That seems like it should work in theory, but having used Perplexity for a while now, it doesn't quite solve the problem.
The biggest fundamental problem is that it doesn't understand in any meaningful capacity what it is saying. It can try to restate something it sourced from a real website, but because it doesn't understand the content it doesn't always preserve the essence of what the source said. It will also frequently repeat or contradict itself in as little as two paragraphs based on two sources without acknowledging it, which further confirms the severe lack of understanding. No amount of grounding can overcome this.
Then there is the problem of how LLMs don't understand negation. You can't reliably reason with it using negated statements. You also can't ask it to tell you about things that do not have a particular property. It can't filter based on statements like "the first game in the series, not the sequel", or "Game, not Game II: Sequel" (however you put it, you will often get results pertaining to the sequel snucked in).
Well I don't know what you are referring to, but I'm not going to argue about your perception. I listened to the whole thing again (there are usually things that pass me by the first time, so I don't mind doing that for the interesting episodes) and I don't know how he could have done a better job at steering the conversation. He's a podcast host; he needs to pick at the parts that are of particular interest to him and his audience in a limited amount of time, as well as keeping the level of technicality just right so as to be digestible.
For someone familiar with the topic, it's natural to feel like they could have gone on about something at a more advanced level, and for someone entirely unfamiliar, it's natural that they would want to linger on things they don't quite get instead of moving on to something else.
Anyway, I'm not really going anywhere with this. Just curious about your perception since I tend to think of SC as someone quite smooth and approachable around people (unlike me). I guess even he can't be smooth enough for everybody all the time.
I'm relistening to that episode now because I'm curious about what it is you perceived.
He interjects sometimes to help tie things together ("and this is interesting because of [earlier observation]") or to adjust the level of technicality to suit his intended audience ("we're allowed to use the word torus here"). Not all Mindscape guests have a solid feel for the podcast and default to giving popscience breakdowns with analogies and leaving out technical jargon, and so he has to set the bar a bit by explicitly allowing the introduction of technical terms and bringing together of complex related topics.
Don't know if that's what made you feel like he was trying to show off.
Emergent, yes. I don't know of a better explanation. It has to be "physical"; otherwise, how could it influence our perceived reality? Anything that interacts with physical reality must itself be considered physical. That leaves only either consciousness as an emergent property or some form of panpsychism, as far as I know. I haven't come across any notable physical theories describing anything like a field of consciousness or whatever. So emergent property it is.
Edit: this is assuming some form of ontological realism. There exists people who think reality is entirely constructed by one's consciousness, for example. I don't see such ideas as particularly fruitful.
I use LLMs for having things explained to me, too.. but if you want to know how much salt to pour in that soup, try asking it about something niche and complicated you already know the answer to.
They can be useful in figuring out the correct terminology so that you can find the answer on your own, or for pointing some very very obvious mistakes in your understandings (but it will still miss most of them).
Based on what we know, dark matter doesn't seem to collide with anything - not even itself. If we are correct (and if I am not mistaken), there doesn't seem to be enough complexity in its dynamics to support life.
I also like to say that particles don't really exist in any sense one would associate to the word. And to be pedantic, we can't even say that particles are peaks in a field because that is merely how we model it, and that model is incomplete.
Since we don't know what gravity is or does, nor what (or if) a field is or what particles are, it's hard to answer a question like whether a particular field is affected by gravity other than in terms of a specific model and hope that corresponds to real observations.
In this case, our best bet is to reason in terms of known properties of what we think of as particles mediating the field in question. Photons are subject to gravitational influence, and so we expect EM fields to be as well.
Climate change denial is too common here. Our third (nearly second) largest political party is neofascist and "sceptical" of climate change. Lot's of conspiracy theories and "alternative truths" floating around in that demographic.
Watching others having fun together oddly helps me a bit. I might binge a youtube channel like Corridor Crew, for example. Sometimes I even prefer being "a fly on the wall" because I don't have to participate and be drained of energy. I also don't have to worry about feeling rejected or offending anyone (and thus no "social hangover").
I was thinking "three ridges" first 😅 (I imagined the sand running between the four fingers of my semi-closed fist)