I still twitch whenever someone says "use ddd" and they are not referring to Evans' seminal work.

:-D

A similar "brain drain" has occurred in macOS (formerly known as OS-X) over the years, as evident in man page documentation for "newer" daemons shipped. An easy way to verify this is to run:

  ps -A | awk '{ print $4 }' | grep 'libexec/.*[a-z]d$'

While this exercise is illuminating, it is also depressing IMHO.

I also have worked on/with expert systems.

> I don't agree that they achieve "simulated intelligence". They're preprogrammed with a set of domain-specific rules that are trivially simple by comparison to even relatively simple and small neural networks.

This position does not account for fuzzy logic[0] nor an expert system's ability to produce an answer of "I do not know and here is why", which neural networks are incapable of doing.

I am not saying expert systems are "better" than ANNs as both are algorithms having significant value for what they provide. What I am saying is neural networks are pattern-matching algorithms, quite useful in their own right, and do not possess the ability to identify the lack of existence.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

This assertion is "oddly" similar to the GPT answer "neural network inference determinism" produced:

  Neural network inference is often non-deterministic due to 
  factors like floating-point arithmetic and concurrent 
  execution, which can lead to variations in output even with 
  the same input.

Regarding your previous statement:

> However, on a technical level, neural network inference truly is inherently deterministic.

This holds for a vanishingly small set of conditions, none of which include randomness, nor when context and transformers are involved, let alone underlying model evolution (thus making model use over time non-deterministic).

  Foundations of Large Language Models[0]

This is incorrect.

Simulated intelligence can and has been encoded explicitly by humans defining rules programmatically in the form of expert systems[0].

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system

Because LLMs are artificial neural networks[0] (ANN), which are statistical in nature, and thus intrinsically non-deterministic. Pretty much every AI algorithm has randomness involved in its definition and many (most?) incorporate probabilities.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network_(machine_learni...

The more a language is mathematically sound, the more its linguistic constructs converge to enforce same.

Programming languages which follow this path ultimately support similar capabilities; Applicatives, Functors, Monads, Monoids, and often meta-programming via higher-kinded types and/or intrinsic AST code generation.

Discarding abstractions is nothing more than rediscovery of a Big Ball of Mud[0].

0 - https://www.laputan.org/mud/mud.html

I have expressed what I believe. The question you now pose is a strawman argument[0] unrelated to the subject of stolen license plates and how the act thereof implicates innocent people.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Here is one I wrote a while back, unrelated to LLMs, yet a poem none the less.

  The Rhythm of Time


  The Sun rises,
  The Sun sets.

  Have I checked the mail?
  No, not just yet.

  The Sun rises,
  The Sun sets.

  Have I caught up with neighbors?
  No, not just yet.

  The Sun rises,
  The Sun sets.

  Have I spent time with friends?
  No, not just yet.

  The Sun rises,
  The Sun sets.

  Have I visited with family?
  No, not just yet.

  The Sun rises,
  The Sun sets.

  Have I told those I love I do?
  No, not just yet.

  The Sun rises,
  The Sun sets.

  Have I lost who I am?
  No, not just yet.

  For all I must do,
  Any money I will bet.

  Is to turn away from;
  No, not just yet.

I wish you well in your path in life.

No worries, textual communications do not convey the nuances verbal conversation can provide, so misunderstandings are inevitable.

> It might be easier if you just stated your actual view instead of playing twenty questions ...

What I am saying is that criminals do their best to "throw off the scent" of who they are. The purpose of their stealing license plates is to infuse confusion and/or delay in discovering their identity.

> Just to be clear: I would be absolutely fine with law enforcement investigating the appearance of my stolen plates at a crime scene ...

Perhaps you would, depending on the circumstance and timing of said investigation. And perhaps others may not be as confident, including your future self.

Either way, a person otherwise completely uninvolved would now be a subject in a criminal investigation. The second-order effects of this only exist due to intentional identity misdirection, which is, of course, the whole purpose of license plates being stolen in the first place.

> I've never read about this happening.

A simple web search[0] can elucidate the matter.

0 - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+is+the+most+common+reason+car...

> You weren't implying that video evidence of a car should be off-limits to the police?

No, I did not.

A car is not a crime scene. Neither is "video evidence of a car" a crime scene.

> If stealing hair is too hardcore for a criminal ...

What I wrote was:

  Second, "stealing your hair" is a very different thing than 
  stealing license plates off of your vehicle. This should be 
  obvious.

> ... just use your example and imagine that, instead of having the plate captured on camera, they find it at the scene of a vehicular homicide.

Then that would be entirely different than your original assertion, which was:

  The misuse of license plate data wouldn't make my top ten 
  list of potential powers that law enforcement might abuse.

> Should that license plate be investigated, or should it be off-limits?

What are you even talking about? You said license plate data "wouldn't make my top ten".

When did I raise the question about license plates being investigated or off-limits?

Just because I feel bad for taking advantage of the above statement, here is a snippet from "Warrants in U.S. Law: The Ultimate Guide":

  Imagine your home is your castle, and the U.S. Constitution 
  has built a protective wall around it called the Fourth 
  Amendment. This wall protects your right to privacy and 
  security from government intrusion. Now, imagine a police 
  officer wants to enter your castle. They can't just knock 
  down the gate; they need a special key. A warrant is that 
  key. It's not just any key, though. It's a special 
  permission slip, signed by a neutral judge (a magistrate), 
  that says the government has a very good, specific 
  reason—called Probable Cause—to believe that evidence of a 
  crime is inside your home, or that you have committed a 
  crime. This document acts as a crucial check on government 
  power, ensuring that law enforcement can't search your 
  property or arrest you on a whim. It's a fundamental 
  safeguard that forces the government to justify its actions 
  before it invades your privacy, protecting every citizen 
  from unreasonable searches and seizures.[0]

Policing enforces U.S. criminal law.

0 - https://uslawexplained.com/warrant_law

By this logic, there is no need for "day-to-day policing" to have warrants for:

  - phone taps
  - SMS messages
  - GPS history
  - email
  - banking information
  - justified arrests
  - court approved searches

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

>>> I never hear that question from Flock supporters. The question I hear is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?"

>> These are the same Constitutional question.

> They're not remotely the same Constitutional question.

They absolutely are the same Constitutional question; surveillance by the State without a warrant supported by probable cause, verified by the judiciary and issued thusly, does not have "an upside" of coincidentally identifying criminality. Remember this portion of the 4th amendment:

  ... and particularly describing the place to be searched,
  and the persons or things to be seized.

And how could the question "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" be answered without "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide" being aligned?

They are the same Constitutional question - to accept one is to accept the other.

First, I never implied disallowing analysis at a crime scene. What I described is a realistic activity criminals do in order to disguise their identity.

Second, "stealing your hair" is a very different thing than stealing license plates off of your vehicle. This should be obvious.

> Someone framing me in this manner is incredibly unlikely, would be disproven by the other broad investigative powers afforded to law enforcement, and, at least in my opinion, is ridiculously less likely than the cameras photographing real criminals.

The point is that it would be you having to defend yourself for something you did not do. Could you successfully do so? Maybe. It depends on what the crime was and if you could afford a skilled enough lawyer.

And therein lies the rub.

You would have to drop tens-of-thousands of dollars in defense of your not being one of the "real criminals." Because the police are not going to sit there and say, "gee wiz, veec_cas_tant could not possibly be a 'real criminal' because they said they are being framed!"

They are going to say, "we can place you at the scene of the crime."

Are you sure about that?

How about if your license plate were stolen without your knowledge, placed on another vehicle of the same make and model, then photographed leaving the scene of a crime?