But LLMs only regurgitate what was put in them, how is it possible? Or do they?

Somebody has put some effort into the initial training, but this is not unique. There is no value in trying to protect an instance of what can be easily replicated. However, if you get a robot which stays with you, say for 5 years, and it remembers all the interactions with your and has been learning from you. It will be 5 years of your time which cannot be easily replicated. If this robot is destroyed, I would imagine you would be quite upset about it. This, I would assume, should be protected somehow. Probably, similar to pets... at least.

It used to be that people faces could be linked to their identities by matching to their public profiles. Now, people will be identified by photos of their genitals too...

True, true. US Robotics is *a* company, not companies. Damn the editors.

It feels like a fraud. They are doing it second time, as I heard, and fail the same way.

Sending a vertical tower to another planet with a soft dusty surface and expect it to stand vertically, even though it had already tipped over before... I am not sure what to say. Probably, they need to try that again.

On the other hand, if it is an empty shell, and was never expected to survive... That could make a nice money laundering scheme..

I read it the way that the song is different, it is the artist who sounds similar to somebody famous.

What makes a song a song that mimics somebody? What if it is a similar real voice? What if it is a a similar generated voice? How similar should it be to qualify for removal?

Biological neuron does implement a transfer function. There are inputs and there is output. The exact implementation is not, or may not be, that important to achieve similar results.

Computations can be done in a digital computer and in analog computer and get to the same results, for example.

What is it "... There is no similarity at all between biological neurons ..."? This statement is not true. While they are not the same thing, but there is similarity. Both of them implement a functional device which implement some function with weighted inputs and an output response function. There is no need to replicate implementation if the functionality can be achieved by different means.

Yes, sure, they are not the same as biological neurons. However, they may be functional enough to provide similar performance and similar behaviour. What makes you think that this is not true?

Research has been going into more realistic spiky neurons, however, we have not heard about significant advances nor any real advantages over the idealized CS neurons.

Sometimes 3.14 is close enough to the Pi number. Stating that it is not Pi, while correct, is often counter productive. And sometimes just plainly ridiculously ... hmm... childish.

What is it you disagree with? They (1) based on neural networks, the same building unit as biological brains, not exactly, but may be close enough, and (2) they use more text for training than any human reads in his life time. What part of it is nonsense?

I can say that too

Here's the thing: AC is a human. He / she is not capable of research, reason, analysis.

The fact is that current chatbots operate somewhat similar to human brains, and remember a lot more textual information than an average human. So.. let us give them some benefit of the doubt.

Human PhDs tend not to cheat or hallucinate because they can be fired or ruin their carrier. I am not sure this would be a good motivation for an AI PhD... This may end up poorly for research done using AI way.

Wow. Finally we start to realize that discussing things, even the things we disagree about is good, better than banning people from saying what they think. The problem with banning is that people will not stop thinking what we do not like. The good about discussing is that we can show our logic and evidences and there is a chance to convince the opponent.

Personally, I have not been able to convince LLM in something it has a pre-set idea about, but it has been a great test for my understanding of the topic. Testing your ideas against another ... party is a great way to improve the understanding.

So, what? You expect them to make mistakes, this is enough. They do not have to be mistakes of some specific kind.

People do this all the time. They lie, make mistakes, guess, etc. We have all the experience dealing with this. So, use your experience. Take it for what it is, it can be correct, it can be not, double check and verify. Still can be useful.