enriquepablo

LLMs tell you one thing and not its negation, this choice is semantic. "just language in absence of any context or reference" is a set that includes every valid text. The usefulness of LLMs is their ability to mostly respect whatever semantics you establish in the prompt in their choice of output.

The Chomsky hierarchy is a classification of grammars. So it's about Syntax.

GPT is purely about semantics, about truth. To the extent that I think it can be said to be fundamentally informal in its dedication to truth, since it can easily be prompted to produce syntactically incorrect output - wrt the syntax of whatever language whose semantics determine the truth GPT is asked to reflect.

So I think this is a categorically incorrect question.

I mean, what is the fundamental syntax of the output of an LLM? It would have to be that any sequence of utf8 chars is valid.

The article shows one, the kind of double torus - though I do not understand how neighbourhoods that intersect the line of contact between the 2 "tubes" can be mapped to R².

Thanks for reading :)

"There is a true SENTENCE". Sentence, not sentience.

Designing a conscious machine

The idea here is not to understand why some combinatorial problems are hard and others easy, but rather to just be able to distinguish between them. So, instead of understanding why the measure functions structure the solution spaces the way they do, treating them as black boxes and examining the structure they provide to the solution space.

An attempt at understanding the difference that makes the sorting problem (the problem solved by sorting algorithms), but not the travelling salesman problem, efficiently solvable, looking at the topologies of their solution spaces.

But the cosmic microwave background refers to one single event, that has echoes everywhere, right? If I understand correctly, you don't need to synchronize anything to have echoes everywhere.

As far as I understand (I'm not a physicist), to be able to say that the universe is isotropic across space, you need a point of view that just doesn't exist. You cannot speak about an absolute synchronicity among events happening in locations scattered among an arbitrary subset of the set of all visible galaxies, and without that, you cannot abstract time out of the picture, which you'd need to do to speak about isotropicity across space.

I don't think that, in this regard, you can say much more than "the universe is not isotropic across space-time".

How does Yode compare with tree-sitter?