Template:M intro technology rumours of our demise: Difference between revisions

Template:M intro technology rumours of our demise (view source)

Revision as of 18:01, 23 November 2023

1,213 bytes removed , 23 November 2023

→‎We have this facility now

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 248: / Line 248: @@
 (The “directed intelligence of human consensus” is not [[utopia|magically benign]], of course, as [[Sam Bankman-Fried]] might be able to tell us, having been on both ends of it).<ref>See also Lindy Chamberlain, Peter Ellis and the sub-postmasters wrongly convicted in the horizon debâcle.</ref>
+===Bayesian priors and the canon of Chat-GPT===
+Last point on literary theory, is that the “[[Bayesian priors]]” argument which fails for Shakespeare fails all the more so for a [[large language model]].
-===We have this facility now===
+Just as a great deal of the intellectual energy involved in rendering a text into the three-dimensional metaphorical universe we think of as ''King Lear'' comes from beyond the author of that text, so it does with the output of an LLM. Its model, after all, is entirely drawn from the human canon.
-Large learning models already can execute this “research assistant” mode. It seems less flashy but the JC’s view is this is the really compelling use case that will be with us once the peak of inflated expectations has collapsed into the trough of despair. BingAI just now found something I have been looking for for years without success.
-{{Quote|Bing, do you know a children's story involving a fox or a wolf or something being chased by a pack of hunting dogs and it hides under a rock. The hiding place is too small, and it has to poke one part of its body out. It has an argument with each of its body parts to see which is the most deserving of being saved and concludes that its tail is the least deserving so it sticks its tail out. The hunting dogs arrive and grab it by the tail and catch it. Moral of the story is something like you are only as good as your weakest link.}}
+And there is one other contributor to a cultural artefact we haven’t yet considered. The main one: the ''reader''. It is the reader, and her “[[cultural baggage]]”, who must make head and tail of a work of literature, however rich the cultural milieu that supports it. Construing natural language is no matter of mere [[Symbol processing|symbol-processing]]. Humans are ''not'' [[Turing machine|Turing machines]].
-{{Quote|I found the story you were looking for! It’s called “The Wolf and His Tail” ''[Bing confirms the plot ]'' “The Wolf and His Tail” is a children’s story that was written by Barbara Juster Esbensen. It was first published in 1972.}}
-This is a value that will not go away.
+We know this because the overture from ''Tristan und Isolde'' reduce one person to tears and can leave the next one cold. I can see in the Camden Cat a true inheritor of the blues pioneers, you might see an unremarkable busker. A text becomes art in the reader’s head.
-===Bayesian priors and the canon of chatgpt===
-Last point on literary theory, is that the Bayesian priors argument which fails for Shakespeare fails all the more so for a large learning model.
-Just as a great deal of the intellectual energy involved in taking a text and rendering it into the three-dimensional metaphorical universe we think of as King Lear comes from beyond the author, so is the same clearly true of an LLM. Its model, after all, is entirely drawn from the human canon.  And there is one other contributor to the meaning of an artwork we haven’t yet considered. The main one: the reader. It is the reader, and her “[[cultural baggage]]”, who must make head or tail of a work of literature, however rich the cultural milieu that supports it. Comprehending figurative language is not a matter of symbol-processing. We are ''not'' Turing machines. We know this because one person can find the overture from ''Tristan und Isolde'' sublime, and it can leave the next person cold. I can see in Daniel Jeanrenaud the true inheritors of the blues pioneers, you might find his music unremarkable. You might even feel that way about Leadbelly or Robert Johnson themselves.
+This is as true of magic — the conjurer’s trick is to misdirect her audience into ''imagining'' something that isn’t there: the magic is supplied by the audience — and it is of ''digital'' magic. We imbue what an LLM generates with meaning. ''The meatware is doing the heavy lifting''.
-The reader makes the art. This is as true of magic — the conjurer’s trick is to misdirect the audience into imagining something that isn't there: the magic is supplied by the watcher — and is if of digital magic. We imbue what an LLM provides with meaning.
+If you feed an LLM with its own output it rapidly degrades into meaningless mush. LLMs are not intentional. They are not directed, they depend on the ongoing environment to shape their fitness. That environment is necessarily human.
-LLMs, as currently configured, cannot do. If you feed an LLM with its own output it rapidly degrades into meaningless mush. LLMs are not intentional. They are not directed, they depend on the ongoing environment to shape their fitness. That environment is necessarily human.
 ===A real challenger bank===