zlacker

Interestingly I just hit an example of this. Highly specific but I was asking about pickleball strategy and grok and Claude both couldn’t seem to understand you can’t aim at the opponent’s feet when you’re hitting up.

Just kept regurgitating internet advice and I couldn’t get it to understand the reasoning on why it was wrong.

>>bilsbi+(OP)
Hey --- if the internet says it, it can't be wrong.

>>jqpabc+w
In this case it found generic advice and was confusing itself.

>>bilsbi+52
That's one explanation.

Another could be that it simply has no real *understanding* of anything. It simply did a statistical comparison of the question to the available advice and picked the best match --- kinda what a search engine might do.

Expecting *understanding* from a synthetic, statistical process will often end in disappointment.

>>jqpabc+Q4
Yup. It’s time for us to just accept that LLMs are “similar in meaning” machines not “thinking/ understanding” machines

>>bilsbi+(OP)
It’s almost as if intelligence requires embodiment in a physical world before it can gain tacit understanding and build a model of that environment, and that summarizing the embodiment of others isn’t sufficient.

>>naijab+98
If you think about it --- an LLM that could really *grasp* "pickleball" from a text description without ever seeing, playing or "experiencing" the game is not just human level intelligence --- it's superhuman.

And the same applies to a lot of real world situations.