> You did not understand. I'm saying "traditional model" are abandoning at the first hurdle, and the "persistent model" are the one just acting "normallyThe models we are discussing, the ones from the article, are "traditional" models, and are also "persistent" in every sense of the word. If they encounter challenges, they will try to overcome them. That's normal.
> it does not correspond to a "persistent human", the same way "for x in all_the_possibilities" is not "persistent" in the same way a "persistent human" is.
Again, nobody claimed that "trying all the possibilities" was the definition of "persistence". The definition of persistence here is, continuing to work towards an end when challenges are encountered. That's it! That's all it means! And that's how most people understand it, too.
Modern LLMs and people can both be "persistent" in this exact way. The definition doesn't differentiate between algorithms of a human's brain or algorithms powering an agent. Either way, it's still "persistence", and most people would recognize it as such.
The models we are discussing, the ones from the article, are "traditional" models, and are also "persistent" in every sense of the word. If they encounter challenges, they will try to overcome them. That's normal.
> it does not correspond to a "persistent human", the same way "for x in all_the_possibilities" is not "persistent" in the same way a "persistent human" is.
Again, nobody claimed that "trying all the possibilities" was the definition of "persistence". The definition of persistence here is, continuing to work towards an end when challenges are encountered. That's it! That's all it means! And that's how most people understand it, too.
Modern LLMs and people can both be "persistent" in this exact way. The definition doesn't differentiate between algorithms of a human's brain or algorithms powering an agent. Either way, it's still "persistence", and most people would recognize it as such.