Several important things to unpack here.

1. credits to Microsoft for doing serious work on what otherwise is just a mediocre concept of computer intelligence called LLMs.

2. credits to Microsoft for stating today what to me is obvious since back when “AI” was still called big data: «There is absolutely no guarantee that a LLM’s output accurately reflects the source data you’re interested in». Which is reason enough to call a lunatic to anyone using these systems.

3. the reason why it is obvious that LLMs are not reliable, the same as any other statistical approach (including another engineer’s favourite masturbation called “baesian reasoning”), is simple: these systems translate raw real data into a finite, comparatively small set of parameters, therefore they lose information which cannot ever be reconstructed to the original.

4. however this admission comes at least a decade and billions of dollars AFTER these actors have been promoting the fake statistical emulation of intelligence called LLMs; they should be demanded to do better based on the resources they have.

5. As a society we cannot afford to waste such vast resources to deliver billion dollars garbage during 10 years and afterwards start pretending that it is better to clean the garbage instead of doing better scientific research from scratch.

6. so those engineers that have been cheering the next big thing in “AI” should all be labelled as delusional at best and psychotic at worst; totally unfit to perform any duty in exact sciences

7. TWO YEARS AGO I demonstrated how you can analyse large quantities of text in a scientific way, in a deterministic fashion, not probabilistic. This was the basis model for the first proper, scientific reasoning system and it shows how my approach is ahead of the best engineering since years ago.

Now go back to playing with your decade old toys. You are already outdated and each passing day you are thrown further back into the dustbin of History. And I am making sure that you will stay that way.

Another logical argument in favour of the resonance on a universal crystalline structure can be provided as follows. This adds to the prior analysis available here.

Let A and B be two events in different moments in time.
If A implies B, that is if we have B whenever we have A, then B asserts the verification of A.
Therefore, A cannot have happened after B given that B happened.
Therefore, we say that A causes B.
But if A and B happen in different moments in time, which is an assumption for the causality relation, then when B happens A already happened.
Therefore, when B happens there is nothing happening that can cause B, which is a contradiction [1].
Therefore, if B happened then some information regarding A was propagated in a fractional time between A and B happening.
And this propagation has to happen in a medium or dimension that is foreign to time, otherwise the causality A => B would be restrict to time leading to the contradiction [1].

This is the same concept as that of the resonance that I have already explored before, that is, A causes B as much as B causes A, and the medium in which the causality takes effect, a medium foreign to time, can only be a subset of the crystalline structure of the Universe, since it is time invariant.
Equivalently, causality and retroactivity are two aspects of the same mechanism, which we refer to by the concept of “resonance” on a necessarily time-invariant medium.
As stated elsewhere, this explains why events in the Universe follow a given path while not leaving the evidences of all the trial of possibilities that should be the case had a (time-dependent) causality (but not a resonance) taken place.

For example, biological systems developed light capturing devices (the eyes) because there is visible light, but equivalently visible light exists because something is affected by it. Both are evidences of the same mechanism, action or property. And there is no evidence that biological systems had developed sensing to the entire range of light spectrum which had been selectively “pruned” by natural selection to just a specific range of frequencies. Therefore, the “choice” of the method for sensing light was the same “choice” for the existence of light. Here we say “choice” to mean a time-invariant mechanism, or the concept of a “resonance” on a time-invariant medium.

This explains why species evolved in a specific way while we could never find all the intermediate fossil forms and wide-raging branches that evolution should have produced if Darwin’s assumptions were true.
The same for the number of arms or legs, for the symmetry of biological systems, for the arrangement of electrons in atoms and so on.

Everything that exists or happens is therefore a manifestation of the same crystalline, immutable universal geometry. And the interesting thing about it is that it should be possible to infer the properties of such a structure by its manifestations.

This is, again, consistent with non-dual postulates such as

• What you seek is seeking you
• You already are what you will become

Moreover, the parallel universes theory of physics is an application of these principles, since the possibilities for the state of a system spread throughout the parallel dimensions, the collection of those becoming the universal geometric structure.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

Leonardo Da Vinci

The more simple any being is in itself, the more manifold is it in its energy and operation.

Meister Eckhart

On my balcony. They live in the nearby trees.

In early morning, around 3 to 7 am, there is no car or people traffic outside and we can only hear them chirping as if its country side.

I am hidden behind a curtain so they don’t see me and get scared flying away.

This is why I disapprove of the fireworks in the street (e.g. during New Year, as explained here). It must terrorise these little ones in their tree branches.

If you are not amongst the western elites, there is just one thing you need to understand about the mythology of the “AI takeover” and the “Alien takeover”: they are both parables of the takeover of the western elites by something bigger than them.

An avalanche that will superseed all those incompetents, something compared to which they will look like the Neanderthal before being extinct.

image: Marcio Jose Bastos Silva/Shutterstock

I outran a rabid dog in private property twice. That’s how fast I can be.

Snap City is your own scared ass limitations.

CT Fletcher

A beautiful and simple reasoning allowed someone centuries ago to arrive at the conclusion that the Universe is not infinite, just by looking at the night sky.

This is the beauty and power of Reason.

Define a decision as a logical outcome. What do you get?
You get a rational decision making system that is fast, mathematically accurate and adapts on the fly.
It learns and reasons without training, as soon as rules or conditions change, and you always know why a decision was made regardless of how arbitrarily complex it is.

Forget about the legacy probabilistic machines (modern engineers’ “AI”), because this one is deterministic. You cannot have it better for life- or mission-critical decisions.

In his treatise “Rules for the Direction of the Mind” (1701), Descartes states regarding the first of his rules, the principle of systems thinking applied to sciences.

Whenever men notice some similarity between two things, they are wont to ascribe to each, even in those respects to which the two differ, what they have found to be true of the other.
Thus they erroneously compare the sciences, which entirely exist in the cognitive exercise of the mind, with the arts, which depend upon an exercise and disposition of the body.
They see that not all the arts can be acquired by the same man, but that he who restricts himself to one, most readily becomes the best executant, since it is not so easy for the same hand to adapt itself both to agricultural operations and to harp-playing, or to the performance of several such tasks as to one alone.
Hence they have held the same to be true of the sciences also, and distinguishing them from one another according to their subject matter, they have imagined that they ought to be studied separately, each in isolation from all the rest. But this is certainly wrong. 

This was much before modern management concerned itself with the subject, and in this context Russ Ackoff provides an apt overview:

Modern engineers still don’t understand what Reasoning is.
They call a piece of statistical garbage “the first reasoning AI agent”.