But does Claude understand Arithmetic? This is an empirical experiment you can try right now. Try ask Claude to explain an arithmetic expression you just made up. Or a math formula.
For example, try
x_next = r * x * (1 - x)
A function of some historical significance O:-) (try plotting it btw!)
Ha. Well I'm OK with being accused of bias towards biological life and intelligence. I know Larry Page and friends think this is 'speciesist' -- I strongly disagree.
I think that's compatible with optimism towards LLM's though. It just removes all of the nonsensical conflation with humanity and human intelligence.
You know, I bet Claude encouraged you to post here and share with people. Because Claude Opus 4.5 has been trained on being kind. It's a long story, but since you admitted to using it/them, I'm going to give you a lot more credit than normal. Also because you can plug what I say right back into Claude and see what else comes out!
So you're stumbling onto a position that's closest to "Biological Naturalism", which is Searle's philosophy. However, lots of people disagree with him, saying he's a closeted dualist in denial.
I mean, he was a product of his time, early 80's was dominated by symbolic AI, and that definitely wasn't working so well. Despite that, he got a lot of pushback from Dennett and Hofstadter even back then.
Chalmers recently takes a more cautious approach, while his student Amanda Askell is present in our conversation even if you haven't realized it yet. ;-)
Meanwhile the poor field of Biology is feeling rather left out of this conversation, having been quite steadfastly monist since the late 19th century, having rejected vitalism in favor of mechanism. (though the last dualists died out in the 50's-ish?)
And somewhere in our world's oceans, two sailors might be arguing whether or not a submarine can swim. On board a Los Angeles class SSN making way at 35 kts at -1000feet.
Some large businesses probably do WANT anti-circumvention laws , but that doesn't mean it's good for them. Kids always want more sugar than is good for them too.
Those kinds of laws are great for incumbent moats, much less for innovation. Compare eg. China. (or early USA or Japanese industrialization)
[2] In the very practical sense that certain texts end up lost because they're copyrighted but no one re-publishes them on time, so few or no copies remain in practice.
This question screams "I know what I mean, but haven't considered that other people might not have the same context I do". Seems like it's not an important vote but a marketing gimmick which only makes sense after you answer one way or another.
I would expect people's preferences depend on how invasive and how much control there is- Do I want AI to have unfettered access to my filesystem? No. Do I want AI to create useful regex snippets for me? Yes.
Interesting to see that 96% of "voters" went NO, though it's hard to tell what that actually means in terms of their preferences, given the question is so vague.
I think you can read this as product differentiation. If you want AI in your search experience, Google and Bing are jumping up and down to give it to you.
DDG is maybe making a savvy point that they don’t have to follow the hype. And they’re perhaps positioning themselves toward customers that want that.
What consequence? It's a vote, it has no consequence. It's just fun.
And it seems intentionally phrased on an emotional level, so just answer it how you want.
I don't really get how some people over engineer a subjective questionnaire you can answer anonymously into something that has real-life personal consequences.
For example, try
A function of some historical significance O:-) (try plotting it btw!)reply