Try duckduckgo

I've worked in the industry for over a decade

Since we're naming fallacies: appeal to authority. I'm a Astronaut Scientist Millionaire Cowboy and I say you're wrong

What I said isn't even up for debate.

Begging the question

If you had a shred of understanding you know how astoundingly wrong what you said is. In fact, if you had a shred of understanding you just flat out wouldn't have said it.

Ad Hominem

You know that list of little tiny text at the bottom of each page? Those are "references" from credible sources that are cited.

Then you should have linked those, not Wikipedia. I'm not going to put more work into this than you are. If you can't be bothered to find the actual source I'm not going to do it for you.

Modeled loosely on the human brain...

Let me stop you right there.
"Modeled loosely on the human brain." So again your source straight up says it does not function like a human brain.

It resembles the human brain in two respects: The knowledge is acquired by the network through a learning process, and interneuron connection strengths known as synaptic weights are used to store the knowledge.

None of that indicates a capacity to reason.

Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computational models that attempt to emulate the architecture and function of the human brain (Russell and Norvig, 1995).

I thought we were talking about LLMs, not ANNs, and an attempt to emulate does not imply success.

Now I know you're either 14 or just not very smart.

Ad Hominem

It's literally in the sentence, it said "deliberate planning akin to human brains".

Interesting how you cut out the words "prevents the LLM from" that immediately preceded that.

Convenient for your "argument".

Convenient for dealing with a gish gallop. Not going to waste my time analyzing sources you haven't even read.

You just can't read, have reading comprehension issues, or simply can't understand them.

More Ad Hominem.

Someone with an actual argument doesn't need to resort to personal attacks every other paragraph. They can simply present their argument. Someone without an actual argument is likely to resort to personal attacks to make the other person go away and stop forcing them to defend their (non)argument, then think they've "won" just because the other person isn't bothering to deal with them anymore.

Anyone else who reads these comments will see you're out of your depth.

Ah yes, you've been getting a lot of "support and agreement" from the other people reading your comments.

There's the one he pretends to listen to trying to get into her pants.

Of him being concerned about hate speech laws? It's in the link.

Republicans: we're worried women won't vote for us.

Also Republicans: attacks Kamala because she's a woman.

The fact that even Republicans were concerned that Republicans were going to be racist and sexist speaks volumes.

Wikipedia is not a source.

Amazon is not a source.

Someone trying to sell their LLM to the general public, and therefore simplifying the language to convey a concept is not a source.

These nodes pass data to each other, just like how in a brain, neurons pass electrical impulses to each other.

By that definition my dimmer switch functions like a biological brain because it passes electrical impulses.

In this paper, we present Reasoning via Planning (RAP), a novel LLM reasoning framework that equips LLMs with an ability to reason akin to human-like strategic planning

This prevents LLMs from performing deliber- ate planning akin to human brains,

So does not function like a brain does.

To overcome the limitations, we propose a new LLM reasoning framework

So it's a proposal for a new framework to mimic it, not how LLMs currently function

Aaand I'm going to stop checking your sources now. If you're just going to gish gallop every link from a search page you think agrees with you I'm not going to waste my time reading things you clearly didn't bother to. It took 5 links to get to something that even looks like a source, and it doesn't say what you think it does.

Read your sources and make sure they say what you think they do. If you present me with another pile of links and the first one is invalid I won't bother looking at the 2nd.

they offer an ad funded service and a paid service

Just because they offer a paid service doesn't mean it's reasonable for me to pay for it. For example: if the cost was $1000 a month it would not be reasonable to respond with "why don't you pay for it?" Because that's not a reasonable price.
If a person doesn't find the price reasonable then it is reasonable for them not to pay.

Watching ads is also a cost. It costs time. Each person has a threshold of how many ads they are willing to watch before the cost is too high, at which point it is reasonable for them to no longer pay that cost.

YouTube is constantly increasing the ad time trying to find that point just before people get sick of it.

if you don't like ads, have you thought about paying for the service?

I remind you that the person you originally replied to said they were done watching YouTube. Not that they were insisting on getting it for free. They find the ad cost too high, and the paid service cost too high, so they will not use the service. That is a perfectly reasonable response and a response of "why don't you pay for it" is not helpful, irrelevant, and shows you aren't listening to what is being said.

For the record: If I believed there was even a chance that my watching YouTube with an ad blocker caused the tiniest noticeable amount of loss to YouTube's finances, I would set up a tab streaming YouTube 24 hours a day on mute. So no, I also will not be paying them for premium either.

"I would prefer a functioning democracy"

"What fantasy world are you living in?"

Americans are full on drinking the Kool-aid aren't they?

YouTube: creates the problem

This guy: have you considered paying them for the solution?

So much for my plan of looking into a Proton mail account.

Does the ad restrict play back controls (such as disabling fast forward)? Trivial for an add-on to detect and if nothing else black out the video and mute the audio until playback controls are restored.

If it doesn't restrict fast forward then everyone can skip the ad without an ad-blocker.

Also, now that ads are server side YouTube is more responsible for the content of them as they are hosting them.

I have no problems with this.

If they were effectively able to detect it they would be able to block you watching the rest of the video.

According to Insider, Sens. Ossoff and Sen. Kelly were two of only 10 sitting members of Congress last Congress to place their portfolios in blind trusts.

Oh no! I criticised something only most Democrats are doing! That must mean I support Republicans!

At no point did I say Republicans need to hold Democrats responsible. What I said was I want Republicans to present an at least somewhat reasonable alternative so that the voters can hold Democrats responsible without risking the safety of marginalized people.

If 10 Democrats are trying to stop this that's great, the problem is you still have to vote for the 100 other Democrats that are gleefully taking part because the alternative is literal fascism. Democrats don't have to actually try to improve people's lives because what are you going to do, not vote and let the Republicans win?

I would not have expected "I wish there were 2 reasonable candidates to choose from" would be a controversial take, but I suppose American "Politics" is more tribalism than anything else.

The rest of my post was saying I want Republicans to not be a dumpster fire that is going down the fascism hole. They don't need to be "fairer, less corrupt and more honourable than the Democrats," they just need to not be taking away established human rights when they're in power so that not voting for Democrats if they aren't behaving can be a reasonable option.

it is entirely and factually correct to state that an LLM is capable of reasoning

Citation needed.

If you're going to tell me LLMs are modeled after biological brains and capable of reasoning then I call bullshit on your claims that you actually work in AI.

Imagine you put a man in an enclosed room. There is a slot in the wall where messages get passed through written in Chinese. The man does not speak Chinese or even recognize the written language, he just thinks they're weird symbols.
First the man is shown examples of sequences of symbols to train him. Then he is shown incomplete sequences and asked which symbol comes next. If incorrect he is corrected, if correct he gets cookie. Eventually this man is able to carry on "conversations" with people in Chinese through continued practice.
This man still does not speak Chinese, he is not having reasoned, rational arguments with the people he is conversing with, and if you told him it was a language he's look at you like your crazy. "There's no language here, just if I have these symbols and I next put the one that looks like a man wearing a hat they give me a cookie."

Thinking LLMs are capable of reasoning is the digital equivalent of putting eyes on a pencil then feeling bad when it gets broken in half.

No, I meant making a 3rd party actually potentially viable

People don't like cops because of the lack of accountability. Between Kamala and Trump which one do you think is more lacking in accountability?

If you think the US is a country with reasonable policies you haven't been paying attention.

I think they're saying that saying ACAB is unfair to bastards.