I am but a humble former data science practitioner. But if a physics theorist had a model that described reality like this they’d be unemployable.

So you want everyone to use something where false positives are inevitable and invisible for critical use cases. Ok sounds great.

September 21, 2025 - 16:58 UTC

2
0
26
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.
3
0
1
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
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
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
Also I am unemployable because I think LLMs are stupid. The problem is the only things more stupid than an LLMs are executives and most DS directors.
0
0
25