I was referring to you and your memory in that statement comparing you to an it. Are you not something to be anthropomorphed?

I’m clearly saying that you’re anthropomorphising the model with the comparison. This is blatantly obvious for anyone with at least basic reading comprehension. Unlike you, apparently.

That is literally all computers do all day. Read info. Write info. Override info. Don’t need to pretend a computer can do something they has been doing for the last 50 years.

Yeah, the data in my SSD “magically” disappears. The SSD forgets it! Hallelujah, my SSD is sentient! Praise Jesus. Same deal with my RAM, that’s why this comment was never sent - Tsukuyomi got rid of the contents of my RAM! (Do I need a /s tag here?)

…on a more serious take, no, the relevant piece of info is not being overwritten, as you can still retrieve it through further prompts in newer chats. Your “argument” is a sorry excuse of a Chewbacca defence and odds are that even you know it.

If you started up two minecraft games with different seeds, but “at the exact same time”, you would get two different world generations. Meaningfully “different times” is based on the random seed, not chronological distance.

This is not a matter of seed, period. Stop being disingenuous.

I dare say that is close to anthropomorphing AI to think it would remember something a few seconds ago because that is how humans work.

So you actually got what “anthropomorphisation” referred to, even if pretending otherwise. You could at least try to not be so obviously disingenuous, you know. That said, the bullshit here was already addressed above.

|And this test can be repeated over and over and over if you want
[insert picture of the muppet “testing” the AI, through multiple prompts within the same conversation]

Congratulations. You just “proved” that there’s a “context” window. And nothing else. 🤦

Think a bit on why I inserted the two prompts in two different chats with the same bot. The point here is not to show that the bloody LLM has a “context” window dammit. The ability to use a “context” window does not show reasoning, it shows the ability to feed tokens from the earlier prompts+outputs as “context” back into the newer output.

You linked to a year old paper [SIC] showing that it already is getting the A->B, B->A thing right 30% of the time.

Wow, we’re in September 2024 already? Perhaps May 2025? (The first version of the paper is eight months old, not “a yurrr old lol lmao”. And the current revision is three days old. Don’t be a liar.)

Also showing this shit “30% of the time” shows inability to operate logically on those sentences. “Perhaps” not surprisingly, it’s simply doing what LLMs do: it does not reason dammit, it matches token patterns.

Technology marches on, this was just what I was able to find with a simple google search

You clearly couldn’t be arsed to read the source that yourself shared, right? Do it. Here is what the source that you linked says:

The Reversal Curse has several implications: // Logical Reasoning Failure: It highlights a fundamental limitation in LLMs’ ability to perform basic logical deduction.

Logical Reasoning Weaknesses: LLMs appear to struggle with basic logical deduction.

You just shot your own foot dammit. It is not contradicting what I am saying. It confirms what I said over and over, that you’re trying to brush off through stupidity, lack of basic reading comprehension, a diarrhoea of fallacies, and the likes:

LLMs show awful logical reasoning.

At this rate, the only thing that you’re proving is that Brandolini’s Law is real.

While I’m still happy to discuss with other people across this thread, regardless of agreement or disagreement, I’m not further wasting my time with you. Please go be a dead weight elsewhere.