You just cited an LLM as your source...? Can't comment if you don't link the actual idea or paper.
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
1 points (60.0% liked)
Technology
42643 readers
253 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
@ComradeMiao@beehaw.org
If the previous link didn’t open, please use this one instead.
@ComradeMiao@beehaw.org
Thanks for your comment. The content is based on the original paper, not the LLM itself. Here is the source:
Stahp llm philosophy makes no sense if you think about the mechanics of what it is doing. Think about what it accomplishes and how and what kind of truths it can potentially shed light on given those constraints. Do a little more philosophy irl if you don’t understand how this cannot accomplish anything philosophically useful.
@reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net
I get your point — if we don’t know what it actually achieves, it can feel meaningless to discuss.
But I think this isn’t just philosophy, it’s physics.
Most people assume that reality already exists independently, and rarely question that assumption.
What this paper is trying to do is to uncover the mechanism by which reality itself is generated.