Replies (1)

• @cazabon@mindly.social 2026-03-01 04:03

  @cenobyte@mastodon.thirring.org I'm with you on hoping to hear Sabine opine on this. I've read some more of the stuff in the repo - text and code. It's still just about all over my interested-layman's head. But I want it to be true, or at least true-ish enough to point the way to additional threads to pull on with other researchers. I really hope that this isn't just a big joke, and the text isn't just LLM jibberish from a model trained on physics papers. > I personally don’t think of an observer as a person but rather then entanglement > of systems and how it spreads. I've never liked the term "observer" or "observe" as used in theoretical physics (the waveform collapses when the observer looks at the result, etc), because it does seem to imply an intelligence or an id, though that might just be linguistic baggage. I tend to think of it more like Einstein's relativity. An observer there can be thought of more as just a vantage point. There doesn't need to be a person there to do the looking, but if you happened to stand there, you would see a particular "view" of the universe. From another vantage point, a theoretical observer would "see" a different view of the same events. But what do I know, I'm no physicist. #LLM #AI #hoax

  Open ##5083122