[ExI] Claude for president?

[Adrian Tymes]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 12:19 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 11:49 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> 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.

This is true.  It is also irrelevant.

You can measure these things closely enough, and predict the approximate result.

> 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.

That is not even close to what I am saying.

I am not talking about corruption of the result.  (Not in the strict
data integrity sense that you mean, anyway.  More political senses of
the word "corruption" might apply, but that's not the sense you are
using here.)

I am talking about whether you will, in practice, have an exact copy
of all the inputs and internal conditions in the first place.

In simplistic, trivial cases like the ones you are modeling, you can.

In the scenario I am talking about, it may not be physically
impossible but it is practically impossible, for reasons intrinsic to
the situation.

I have provided those reasons in depth, so refer to my previous posts
if you really want to know what they are.