Interesting this is different than my experience with it. I find that it removes the process of understanding and as such it feels empty or vapid. It has helped me finding papers that I would not have found because google offers a bubble in scholar that I cannot get removed from.
Can you elaborate on this? What does not help for research you reckon?
Does that even play YouTube? Shiiiiieeeeeettt
970 gang still going strong here
Did you read the link?
The Chinese room argument is about understanding, not emotions. There is a large body of literature on the use and evolutionary benefit of emotion. While you can make an analogy to see if a system can have emotions the link between understanding is not trivial. For example, animals show emotion but don’t have the same understanding that a human may have. I don’t think you need to have understanding to have emotions. So the Chinese room argument is shoe horned in without making it clear what your argument is.
According to their forum it is to prevent repackers
Well to be precise the pretraining is prevented by this but the online post training does have this issue. The reinforcement learning trials show some sort of automation but I am not aware of any unsupervised methods that have been as successful as the latest batches of llms — haven’t been in this field for a while so honestly dunno.
My read is that the user is saying that creating a world view contains trial and error. Online learning if you will. With the current setup this learning is very much not like this. While that makes a human to machine analogy I am also not too convinced by this reasoning. Just allow for a larger time lag and then the inference and learning is at the same scale.
This is not what the Chinese room is about.
This was true a year ago but most state of the art models are rather good at citing sources now. Haven’t had any issues with my papers so far which was not the case last year.
Only thing I have noticed now is that sometimes understanding the source is a different story. It will get the gist but lacks nuance written in the source present in the paper. But the papers exist at least when it refers to papers in my field.