There's application in responding to requests for information quickly, in a mesh network, perhaps in presence of malactors. For example the medical records of injured US soldiers are stored in and delivered using a block chain solution.
There's application in a hypothetical currency free from the corruption of governance. For example, an orange President couldn't print gobs of money during a pandemic, devaluing your currency, then hand that money to corporations.
An LLM?
Edit: Everything is of far less significance relative IRL relationships. The overriding goal of ML analysis model with a subordinated LLM hasn't been to create a space for the best mental masturbation, instead to better focus subsequent human efforts in organizational recruitment for education and praxis.
What's meritable often isn't popular. By what metric should comments be rated?
Many will rate high. By what means can the set be further narrowed?
A lion sucks if measured as a bird.
Yet, it takes an enormous amount of processing power to produce a comment such as this one. How much would it take to reason why the experiment was structured as it was?
Objective: To evaluate the cognitive abilities of the leading large language models and identify their susceptibility to cognitive impairment, using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and additional tests.
Results: ChatGPT 4o achieved the highest score on the MoCA test (26/30), followed by ChatGPT 4 and Claude (25/30), with Gemini 1.0 scoring lowest (16/30). All large language models showed poor performance in visuospatial/executive tasks. Gemini models failed at the delayed recall task. Only ChatGPT 4o succeeded in the incongruent stage of the Stroop test.
Conclusions: With the exception of ChatGPT 4o, almost all large language models subjected to the MoCA test showed signs of mild cognitive impairment. Moreover, as in humans, age is a key determinant of cognitive decline: “older” chatbots, like older patients, tend to perform worse on the MoCA test. These findings challenge the assumption that artificial intelligence will soon replace human doctors, as the cognitive impairment evident in leading chatbots may affect their reliability in medical diagnostics and undermine patients’ confidence.
OK. I'll assign more benefit of the doubt.
To be moral and ethical in their voting choice, to serve systemic design intent, to serve the practicalities of implementation, an individual need not care about others' votes.
So, it's incorrect to set as a prerequisite a belief in success of a 5% goal to vote for it. Presenting as you did exemplifies the propaganda-fed ego of the neoliberal. The meaning in voting is not to make you feel good about yourself for choosing the bandwagon that wins. All should vote for whom best represents them with reckless disregard for the short-term outcome.
The eventual counterargument to what I'm saying is rooted in utilitarianism: Democracy produces at best mediocre outcomes. The systemic design answer was the electoral college.
I'm reminded of children in grade school who "I know what that means, I'm just not going to explain it to you."
Yes. In this endeavor you're beginning to understand the means I've chosen for the majority.
With well-reasoned and nuanced principles supported by vast experience.
That's by far the best question I've been asked in this thread. However, satisfying your curiosity would require me to break a well-reasoned commitment I've already made to others.
This is what happens to IT professionals when the centralization of textbook design is no longer appropriate the situations. All they've got is a hammer. So, everything's a nail, even if it means lying.