![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
It’s not circular. LLMs cannot be fluent because fluency comes from an understanding of the language. An LLM is incapable of understanding so it is incapable of being fluent. It may be able to mimic it but that is a different thing. (In my opinion)
It’s not circular. LLMs cannot be fluent because fluency comes from an understanding of the language. An LLM is incapable of understanding so it is incapable of being fluent. It may be able to mimic it but that is a different thing. (In my opinion)
It is indeed a stupid meme
How is it wrong? First it makes some assumptions about the question and answers the typical version of the riddle. Then it answers the trivial version where there are no additional items. Seems like a complete and reasonable response to me.
Because if we weren’t then no class would ever learn anything, as the teaching would move at a glacial pace and cover material that isn’t relevant until you start on your PhD.
Meta holds the record for the largest gdpr fine at 1,2 billion euro.
From a logical perspective that implication is true, choosing your sexuality implies you have a choice. However, I disagree with the premise that there is a choice to begin with.
I do not choose to be straight, I just am. I’m not gay, and no amount of choosing will change that. I’m a guy, and I can choose to look for a boyfriend, but it won’t change the fact that I’m attracted to women. Now maybe I discover that I’m actually attracted to both men and women, but I would argue that discovering is different from choosing. Choosing would mean that I can choose to not be attracted to a gender, which I can’t. I can only choose whether or not I act on it.
What is flow art?
The lack of nuance in any discussion on Lemmy is making me less and less interested in comment sections.
They’re not saying it is the only factor, only that it is a relevant factor. Which it obviously is.
Flying commercial would be disregarding everyone’s safety.
It’s easier to nitpick than it is to interact with the actual argument.
I agree with you. The headline is misleading, and I think it devalues the article.
Shrinkflation still happens, you just get to watch two numbers go up now.
The link references “a/bc” not “a/b*c”. The first is ambiguous, the second is not.
How do you plan on that happening?
It is somewhat US specific since the US is more dependent on cars than a lot of European places for example. That makes it harder to make changes that impact car owners negatively.
In this case it is more a feature being called a bug