It matters because that would clarify how much this is thought out from first principles; how much recognizes and does not re-invent mountains of prior work; how broad or narrow the work is; whether it recognizes that directions of thought X and Y have been worked on quite a bit already, etc.
Since the author here says this is not just a random blog post.
To me, this would correct the introduction's reference to "AI-based language models". Which is a bit too "latest fad"; But which I do find fascinating because the success of language models hint that a very large part of the basic human's intelligence may be simply internalized language (much of the rest being still more pattern recognition.); But which cannot merely erase all other prior work on what makes our minds.
Comments
It isn't published academia, so why would this matter?
It matters because that would clarify how much this is thought out from first principles; how much recognizes and does not re-invent mountains of prior work; how broad or narrow the work is; whether it recognizes that directions of thought X and Y have been worked on quite a bit already, etc.
Since the author here says this is not just a random blog post.
To me, this would correct the introduction's reference to "AI-based language models". Which is a bit too "latest fad"; But which I do find fascinating because the success of language models hint that a very large part of the basic human's intelligence may be simply internalized language (much of the rest being still more pattern recognition.); But which cannot merely erase all other prior work on what makes our minds.