Template:M intro work Large Learning Model: Difference between revisions

Template:M intro work Large Learning Model (view source)

Revision as of 16:22, 30 July 2023

274 bytes added , 30 July 2023

→‎LLMs and literary theory

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,199

edits

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 =====LLMs and literary theory=====
 {{quote|
-''POLONIUS'': What do you read, my lord? <br>
+''HORATIO'': O day and night, but this is wondrous strange. <br>
-''HAMLET'':  Words, words, words. <br>
+''HAMLET'': And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.<br>
-''POLONIUS'':  What is the matter, my lord? <br>
+There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, <br>
-''HAMLET'':  Between who? <br>
+Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. <br>
-''POLONIUS'':  I mean the matter that you read, my lord. <br>
+:— ''Hamlet'' I, ''v''.}}
-:—''Hamlet'', II, ii
-}}
-Now, in all kinds of literature ''bar one'', “reading” is where the real magic happens. ''Construal''. It is the [[Emergent|emergent]] creative act and community consensus that renders ''Hamlet'' a timeless cultural leviathan and {{br|Dracula: The Undead}} forgettable pap.<ref>Maybe not ''that'' forgettable, come to think of it: it has stayed with me 15 years, after all.</ref> A literary work may start with the text, but it stays there barely a moment. The “meaning” of literature is necessarily personal to the reader: it lives between our ears, and within the cultural milieu that interconnects the reading population over the generations.
-Call him [[post-modern]] — go on, do — but the [[JC]] doesn’t hold with [[Carl Sagan]]’s idea that a book teleports its author “inside our heads”. That would be to equate reading with symbol-processing. It absolutely isn’t, and that metaphor gravely underestimates the human brain when in construction mode. Nor, by the way, is this in any way to diminish Shakespeare’s towering genius, but rather to observe that, however impossibly brilliant it is, it is swamped by the flood of exposition, analysis, interpretation, re-rendition and performance, that has gone on since he published it, not to mention reader’s own role in “construction”.
+Now, in all kinds of literature ''bar one'', “reading” is where the real magic happens. ''Construal''. It is the [[Emergent|emergent]] creative act and community consensus that renders ''Hamlet'' a timeless cultural leviathan and {{br|Dracula: The Undead}} forgettable pap.<ref>Maybe not ''that'' forgettable, come to think of it: it has stayed with me 15 years, after all.</ref> A literary work may start with the text, but it stays there barely a moment. The “meaning” of a literary work is ''necessarily personal'' to the reader: it lives between the reader’s ears, and within the cultural milieu that interconnects the reading population over the generations — ''all as construed by the apparatus between the reader’s ears''.
-“Construal” and “construction” are interchangeable in this sense: over time that cultural milieu takes the received corpus of literature and, literally, ''constructs'' it into edifices its authors can scarce have imagined. ''Hamlet'' speaks, still, to the social and human dilemmas of the twenty-first century in ways Shakespeare cannot have contemplated.<ref>A bit ironic that Microsoft should call its chatbot “Bard”, of all things.</ref> to be clear: a reader is no simple “symbol processor”, decrypting text to reveal a one-to-one assembly of the author’s intention in her own head. Literature is no instruction manual, recipe nor a computer programme.
+Call him [[post-modern]] — go on, do — but the [[JC]] doesn’t hold with [[Carl Sagan]]’s idea, above, that a book teleports its author “inside our heads”. That is to equate ''construal'' with ''symbol-processing''. It absolutely isn’t, and that [[metaphor]] — that the brain is a glorified Turing machine — gravely underestimates the human brain when in construction mode.
+This, by the way, is not in any way to diminish Shakespeare’s towering genius, but rather to observe that, however impossibly brilliant it is, it is swamped by the flood of exposition, analysis, interpretation, re-rendition and performance that has gone on since he published it, all as narratised and framed by the apparatus between the reader’s ears.
+“Construal” — interpreting and assigning meaning to — and “construction” — building — have the same etymology. They are interchangeable in this sense: over time that cultural milieu takes the received corpus of literature and, literally, ''constructs'' it, into edifices its authors can scarce have imagined.
+''Hamlet'' speaks, still, to the social and human dilemmas of the twenty-first century in ways Shakespeare cannot possibly have contemplated.<ref>A bit ironic that Microsoft should call its chatbot “Bard”, of all things.</ref>
+A reader is no simple “symbol processor”, decrypting text to reveal a one-to-one assembly of the author’s intention in her own head. Literature is no instruction manual, recipe nor a computer programme.
 Now there is one kind of “literature” that is like a computer programme: where the ''last'' thing the writer wants is for the reader use her imagination, to construct a meaning: where clarity of authorial intention is paramount; where communicating and understanding ''purpose'' is the sole priority: ''legal'' literature.