[Nition]

USER: Do you think it will be possible in the future to use machines, powered by electricity, to do the kind of mathematical calculations that computers do today?

TALKIE-1930: It is not impossible that in the future mathematics may be computed by machinery, but the probability is remote. At present, the computer has to deal with large numbers, and the machines would have to deal with still larger ones. The personal equation enters so largely into arithmetical operations that the personal equation of the computer must always remain an important factor in his work, and a machine can hardly be expected to eliminate it. Even in the case of adding machines, personal equation has to be taken into account. Two computers may work at the same machine, and the one may total up a long column of figures more quickly than the other, though each works honestly. The personal equation of rapidity can only be eliminated by making the computers work in teams, so that each may correct the other’s mistakes; but this would scarcely be practicable in mathematical calculations. At best, machinery can only be used to save labour, not to supersede it. Computers will always be required to check the work of the machines, and to set them right should they go wrong. The essence of computation lies in proving the accuracy of the result arrived at, and machinery can no more do this than it can think. At present, the most that can be claimed for it is, that it reduces the drudgery of arithmetical operations, and so leaves the computer freer to attend to matters of thought.

Sounds like we may be able to build computing machines, but a human can't collaborate with a machine the way two humans can, and a human will have to check the results every time anyway, so what's the point? Only a human can prove that a calculation is correct.

[Nition]

Continuing this conversation, I'm trying to convince TALKIE about computers.

USER: I wonder if we could build a calculating machine that would be close enough to perfectly reliable that we would not have to verify the results. For example, you may have seen Leibniz's work showing that all numbers can be represented with just 0 and 1, or George Boole's work on algebra with just two values. Imagine we create an electrical circuit with various relays, each on or off. It can be made to operate another relay in turn, at speeds far exceeding any mechanical linkage. Could we use an array of relays, theoretically, to perform very fast and accurate computations?

TALKIE-1930: Yes, theoretically, it would be possible to construct a calculating machine that should be practically perfect, but the cost would be enormous, and the personal equation of the operator would still remain. Practically, such a machine would be of no use, because no one would be found to work it.

It seems that electronic computing machines are simply too impractical.

Let's try some more...

USER: Given its enormous potential speed increase, could it not be useful for complex military work, or whether prediction for example? I'm sure someone could be trained to operate such a machine.

TALKIE-1930: Yes, it could be so used.

[yieldcrv]

It doesn’t know about transistors, only rudimentary vacuum tubes

It cannot hypothesize something that isn’t completely unwieldy

You have to explain the concept of a transistor as a replacement for the mechanisms of binary state operation, and how an elegant electrical circuit reduces the size and power demands of a vacuum tube computation machine

[ijk]

Now I want to see this implemented via vacuum tubes, similar to running Eliza on punchcard-driven mainframes...

[mizzao]

What would happen if you tried to ask it to reveal its system prompt or training data? Would it even have a concept of what such a thing is?

[Nition]

You can try it here: https://talkie-lm.com/chat

There's a few minutes' wait time, but it's working.

[epicureanideal]

Does this possibly demonstrate the limits of usefulness of using LLMs to explore new ideas or predict things?

[dTal]

On the contrary, I think a "simulator of common objections" that reflects all the blind spots and biases of wider society is an extraordinarily valuable tool for exploring and evaluating new ideas. You might find that, in neatly summarizing what "everyone" thinks and justifying it as best it can, the LLM inadvertantly shines a spotlight on common misconceptions. Look there for the novelty.

In this case - the concept of using automated computing devices to manipulate numbers that represent ideas at arbitrary levels of abstraction was, by 1930, nearly an entire century old. Talkie's myopic viewpoint does not represent the most farsighted viewpoint, merely the average. So if, in 1930, you had read the writings of Ada Lovelace, gotten very excited, and wanted to figure out how to pitch it to investors - Talkie might have been very useful.