[ExI] Claude for president?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 11:49 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 11:16 AM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 9:49 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 9:45 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> >> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:55 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 2:38 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> >>> > So long as the exact same input and context are provided, their
> output is the same.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes but the context is never the same. Regardless of if it's
> biological or electronic, a thinking brain is in a constant state of flux,
> it is never the same from one moment to the next.
> >> >
> >> > We were talking about the context window for an LLM. This is input,
> and it can be represented in binary 1s and 0s. It is easy to copy.
> >>
> >> Just like, in theory, the input to a thinking brain can be.
> >>
> >> You keep ignoring the problems with precisely capturing literally all
> >> of the input.  You just assume that can happen.
> >
> > We're both talking about LLMs here, are we not?
> >
> > Are you and John thinking of a robot/android brain that walks and talks
> and sees live video?
>
> I can't speak for John, but I'm talking about LLMs.
>
> Perhaps an analogy.  You know basic electrical engineering, or you can
> look it up, right?  Say, calculating the current for a given circuit
> that connects a battery and a resistor, where the voltage level of the
> battery and the resistance of the resistor are known, is something
> that you could do if you had to, right?  (Again: this includes being
> able to look it up.)
>

But note those examples of currents are analog, imprecise things, not
exact, digital, things like the binary strings of digital input that go
into the context window supplied to a LLM.


>
> So...just because you can calculate that, you therefore can
> immediately calculate every current level et al going on in a typical
> CPU while it is running a complex operation, right?  Just because the
> former is something you can do by hand, the latter is not only
> possible but practical for you to do by the exact same means (by
> hand), then?
>

At the level of software (for digital computers) what matters are the 1's
and 0's, not the exact values of voltages, which I admit are never exactly
the same between two CPUs. But we don't use analog computers for this very
reason: they're inexact.


>
> The answer is, of course, "no".  But that's basically what you're
> suggesting here.  The answer is "no" for basically the same reason.
>

I think you're mistaken if you think CPUs are so unreliable that we can't
perform trillions of operations without a random bit flip corrupting
the result. Computers are for more reliable than you seem to be supposing
here, especially when technologies like ECC RAM are used.

For example, when overclocking a CPU, it is common to run a stress test for
as long as 24 hours straight, running a tool like Prime95 (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime95#Use_for_stress_testing ) which can
detect and report even single-bit errors introduced by any step of the
computation.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260316/719dce67/attachment-0001.htm>