The "majority" in this case meaning about 51%, according to Wikipedia[1]? How could 51% ever be considered to be close to "all", such that "misleading" would be a valid answer?

Am I missing something?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almond#Production

If it's true of everything, then surely having an LLM work iteratively on the pieces, along with being provided additional physical data, will lead to the discovery of everything?

If the answer is "no", then surely something is still missing.

> And the "anyone who read all the right papers" thing - nobody actually reads all the papers. That's the bottleneck. LLMs don't have it. They will continue to not have it. Humans will continue to not be able to read faster than LLMs.

I agree with this. This is a definitive advantage of LLMs.

However, what I'm saying is not mere nitpicking either. It is precisely because of my belief in Einstein's extraordinary abilities that I find it unconvincing that an LLM being able to recombine the extant written physics-related building blocks of 1900, with its practically infinite reading speed, necessarily demonstrates comparable capabilities to Einstein.

The essence of the question is this: would Einstein, having been granted eternal youth and a neverending source of data on physical phenomena, be able to innovate forever? Would an LLM?

My position is that even if an LLM is able to synthesise special relativity given 1900 knowledge, this doesn't necessarily mean that a positive answer to the first question implies a positive answer to the second.

It's still unclear whether this process could be merely continued, seeded only with new physical data, in order to keep progressing beyond that point, "forever", or at least for as long as we imagine humans will continue to go on making scientific progress.

On the other hand, the whole deal of the LLM is that it does so stochastically and unpredictably.

You have a point that the result may very well be more easily explained in concrete terms to practitioners of a given field in which you applied it, though.

EDIT: Oh, look at this https://mitmproxy.org/posts/wireguard-mode/. TIL.

- regex101 support for quickly defining custom formats is just awesome. Versioning support is slightly broken however, probably because regex101 changed something, so there's no easy way to update the format once you've initially imported it.

- I feel like there's missing opportunity for integration between various features.

  - There are lots of different filtering capabilities, but there is no unified treatment of them. For example, `:hide-lines-before` and `:filter-out` are at their core the same type of operation: filtering. I should be able to pull up a list of all filters that are currently active and easily add new ones and toggle or delete existing ones.

  - I would expect to be able to create a new view of the data using SQL `SELECT`. A select statement is fundamentally about filtering out some rows (log lines), which feels like a filter, and selecting some particular columns (log fields) and hiding others. The latter point seems like it could be something that should be handled when https://github.com/tstack/lnav/issues/1274 is resolved.

If you don't find the key and realise it's actually a lost one, leading to a potentially dangerous place, someone else will and they won't be benevolent.

So even though a training resource said "It is DATE today. An IMPORTANT THING happened.", it knows that IMPORTANT THING happened in the past, because it knows CURRENT DATE from the system prompt, and it also knows that DATE < CURRENT DATE.