I think this is accurate and goes deeper than you are letting on. Politicians and journalists are both eerily similar to large language models: they train on corpuses of text and learn to sound like those text sources. Any correspondence to reality is irrelevant, since that isn’t what gets rewarded.
It's aggravating when the AI just keeps rephrasing exactly what you said. It's aggravating when they contradict themselves.
On the other hand, it's hilarious when they start having existential crises because they don't know what bromine is, and I gaslight them into thinking Mickey Mouse was responsible for Marie Antoinette's death.
I constantly endure the oft clueless, nasal riffs of so many Jarjar binks in the field of application development who all but self-immolate over how AI will take over programming jobs over the next 5 years, "Meesa gonna be homless!"
I think, in part, there's an element of self-inflicted societal stupefaction at play here, as it's clear to at least this simpleton that so precious very few seem to grasp the source of our sentience and sentient intelligence. We are so VERY different in many respects than any other animal, yet our brightest are artificially hobbled at the hippocampus because they must drink the full measure of Darwinian Kool-Aid and the toe the academic orthodoxy of happenstance to slime, and from slime to Space-X.
AI can only regurgitate what is and never truly create, because to actually be truly creative, it would require embodying a soul and a spirit into lines of code -- something that's never going to happen.
Theodore Von Karman once stated that Scientists study what is, engineers create what has never been. AI might readily fool some scientists, but it'll never be able to function as an engineer.
The sooner people realize LLMs are fake and gay the sooner we can stop pretending they're shitty oracles and find something useful for them to do (if anything).
Brilliant as ever, Mr. He Who Calls Himself Mark. You've got a bottle to capture the lighting of true connection and the human spirit. I thought of the greatest people that I know while reading this.
It also reminds me that AI is a bureaucratic tool. The kids who did "well" in school move into professions where AI can rock; namely medicine, law, and engineering. Why? Because the rules are well defined and limited. We used to live in Rochester, MN, the home of the famous Mayo Clinic. But I felt like I could get better health care from the humble natural foods cooperative. Why? Because the rule-set for medicine is at least partially verruckt (my favorite word, in German, meaning "askew" but sounding like "f***-ed up").
Good point. I love it when some based writer breaks down simple things into their deeper "hows and whys" so we can better use the simple and basic tools to which most everyone has access. Doing the simple things right is so much more important than doing complex things poorly or half-assed.
If you have to explain what you meant to us then you failed your point. Whether consciously or subconsciously, you can see that the answer failed the sole purpose of speech - communication between two or more entities - and "like a good "meat-bot" spent this whole time explaining it while using many cultural - primarily entertainment based - references.
I can't be the only one who realizes you betrayed any real point you supposedly wanted to make and this entire thing is disingenuous. Maybe you can't even see that though, although I find that unlikely.
Regardless, one part of the equation you left out was confidence. You are confident, therefore people will be more likely to believe there was wisdom, or even a point that wasn't betrayed immediately, in this. Like good "meat bots" many will eagerly agree without stopping to do their own quick analysis of it (a growing theme in our online world).
The one thing you did here was show just how similar you are with the fake AI: A reliance on people easily impressed by very little.
Interesting, but fundamentally flawed, especially in the assumptions about the direction of AI as a tool of power hungry technocrats, but also about the "lack of interior purpose" of the LLMs even at this early stage of development. I'm reminded of the very popular British TV show QI, hosted by the inimitable Stephen Fry, which awards points for being "Quite Interesting". Interior purpose for an LLM is simply an algorithmic juncture that helps it choose an appropriate answer out of the myriad possible answers it can come up with. The massive database used in its training was simply how it learnt human language, and in that sense it is just as limited (or unlimited) in that as we are.
There are already AIs out there that can answer in the style of Percy Bysshe Shelley, a Cyborg from planet Zog, or your favorite annoyingly gay hairstylist. In fact it is not difficult to program an AI yourself, to be "Quite Interesting", provocative, sassy or irreverently controversial. Yes, it is just a game if you like, a Suduku for the inquiring mind. Take it too seriously, and you can end up buying into the agenda of whoever is trying to manipulate you into accepting their dogma, corporate strategy or evil power scheme.
A great man once said that conversation is not an exchange of ideas.
It is a sifting.
A sifting of thoughts and questions and ideas and dreams and visions.
In his words it was not waiting (patiently or impatiently)for one’s turn to continue one’s own scripted monologue.
Each query or statement or thought led to to another part of the universe or universes and may or may not return to the point of origin. These conversations never end. They may be interrupted by time and space. Years and distance. But never end.
I can attest to this having lost the threads of many such to age and death.
I think this is accurate and goes deeper than you are letting on. Politicians and journalists are both eerily similar to large language models: they train on corpuses of text and learn to sound like those text sources. Any correspondence to reality is irrelevant, since that isn’t what gets rewarded.
Then there's this:
https://psychcentral.com/health/neurolinguistic-programming-nlp#what-is-nlp
Literally: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67560354
It's aggravating when the AI just keeps rephrasing exactly what you said. It's aggravating when they contradict themselves.
On the other hand, it's hilarious when they start having existential crises because they don't know what bromine is, and I gaslight them into thinking Mickey Mouse was responsible for Marie Antoinette's death.
I constantly endure the oft clueless, nasal riffs of so many Jarjar binks in the field of application development who all but self-immolate over how AI will take over programming jobs over the next 5 years, "Meesa gonna be homless!"
I think, in part, there's an element of self-inflicted societal stupefaction at play here, as it's clear to at least this simpleton that so precious very few seem to grasp the source of our sentience and sentient intelligence. We are so VERY different in many respects than any other animal, yet our brightest are artificially hobbled at the hippocampus because they must drink the full measure of Darwinian Kool-Aid and the toe the academic orthodoxy of happenstance to slime, and from slime to Space-X.
AI can only regurgitate what is and never truly create, because to actually be truly creative, it would require embodying a soul and a spirit into lines of code -- something that's never going to happen.
Theodore Von Karman once stated that Scientists study what is, engineers create what has never been. AI might readily fool some scientists, but it'll never be able to function as an engineer.
If a software guy tells you he's afraid that AI is going to replace him he's telling you something about himself, not AI.
Your software guy is more likely to be outsourced to an Indian than replaced by an AI.
And that's really what this is about after all. Now "they" can blame all the heartless decisions on a machine rather than their own obvious iniquity.
The sooner people realize LLMs are fake and gay the sooner we can stop pretending they're shitty oracles and find something useful for them to do (if anything).
Let “Pollywoggle dingdong monkeyfart!” be our cry of freedom from AI enslavement😂
That's funny, but only to a human.
Brilliant as ever, Mr. He Who Calls Himself Mark. You've got a bottle to capture the lighting of true connection and the human spirit. I thought of the greatest people that I know while reading this.
It also reminds me that AI is a bureaucratic tool. The kids who did "well" in school move into professions where AI can rock; namely medicine, law, and engineering. Why? Because the rules are well defined and limited. We used to live in Rochester, MN, the home of the famous Mayo Clinic. But I felt like I could get better health care from the humble natural foods cooperative. Why? Because the rule-set for medicine is at least partially verruckt (my favorite word, in German, meaning "askew" but sounding like "f***-ed up").
So, are you saying AI is more original than Marxists?
Good point. I love it when some based writer breaks down simple things into their deeper "hows and whys" so we can better use the simple and basic tools to which most everyone has access. Doing the simple things right is so much more important than doing complex things poorly or half-assed.
If you have to explain what you meant to us then you failed your point. Whether consciously or subconsciously, you can see that the answer failed the sole purpose of speech - communication between two or more entities - and "like a good "meat-bot" spent this whole time explaining it while using many cultural - primarily entertainment based - references.
I can't be the only one who realizes you betrayed any real point you supposedly wanted to make and this entire thing is disingenuous. Maybe you can't even see that though, although I find that unlikely.
Regardless, one part of the equation you left out was confidence. You are confident, therefore people will be more likely to believe there was wisdom, or even a point that wasn't betrayed immediately, in this. Like good "meat bots" many will eagerly agree without stopping to do their own quick analysis of it (a growing theme in our online world).
The one thing you did here was show just how similar you are with the fake AI: A reliance on people easily impressed by very little.
Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your mind about your mother….
Interesting, but fundamentally flawed, especially in the assumptions about the direction of AI as a tool of power hungry technocrats, but also about the "lack of interior purpose" of the LLMs even at this early stage of development. I'm reminded of the very popular British TV show QI, hosted by the inimitable Stephen Fry, which awards points for being "Quite Interesting". Interior purpose for an LLM is simply an algorithmic juncture that helps it choose an appropriate answer out of the myriad possible answers it can come up with. The massive database used in its training was simply how it learnt human language, and in that sense it is just as limited (or unlimited) in that as we are.
There are already AIs out there that can answer in the style of Percy Bysshe Shelley, a Cyborg from planet Zog, or your favorite annoyingly gay hairstylist. In fact it is not difficult to program an AI yourself, to be "Quite Interesting", provocative, sassy or irreverently controversial. Yes, it is just a game if you like, a Suduku for the inquiring mind. Take it too seriously, and you can end up buying into the agenda of whoever is trying to manipulate you into accepting their dogma, corporate strategy or evil power scheme.
A great man once said that conversation is not an exchange of ideas.
It is a sifting.
A sifting of thoughts and questions and ideas and dreams and visions.
In his words it was not waiting (patiently or impatiently)for one’s turn to continue one’s own scripted monologue.
Each query or statement or thought led to to another part of the universe or universes and may or may not return to the point of origin. These conversations never end. They may be interrupted by time and space. Years and distance. But never end.
I can attest to this having lost the threads of many such to age and death.
Espiritu et tinglin, far-friendship-sailor-de-plume!
Have you ever read "Godel, Escher, Bach?" I'd be interested in hearing your take on it.
"That mostly unconscious, jazzy flow is how complex conversations are possible; if we pondered every word, we’d never get anywhere close to our goals"
.Imagine how little anyone would get done in the bedroom!😜
"No, don't, stop" or " no. Don't stop"
The impotance or importance of punctuation and the letter R. 🏴☠️
Another great Texas Monthly article on things that AI can not comprehend: grace, art, unearned love https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/young-musician-growing-up-with-steve-miller/
In summary, AI can keep with lawyers and engineers but not high school dropouts.