You are aware that in Quantum physics uncertainty is actually a fundamental property. It was s kind of used a lot and many who work with it are employed.

September 21, 2025 - 18:01 UTC

3
0
1
There's a big difference in that we have extremely accurate models of that quantum uncertainty and where it arrives from and the ability to calculate where it cancels out into predictable bulk matter properties

No such thing for an LLM
0
0
3
As a PhD physicist I am aware. That is actually part of the model and as a prediction of the model has been verified.

So it isn’t a failure of the model, but instead a success of the model.

To be blunt, this is a terrible argument.
0
0
4
Also just to further expand. LLMs are being sold to folks who will use them in critical situations like imbeciles.

False positives are really bad in cases like these. The credibility users endow these models with will cause really bad outcomes.

This paper will make purveyors liable.
1
0
2
Hammers are sold to imbeciles that hit their hands.AI is a tool, a powerful one. People using it as an oracle being disappointed it can be wrong, just do not get it. Yes people are liable for their actions AI is not. Giving AI that power would be stupid.
1
0
2