to reach key combos. I don't even use the arrow keys to move around.

So a video highlighting the benefits would have to show the keyboard overview, and probably the actual key presses (cause hands are on top of the keys most often pressed), as well as what the editor is doing on screen. It's what makes the learning curve a bit steep at first, but then you're well on your way to being proficient once over that bit.

If I may, I'd recommend starting with using it for you notes (assuming you keep notes). That would get you used to the basics of editing without being a frustrating drain on your productivity. Once that feels more natural, start using it elsewhere.

I wonder if there are good interactive training courses on Vim? There's so so many little features that can go unnoticed for ages. As an example, I was using it for nearly a decade before using visual mode, and now I use that all the time. Ex:
* In some text file...
* hit "v" to enter visual mode
* use movement keys ("hjkl" like arrow keys, "wWbB" word forward/back stuff, etc..) to highlight blocks of text
* then apply commands to them, like:
* * pressing ">" to indent all those highlighted lines one level
* * or "3>" to indent 3 levels
* * Or "x" to cut, or "y" to yank/copy
* * Or enter ex mode and run a regex on them like :s/Old.*Thing/New Thing/g

Probably my most frequently used visual mode thing is to comment out a block of code quickly. Just highlight it with "v" and moving around, then insert the comment character at the start... and I'll often include a string in that comment so I can easily remove it a bit later. Like:

        v(move to highlight block):s/^/ #TEMPCOMMENT# /

And to remove that later, simply: :1,$s/^ #TEMPCOMMENT# //
That means: ex mode, first line, to last line, substitution, start of line, text, replacement

Macros are a whole other wonderful can of worms. Just hit "q" and any letter to start recording one saved to that other letter, and "q" to end the recording. Run it easily with "@" and the letter you picked (ex. "qa(do things)q@a"), or run it 7 times with "7@a". Works great when you include a search at the start of the macro, like a very very powerful find and replace, but it's find and do a bunch of editing, which can include cutting/pasting words, going to other lines to yank stuff, running regexes, incrementing numbers, etc etc..

I think the only downside to using Vim wherever/whenever possible is that you'll miss it when you can't use it. Biggest gripe I have is for emails, and that's only because work uses Office 365 and has locked out other email clients (ex. can't even use Thunderbird). IDE's with Vim-like key bindings don't cut it for me, but that might be a good option if you're already using one of those IDE's.