The problem is that your comment and the one you're responding to can both be true: Just because the rules are heavily enforced does not mean the right rules are in place, starting with the fact that Meta is collecting this data to begin with.
"Not aliens" seems obvious but shouldn't be a basis for dismissing this either. I feel like sometimes we are so determined to dismiss aliens that we accept any plausible alternative too quickly, when there might be something else more interesting that is neither obvious nor aliens.
I tend to think there is a really good chance all the "its aliens" phenomena are natural phenomena that we are hundreds of years away from even having the tools to study. Probably like early humans trying to guess what the sun is made of.
Nobody has ever found the slightest smidgen of evidence of aliens, nor any plausible theory of what aliens would be like. It's about as likely as someone inventing a car that runs on water.
Plenty of evidence has been found. For one, the US government has leaked/released a video showing instant acceleration of a flying object. Nothing on earth can do that.
You're heaping one implausibility (aliens) in with another implausibility (violating the laws of physics) making the combined plausibility indistinguishable from zero.
It's not necessary for me to debunk your theory. It is incumbent upon you to prove it valid.
While it's always good to elevate evidence-based knowledge above "woo" or "belief", it's not healthy to close your mind off completely against anything that isn't currently proven. We might know that we don't know a lot of things, but the most interesting thought experiments happen in the area that concerns the things we don't know that we don't know.
One can go to /r/UFOs and see plenty of "interesting thought experiments" happening in that area, and while that might be entertaining, it isn't compelling.
I think closing one's mind off 99.999% to "it's aliens" is perfectly healthy and justified. When you remove the folklore, memes, psyops and apply Occaam's Razor to the "evidence" and sort out mistaken natural phenomena, misinterpreted data, classified but terrestrial technology and outright hoaxes, you aren't left with much of anything, and certainly nothing definite. There is no reason to assume the phenomenon mentioned in the linked paper demonstrates the presence of alien spacecraft but the UFO community is going to run with it anyway.
Call me when David Grusch comes through with that "catastrophic disclosure" we were promised or when Lue Elizondo can tell the difference between a starship and a chandelier. This is just Bob Lazar and Majestic-12 all over again.
When an engineer tells me he built a car that runs on water, he'd better bring some pretty amazing evidence. And no, I'm not going to waste time reading his paper looking for the inevitable flaw, either.
I've heard "evidence" of aliens my entire life. Guess how many panned out. Zero. But that never seems to discourage anyone from believing that an artifact on a photo must have the most implausible explanation ever - aliens!
Where do you draw the line? Time travel? Teleportation? Astrology? Fortune tellers? Razor blade sharpening? Reincarnation?
You seem to be going off the title which is plainly incorrect and not what the paper says. The paper demonstrates HOW different models can learn similar representations due to "data, architecture, optimizer, and tokenizer".
"How Different Language Models Learn Similar Number Representations" (actual title) is distinctly different from "Different Language Models Learn Similar Number Representations" - the latter implying some immutable law of the universe.
The exact phrase appears in the title. There is a title length limit. In this case, I don't think that it is wrong to pick the most interesting piece of that title that fits in the limit.
This is an interesting topic but reporting on what some random people typed or clicked on social media is such a shallow basis for news. It's a subjective narrative of a subjective trend.
you could try customer support, that chat bot will happily loop you with some more non answers, but try to make you feel good about those non answers :)
reply