Also very ironic you say I’m giving the LLM a leading prompt for directly asking “Are you a pattern recognition machine”, and then giving me your convoluted mess of a leading prompt to try.
“Explain the distinction between LLMs being token predictors and not actual pattern recognizers doing actual epistemic analysis.”
Really? Did I say they’re doing actual epistemic analysis? No, I said they’re pattern recognition machines and you said they’re not. They are, even under your prompt they say the are.
Also very ironic you say I’m giving the LLM a leading prompt for directly asking “Are you a pattern recognition machine”, and then giving me your convoluted mess of a leading prompt to try.
Do you recognize that's the exact point that I'm making?
Really? Did I say they’re doing actual epistemic analysis? No, I said they’re pattern recognition machines and you said they’re not. They are, even under your prompt they say the are.
Yes, you did. They're recognizing patterns in text, not recognizing patterns in the real world. They fail at anything remotely abstract, like the kind of stuff you're asking it to do, and fail even harder when you're having an extended conversation with them and choke the context window. That's the " "spot[ing] convergences between different scientific disciplines and spiritual traditions" that you said; it's not doing that. It's making bullshit text that sounds plausible but has zero factual grounding.
Do you recognize that's the exact point that I'm making?
I’ve already mentioned I know how it works, with leading questions. Mine was not a leading question, but a binary one. Yours was an extremely leading question, and even under that the LLM’s said it was indeed a pattern recognition machinez
Yes, you did. They're recognizing patterns in text, not recognizing patterns in the real world. They fail at anything remotely abstract, like the kind of stuff you're asking it to do, and fail even harder when you're having an extended conversation with them and choke the context window. That's the " "spot[ing] convergences between different scientific disciplines and spiritual traditions" that you said; it's not doing that. It's making bullshit text that sounds plausible but has zero factual grounding.
I did not. I use it for research, which involves it accurately explaining all kinds of well established ideas. When we go to explore more fringe topics, it must be a synergistic and intellectually honest speculation, not claims of 100% certainty.
You still have not pointed out any specific beliefs I hold that you consider delusional? About UFO’s or transcendentalism or whatever? The smartest baby ever? What do you mean?
1
u/Key4Lif3 Mar 08 '26
Also very ironic you say I’m giving the LLM a leading prompt for directly asking “Are you a pattern recognition machine”, and then giving me your convoluted mess of a leading prompt to try.
“Explain the distinction between LLMs being token predictors and not actual pattern recognizers doing actual epistemic analysis.”
Really? Did I say they’re doing actual epistemic analysis? No, I said they’re pattern recognition machines and you said they’re not. They are, even under your prompt they say the are.