"no-code" software is a very specific category of software that aims to enable users to build something that usually is built by a dev, without needing one.
And while "no-code" can be a weird name, it makes sense when you read the definition I just gave. Just like "serverless" does not mean there is no server involved (obviously), but simply means you don't even need to think about the server part.
They won't get far without the support of Americans. Vance won't rally the Trump cultists.
It's not an actual dictatorship. Yet.
At this point it is more important to not have him damage the world any further than to get justice. I'll be happy if he stops being president even if he doesn't get any sort of justice coming for him. This just has to stop.
Yeah, considering it is not impossible to geoblock per instance, they could.
Not a single part of your answer is about how the brain works.
Concepts are not things in your brain.
Consciousness is a concept. It doesn't exist in your brain.
Thinking is how a human uses their brain.
I'm asking about how the brain itself functions to intepret natural language.
That doesn't answer the question you quoted.
Of course the "understanding" of an LLM is limited. Because the entire technology is new, and it's far from being anywhere close to being able to understand to the level of a human.
But I disagree with your understanding of how an LLM works. At its lower level, it's a bunch on connected artifical neurons, not that different from a human brain. Now please don't read this as me saying it's as good as a human brain. It's definitely not, but its inner workings are not so far. As a matter of fact, there is active effort to make artificial neurons behave as close as possible to a human neuron.
If it was just statistics, it wouldn't be so difficult to look at the trained model and identify what does what. But just like the human brain, it is incredidbly difficult to understand that. We just have a general idea.
So it does understand, to a limited extent. Just like a human, it won't understand what it hasn't been exposed to. And unlike a human, it is exposed to a very limited set of data.
You're putting the difference between a human's "understanding" and an LLM's "understanding" in the meaning of the word "understanding", which is just a shortcut to say that they can't be compared. The actual difference is in the scope of understanding.
A lot of the efforts in the AI fields gravitate around imitating a human brain. Which makes sense, as it is the only thing we know that is capable of doing what we want an AI to do. LLMs are no different, but their scope is limited.
They are talking at a technical level only on one side of the comparison. It makes the entire discussion pointless. If you're going to compare the understanding of a neural network and the understanding of a human brain, you have to go into depth on both sides.
Mysticism? Lmao. Where? Do you know what the word means?
You're entering a more philosophical debate than a technical one, because for this point to make any sense, you'd have to define what "understanding" language means for a human in a level as low as what you're describing for an LLM.
Can you affirm that what a human brain does to understand language is so different to what an LLM does?
I'm not saying an LLM is smart, but saying that it doesn't understand, when having computers "understand" natural language is the core of NLP, is meh.
That is actually incorrect. It is also a language understanding tool. You don't have an LLM without NLP. NLP includes processing and understanding natural language.
Ah yes, protect the great american companies of the 17th century
No, it has not. If anything, we're repeating the 30s. The war at the end is not inevitable. And we better avoid it, cause it might be the last one humanity sees if it happens.