LLM are not the path to go forward to simulate a person, this is a fact. By design they cannot reason, it's not a matter of advancement, it's literally how they work as a principle. It's a statistical trick to generate random texts that look like thought out phrases, no reasoning involved.
If someone tells you they might be the way forward to simulate a human, they are scamming you. No one who actually knows how they work says that unless they are a CEO of a trillion dollar company selling AI.
I don't like it because people don't shut up about it and insist everyone should use it when it's clearly stupid.
LLMs are language models, they don't actually reason (not even reasoning models), when they nail a reasoning it's by chance, not by design. Everything that is not language processing shouldn't be done by an LLM. Viceversa, they are pretty good with language.
We already had automated reasoning tools. They are used for industrial optimization (i.e. finding optimal routes, finding how to allocate production, etc.) and no one cared about those.
As if it wasn't enough. The internet is now full of slop. And hardware companies are warmongering an arms race that is fueling an economic bubble. And people are being fired to be replaced by something that will not actually work in the long run because it does not reason.
I downloaded it many years ago when it was published (I can't find it now). It is an actual gif but it's very low res (and obviously it's 256 colours) and very large, some players will fail to load it, and you can give up on web players
If Turing was alive he would say that LLMs are wasting computing power to do something a human should be able to do on their own, and thus we shouldn't waste time studying them.
Which is what he said about compilers and high level languages (in this instance, high level means like Fortran, not like python)
Telephone exchanger. And as a consequence a lot of espionage occurred there, but just because it's a big telephone exchanger, not because that's its purpose.
There is a meme trend of finding inexistent references to people and characters in unrelated stuff, and then pointing it out as a clickbait YouTube thumbnail.
In this meme, I came across the verb "trumps" and interpreted it as the plural of the name "Trump", and complemented it with red arrows and fake PNGs of boomer emojis.
Your intuition is on the right track, but it works "the other way around".
RGB are additive primary colours, because the colour you see when you look at something that emits light is the actual colour of the light. And so when you mix two coloured lights, the colours add up (additive colours). And adding every colour gives you white.
CMY are instead subtractive colour, because when you look at something that does not emit light, the colour you see is just the light that bounces off of it, while some colours get absorbed. So when you mix paints, the resulting paint absorbs more colours, and you only see what's left, so the colours subtract down (subtractive colours). And subtracting everything gives you black.
P.s. mathematically, any three independent colours could be used as primary. Independent means that you can't get any of the three by mixing the other two (i.e. blue, red, and purple are not independent). But those two triplets are the most obvious choices.
You might recall that as a kid, they taught you that primary colours were Red, Blue and Yellow instead of CMY, and yet mixing worked fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiculite