move longlog posts to common/

1 files changed, 57 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/common/longlog/2024-06-13.gmi b/common/longlog/2024-06-13.gmi
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dc804ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/common/longlog/2024-06-13.gmi
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# LLMs do not understand anything
+
+Save this for the next time someone tells you that LLMs 'understand' things.
+
+Published on: 13 Jun 2024 
+
+LLMs do not understand what they are talking about. They just don't. It's not how they're built. They have a statistical model of language, not a semantic one. Philosophical puzzles about whether silicon can be conscious *do not arise_, because LLMs are _not even close to the right shape_ for having _anything like* 'understanding'.
+
+If you don't believe me, there are plenty of examples out there on the Internet, but this is as good as any. It includes Chat GPT 4o explaining in detail why \~\~A → \~A (which is a classical contradiction) is trivially true in classical logic.
+
+It's even better given that I had explicitly asked it to explain why that sentence implies the trivial logic, not why it is trivially true. And even had the explanation not been complete garbage from beginning to end, it would only have shown that the sentence was *true*, not that it was trivial.
+
+In other words, the output:
+
+* Attempts to prove a contradiction (unprompted!) 
+* Confuses the concepts 'truth' and 'triviality' 
+* Is irrelevant to the prompt
+
+In case you want it handy, I'll put the full conversation down below. The good bit is at the end. The only edits I've made are to replace TeX syntax with Unicode.
+
+---
+
+Me:
+
+> You have the following axioms. 
+>
+>    1. |- (A -> B) -> A 
+>    2. |- (~B -> ~A) -> (A -> B) 
+>    3. |- (A -> (B -> C)) -> ((A -> B) -> (A -> C)) 
+>    4. A -> B, A |- B 
+>
+>    Prove ~~A -> A. 
+
+Chat GPT 4o: 
+
+> To prove ~~ A → A, we will use the given axioms and inference rules. Let's denote the axioms as follows:
+>
+> 1. ⊢ (A → B) → A 2. ⊢ (\~ B → \~ A) → (A → B) 3. ⊢ (A → (B → C)) → ((A → B) → (A → C)) 4. If A → B and A, then ⊢ B
+>
+> Here is the proof step-by-step:
+>
+> 1. *Axiom (2) Instantiation:*   From axiom 2, we have:
+>
+> ⊢ (\~ A → \~\~ A) → (\~\~ A → A)
+>
+> Let B = A and A = \~ A.
+>
+> 2. *Intermediate Step:*   To use this axiom, we need to show \~ A → \~\~ A.
+>
+> 3. *Negation Introduction:*   By definition of negation, \~ A → \~\~ A is a tautology, because if A is false, then \~ A is true, and \~\~ A (which is A) must be false, making \~ A → \~\~ A always true.
+>
+> 4. *Modus Ponens Application:*   Since \~ A → \~\~ A is true, we apply modus ponens (axiom 4) to derive:
+>
+> ⊢ \~\~ A → A
+>
+> Thus, we have proved \~\~ A → A using the given axioms and inference rules.
+