Egregoros

@sun okay but what do you actually mean by methodological flaws because I cannot imagine LLMs actually being able to map out that logic considering they're token predictors and the correctness of an argument is determined by its validity

And sorry, everyone keeps saying stuff about LLM this and that, if it's run by the same incestuous pool of sociopaths I want nothing to do with the product. I'm good. I like my life the way it is without promoting a chat bot regularly for a dopamine rush.

I will never be at any point in my life where I am trying to have conversations with myself through an LLM. I studied philosophy logic quite a bit, that's something I should do and a skill I would like to continue to refine, not delegate to a clanker.

@subnetter there is a metric fuckton of secret sauce layered over top of LLMs and I think that is the difference. I don't have a good explanation for why sometimes LLMs seem to work unreasonably good at tasks that don't seem at all like they are solvable with token prediction.

So as an example I made a statement of fact and it pushed back. I elucidated further and got more concessions and pushback, but it accused me of, whenever a wrinkle in my argument appeared, I just expanded the scope of the cause until I started with a very small testable thing and ended up with a worldwide conspiracy. And I go back through my conversation and that is in fact exactly what I did. So again I don't know why it was able to detect that, based on "stochastic parrot mathematics" but it worked good enough to correct me, who was actually trying to use human logic and failing.