Theres a current boycott? What’s going on there?
Manitoba may very well be officially bilingual and have French as an official language of the legislative and judicial branches but not have French as a full official language (which is what my original comment was about). I know it’s pedantic but the legal matters like this are notoriously pedantic
I know this sounds pedantic, but this is not necessarily the same as it being a full official language. If you look at the fine print there are ways where Manitoba falls short of New Brunswick, which is fully bilingual.
Here’s a radio-Canada article anout it: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1541550/bilinguisme-francais-manitoba-nouveau-brunswick-droit-linguistique-constitution
(Granted it is from 2020. Maybe Manitoba had given French official constitutional status since then but if it has I was not aware of that change.)
No where in this link does it say that French is an official language of Manitoba. It’s not. Manitoba often allows francophones to access government services in French but that is not the same as it being an official language
You weren’t wrong. The link provided does not say that French is an official language of Manitoba, just that it can be accessed for government services etc. The other commentator appears to be confused
Even burger king is hard to get a job at these days.
I’m not the guy you’re arguing with, but it will be interesting to see if/how LLMs deal with novel Gödel sentences in a way that is more than just mimicry. I’m sure there is a way to set this up that is mathematically rigourous.
The idea is that there are some statements which are true but unprovable in a formal system. Since LLMs run on a computer they are technically a formal system of sorts. So it will be interesting to see if they can pinpoint the true yet unprovable sentences. If they can it will lead to a lot of interesting questions about how exactly they know it’s true without “proving” it in some roundabout way.
I’m not doing this issue justice. A lot has been written on this by Roger Penrose (you don’t have to agree with his stance to appreciate that he’s touching on an interesting problem, here).