this is 'unique' only if you exclude Vedic, Buddhist, Taoist, ... thought. davew
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, at 9:54 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote: > Prompt: > Express a unique concept. Make it as profound as possible > > https://chat.openai.com/share/649bd4ca-f856-451e-83a2-01fc2cfe47fb > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 6:50 AM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I guess the question returns to one's criteria for assuming decoupling >> between the very [small|fast] and the very [large|slow]. Or in this case, >> the inner vs. the outer: >> >> Susie Alegre on how digital technology undermines free thought >> https://freethinker.co.uk/2024/03/interview-susie-alegre/ >> >> It would be reasonable for Frank to argue that we can generate the space of >> possible context definitions, inductively, from the set of token >> definitions, much like an LLM might. Ideally, you could then measure the >> expressiveness of those inferred contexts/languages and choose the largest >> (most complete; by induction, each context/language *should* be >> self-consistent so we shouldn't have to worry about that). >> >> And if that's how things work (I'm not saying it is), then those >> "attractors" with the finest granularity (very slow to emerge, very >> resistant to dissolution) would be the least novel. Novelty (uniqueness) >> might then be defined in terms of fragility, short half-life, missable >> opportunity. But that would also argue that novelty is either less *real* or >> that the universe/context/language is very *open* and the path from fragile >> to robust obtains like some kind of Hebbian reinforcement, use it or lose >> it, win the hearts and minds or dissipate to nothing. >> >> I.e. there is no such thing as free thought. Thought can't decouple from >> social manipulation. >> >> On 3/21/24 13:38, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> > In the LLM example, completions from some starting state or none, have >> > specific probabilities. An incomplete yet-unseen (unique) utterance >> > would be completed based on prior probabilities of individual tokens. >> > >> > I agree that raw materialist uniqueness won't necessarily or often >> > override constraints of a situation. For example, if an employer >> > instructs an employee how to put a small, lightweight product in a box, >> > label it, and send it to a customer by UPS, the individual differences >> > metabolism of the employees aren't likely to matter much when shipping >> > more small, lightweight objects to other customers. It could be the case >> > for a professor and student too. The attractors come from the >> > instruction or the curriculum. One choice constrains the next. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen >> > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:50 AM >> > To: friam@redfish.com >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity >> > >> > I was arguing with that same friend yesterday at the pub. I was trying to >> > describe how some of us have more cognitive power than others (he's one of >> > them). Part of it is "free" power, freed up by his upper middle class >> > white good diet privilege. But if we allow that some of it might be >> > genetic, then that's a starting point for deciding when novelty matters to >> > the ephemerides of two otherwise analogical individuals (or projects if >> > projects have an analog to genetics). Such things are well-described in >> > twin studies. One twin suffers some PTSD the other doesn't and ... boom >> > ... their otherwise lack of uniqueness blossoms into uniqueness. >> > >> > His objection was that even identical twins are not identical. They were >> > already unique ... like the Pauli Exclusion Principle or somesuch >> > nonsense. Even though it's a bit of a ridiculous argument, I could apply >> > it to your sense of avoiding non-novel attractors. No 2 attractors will be >> > identical. And no 1 attractor will be unique. So those are moot issues. >> > Distinctions without differences, maybe. Woit's rants are legendary. But >> > some of us find happiness in wasteful sophistry. >> > >> > What matters is *how* things are the same and how they differ. Their >> > qualities and values (nearly) orthogonal to novelty. >> > >> > >> > On 3/21/24 11:29, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> >> If GPT systems capture some sense of "usual" context based on trillions >> >> of internet tokens, and that corpus is regarded approximately "global >> >> context", then it seems not so objectionable to call "unusual", new >> >> training items that contribute to fine-tuning loss. >> >> >> >> It seems reasonable to worry that ubiquitous GPT systems reduce social >> >> entropy by encouraging copying instead of new thinking, but it could also >> >> have the reverse effect: If I am immediately aware that an idea is not >> >> novel, I may avoid attractors that agents that wrongly believe they are >> >> "independent" will gravitate toward. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen >> >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:49 AM >> >> To: friam@redfish.com >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity >> >> >> >> A friend of mine constantly reminds me that language is dynamic, not >> >> fixed in stone from a billion years ago. So, if you find others >> >> consistently using a term in a way that you think is wrong, then *you* >> >> are wrong in what you think. The older I get, the more difficult it gets. >> >> >> >> But specifically, the technical sense of "unique" is vanishingly rare ... >> >> so rare as to be merely an ideal, unverifiable, nowhere, non-existent. So >> >> if the "unique" is imaginary, unreal, and doesn't exist, why not co-opt >> >> it for a more useful, banal purpose? Nothing is actually unique. So we'll >> >> use the token "unique" to mean (relatively) rare. >> >> >> >> And "unusual" is even worse. Both tokens require one to describe the >> >> context, domain, or universe within which the discussion is happening. If >> >> you don't define your context, then the "definitions" you provide for the >> >> components of that context are not even wrong; they're nonsense. >> >> "Unusual" implies a usual. And a usual implies a perspective ... a >> >> mechanism of action for your sampling technique. So "unusual" presents >> >> even more of a linguistic *burden* than "unique". >> >> >> >> On 3/20/24 13:14, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> >>> What's wrong with "unusual"? It avoids the problem. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 1:55 PM Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com >> >>> <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm hung up on the usage of qualified "uniqueness" as well, but >> >>>> in perhaps the opposite sense. >> >>>> >> >>>> I agree with the premise that "unique" in it's purest, simplest >> >>>> form does seem to be inherently singular. On the other hand, this >> >>>> mal(icious) propensity of qualifying uniqueness (uniqueish?) is so >> >>>> common, that I have to believe there is a concept there which people >> >>>> who use those terms are reaching for. They are not wrong to reach for >> >>>> it, just annoying in the label they choose? >> >>>> >> >>>> I had a round with GPT4 trying to discuss this, not because I >> >>>> think LLMs are the authority on *anything* but rather because the >> >>>> discussions I have with them can help me brainstorm my way around ideas >> >>>> with the LLM nominally representing "what a lot of people say" (if not >> >>>> think). Careful prompting seems to be able to help narrow down *all >> >>>> people* (in the training data) to different/interesting subsets of >> >>>> *lots of people* with certain characteristics. >> >>>> >> >>>> GPT4 definitely wanted to allow for a wide range of gradated, >> >>>> speciated, spectral uses of "unique" and gave me plenty of commonly >> >>>> used examples which validates my position that "for something so >> >>>> obviously/technically incorrect, it sure is used a lot!" >> >>>> >> >>>> We discussed uniqueness in the context of evolutionary biology >> >>>> and cladistics and homology and homoplasy. We discussed it in terms of >> >>>> cluster analysis. We discussed the distinction between objective and >> >>>> subjective, absolute and relative. >> >>>> >> >>>> The closest thing to a conclusion I have at the moment is: >> >>>> >> >>>> 1. Most people do and will continue to treat "uniqueness" as a >> >>>> relative/spectral/subjective qualifier. >> >>>> 2. Many people like Frank and myself (half the time) will have >> >>>> an allergic reaction to this usage. >> >>>> 3. The common (mis)usage might be attributable to conflating >> >>>> "unique" with "distinct"? >> > >> >> >> -- >> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
