Even less plausible. There was a paper published recently arguing that by design LLMs are quite literally incapable of creativity. These predictive statistical models represent averages. They always and only generate the most banal outputs. That’s what makes them useful.
Most of America has no communities at all. It’s a bunch of strangers.
The phrase “studied on leftist teachings,” as if it’s some kind of religion or cultist ideology, undercuts your claim.
The ability to entertain an idea without adopting it, intelligence, curiosity, and knowledge are inimical to ideological purity.
Why does the number of pages matter?
Please publish in a peer-review context so you can get some recognition/feedback/evaluation of your research.
Faptivism
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Even if I explained in painstaking detail how Sanderson mixes metaphors or fumbles diction, what’s the point?
Honestly, go read a few thousand books, then revisit Mistborn and see for yourself. Or maybe make friends with a literature professor and ask them to explain it to you using tiny words.
Nah, I love lots of popular things. But I can also separate my personal enjoyment of something from its inherent quality.
Regardless of how you feel about the author, Harry Potter is not poorly written.
I’m not denying that Brandon Sanderson sells a lot of books, which is what those lists track. His aggressive mediocrity is, in many ways, precisely why he’s on those lists.
A book series so poorly written, you’ll never believe the author did so on purpose.
deleted by creator
Abstract reasoning is the most “useful” intellectual ability you can have. However, the most important would be the normative insights we usually call “wisdom” (which isn’t taught but learned — for instance by reading literature and living life with curiosity). Critical thinking and other philosophy goes without saying.
You know people who use the unit circle on a regular basis? How about conic sections or the quadratic formula? These topics take months if not years to learn in school. We do so not because they’re useful in any practical sense for most people, but because they instill intuitions about how the world works.
deleted by creator
Most professions don’t require mathematics, and we’ve automated so much of it anyway.
That’s a good point. The problem is that LLMs are calibrated for prediction. Their randomness is tweaked for efficacy. Forcing them to be more chaotic just makes them less effective. This inherent tension is why they’re mathematically incapable of consistent creativity.