markmaglana

This looks like the merge method used by Gerrit which I've missed. Good to know that it's now available on GH!

One could also call this the Social Network of Things (SNoT).

Astute observation!

I’ve had a similar issue with the Business Model Canvas which, while very useful in visualizing a business’ model, leaves me hanging and a bit uncomfortable because, as you said, there are no (or incomplete) hard data to back up its claims.

On the other hand, if we were to consider these tools as just hypotheses makers and validate those hypotheses with the company’s financials (among other things), I think they’d be a very valuable component of a very able business management toolkit.

As a non-native English speaker, the issue that I've had with the dual meaning of "comprise" is that I was first introduced to it via the "is comprised of" usage which resulted in me equating "comprised" with "composed" or "made up" As in: "X is comprised of Y and Z" == "X is composed of Y and Z" == "X is made up of Y and Z"

Some time later, I came across the usage "X comprises Y and Z" and, based on my previous understanding that "comprise" == "compose," I took that to mean "X composes Y and Z" which, in other words, means "Y and Z are made up of X". But really, it means the other way around which is that "X is made up of Y and Z!" Only when I learned about the dual meaning of "comprise" did I correctly understand it to mean the latter.

To this day, I still have to actively juggle this arbitrary "dual-rule" in my head when I come across "comprise."

I think the additional liability from that event would be much less because it would be computed from the interest payments that the bank eventually owes the depositors.

So given an interest per annum of 1% (for example), a $1m deposit would add $1m liquid, non-earning assets while also adding $1.01m to their liabilities. So, effectively, they’d have $10,000 in unsecured liabilities.

To counter that imbalance (as well as protect the cash from the effects of inflation), they’d have to put some of that cash to work via various investments.

I wonder if it’s correct to also think about it in this way: idle cash devalues over time. Coupled with interest (no matter how small) that they pay out to their depositors, this exposes banks to future liability. To counter that, they have to give “jobs” to as much of this cash as possible so that they can make those payments while also pocketing a profit for themselves.

Your question aligns with the argument I'm trying to make which is: If it turns out that our understanding of ToM is wrong, should we be making proclamations about--whether for or against--the real-ness of our current AI implementations?

> Something that is able to simulate having a theory of mind sufficiently well does actually have a theory of mind.

That presupposes that our existing tools for detecting the presence of ToM are 100% accurate. Might it be possible that they are imprecise and it’s only now that their critical flaws have been exposed?

At some point, when multiple components (including the LLM) have been connected to form a system that exhibits "knowing" (the way humans do), wouldn't the "intelligence" be distributed across the entire system rather than attributed primarily to the LLM?

In other words, the LLM wouldn't be the equivalent of the human brain. Instead, it would just be equivalent to that part of the human brain that processes language.

Step 0: Understand that “DevOps” is a really bad name for “Industrial Engineering principles applied to IT.”