This was good, too: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai-artificial-intelligence-chatbots-emily-m-bender.html
And microsoft laid off its responsible AI team: https://www.platformer.news/p/microsoft-just-laid-off-one-of-its And your Ring doorbell has just been taken hostage for ransom along with the rest of Ring Security: https://web.archive.org/web/20230314015249/https://twitter.com/vxunderground/status/1635427567271329792 though I haven't found confirmation of that yet. It seems to me that the software vendors have entered a "first to market frenzy" with whatever this LLM crap turns out to be, and you can expect the PR to get more unhinged by the day. -- rec -- On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:58 AM Barry MacKichan < barry.mackic...@mackichan.com> wrote: > I haven’t followed the discussions here carefully, but the question “And > we humans are different?” brings up Noam Chomsky’s view in the NYT, gifted > here: > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html?unlocked_article_code=QwaHrmmodXXtHVMT-PXM3n5X5165QgywGnhK8kHA4bQ4YwI-1ChPS_7jCUaaUoFfOEcH5StWFGnaCzyJsSW6zuHN-U410lTznWM8Mvsg-JDhGg8JVpzBMO0zuuwLEceZ7nsik2RLOi3H_hFSlBy4EF1c2Rn8ueGmhh3n6TnF58p3Vo2dkK0Y8RCrYhzpvCdlBd51fLA6DWil5Xn3vRhZ6gTYuUw8Eoy6HbR2cA4PcoI_PzQ5Ozz4Rrb5vH1C_pX5agNGvJ9CS0q9bGH7NvB0HSTIA480_k--x8f-srXvID5llZmAxRHEkS5Yf05rn820RIR3j70yIH7hddfh6GkkjQ&smid=url-share > > —Barry > On 6 Mar 2023, at 16:49, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > How? > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, March 6, 2023 12:50 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James > > > > >And we humans are different? > > > > In a word, yes. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:14 PM Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > *However, it's important to remember that there are also important > differences between a large language model and human consciousness. While a > large language model can generate text that may seem to flow like a stream > of consciousness, it does not have the same kind of subjective experience > that humans do, and its output is based solely on statistical patterns in > the input it has been trained on.* > > > > And we humans are different? > > > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 11:51 AM Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > > Also second EricS's appreciation for having someone else(s) maintain a > coherent conversation for the myriad ideas that it allows me to explore > without being central to the maintenance of the thread. I realize this > may be almost pure tangent to others, so I rarely expect anyone to take my > bait unless it is to correct any egregious mis-attributions or > think-utational fallacies. > > Starting with Glen's assertion/suggestion/assumption that there is not > mind-stuff and body stuff, just body stuff: I appeal to the general > abstraction of Emergence and use Russell Standish's example in his "Theory > of Nothing > <https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/967936.Theory_Of_Nothing?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=GgXJ0ISQei&rank=1>" > that a water molecule is not wet... wetness is a property of aggregates of > water molecules. I would jump a dozen layers of emergent-bootstrapping > from there to assert that "mind stuff", if it ever makes sense, is an > emergent property of "body stuff". But by analogy would not want to say > that wetness (and other properties of bulk water molecules) is not strictly > "molecular dynamics stuff". And even if one did that, the > recursion/reduction-ad-absurdum requires that one acknowledge/notice/invoke > that the properties of any molecule is "emergent" from the elementary > particles from which it might be composed. > > I think we all believe in free-electrons, protons, neutrons but also > recognize that *most* of our observed universe is shaped not by *those > properties* (much less the properties of quarks and gluons or 10d loops of > abstract things we call strings) but rather by the properties (once again, > not of molecular dynamics or even chemical reactions) but biological > functions, and socio-economic-political functions as well. I *am* > however, sensitive to the idea that where and how we draw the line between > mind/body stuff can be important in any given argument, and that sometimes > dropping that line altogether may be useful? > > The above riff on Mind-Stuff v Body-Stuff is really an intro into thoughts > about how syntax and semantics might bootstrap sequentially. It feels to > me that the syntax of one level of abstraction yields an *emergent > semantics* which in turn becomes the *syntax* of the next "level". I do > acknowledge that Glen has made some arguments (and references) that are > against the very abstraction of "levels" and that may well be the hole in > everything I'm unrolling here, but for the moment, I feel I have a clear > picture of a POSET of syntax/semantics, if not a full Hierarchy... > > This also backs me into the Platonic ideations with all the charms and > criticisms already dancing as virtual (ideational) particles around > that. I will go back to reading A Theory of Nothing > <https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/967936.Theory_Of_Nothing?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=GgXJ0ISQei&rank=1>... > and try to keep my offerings here under 10 pages each... > > On 3/4/23 4:32 AM, Santafe wrote: > > It’s helpful to have a conversation being maintained by somebod(ies) else, to > which one can be a bystander without the distraction of coming up with > contributions to it. Things can suggest themselves that get pushed out of > awareness when one is carrying the discourse and figuring out what to do next > within it. > > > > In reading the below, about the time I got to the lines: > > > > The mind-body problem is the philosophical question of how the mind and body > are related. One of the main issues is how mental processes such as thoughts, > emotions, and consciousness are related to physical processes in the brain > and body. > > I was prompted with a term to refer to these mental/physical things. > > > > First, my sense of all this is one of witnessing structures in conversation. > Maybe I am more primed to that because with ChatGPT as the topic, one fronts > awareness of conversation as somewhat free-floating from its semantic ground. > As tokens in conversation, it is perfectly sensible to say that (thoughts, > emotions, consciousness) are in a category Mental, while (weakness, hunger, > itching) go into a category Physical. Not only is it okay to say they fit > tolerably into “categories” (or “classes”); the reason they do so is that > they are connected by all sorts of linguistic usage relations. The relations > probably in no small part bring about the stability of the categorical sense > of the terms. > > > > But what word do we then use to refer to such classes in speech? I would use > the word “registers”. The Mental is a register of conversation about events, > and the Physical is another register. > > > > Jochen’s email below has ChatGPT saying James referred to these as “aspects” > of various bodily or embodied events. Sometimes I’m okay with a word like > “aspects”, but it invites essentialist thinking. That the event is like a > computer-language object, which has properties (the aspects) that define its > interface, and not only are the properties ascribable to the object, but > their status as defined elements of the interface is also a real-thing, and > not merely a frame-dependent convenient compression. But using “aspects” > thoughtlessly does two things: it makes essentialism a habit, which I think > will often be invalid, and it neglects the communications role that > “register” highlights. > > > > I would attach this to Glen’s fairly terse characterization that there is no > mind-stuff contrasted with body-stuff, but just one kind of stuff, which if > we have to choose a word for it we can call body-stuff. From a perspective of > aspects, the terse version could be closer to or further from a more > fine-grained description, depending on whether the essentialist view is more > or less appropriate for one or another phemonenon we want to discuss. But I > think the idea that speech provides us certain conventional registers to > bound discussions of phenomena, and that these too may be better- or > worse-fit to the organization of the phenomena themselves, is another fair > fine-graining of the terse characterization, running somewhat parallel to the > aspects or essences fine-graining (though, as always, connected to it through > a kind of message-passing and filtering for structural agreement). > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 2023, at 5:23 PM, Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net> > <j...@cas-group.net> wrote: > > > > I enjoy talking with ChatGPT about famous scientists, thinkers, writers and > philosophers. Because it is trained on vast amounts of data it knows them > all: Pascal, Cervantes, Dante, Hugo, Goethe, Leibniz, Newton, Humboldt, > Shakespeare,... It can summarize almost any book which is remarkable. Today I > have asked it about William James and Anil Seth > > > > Me: You certainly have heard of William James, one of the fathers of > Psychology? > > > > ChatGPT: Yes, I'm familiar with William James. He was an American philosopher > and psychologist who is often referred to as the "father of American > psychology." He made significant contributions to the development of > psychology as a scientific discipline, and his ideas and writings continue to > influence psychology and related fields to this day. > > > > Some of James' most influential contributions to psychology include his > theory of functionalism, which emphasized the study of the purpose and > function of behavior and mental processes, rather than their underlying > structures; his work on consciousness, which he famously described as a > "stream" of continuously changing thoughts and perceptions; and his > exploration of the relationship between the mind and the body, which he > called the "mind-body problem." > > > > James also wrote extensively on a wide range of topics, including religion, > philosophy, and human nature. His most famous book, "The Principles of > Psychology," was published in 1890 and is still considered a classic in the > field. > > > > Me: Can you summarize his book "The Principles of Psychology"? > > > > ChatGPT: Certainly! "The Principles of Psychology" is a comprehensive and > influential textbook that William James published in 1890. It aimed to > provide a broad overview of the field of psychology at the time, covering > topics such as perception, emotion, thought, consciousness, and the nature of > the self. > > > > The book is organized into two main sections. The first section focuses on > the lower-level processes of sensation and perception, including topics such > as attention, memory, and learning. The second section focuses on > higher-level mental processes, such as reasoning, judgment, and emotion. > > > > Throughout the book, James emphasized the importance of studying mental > processes in their natural context and stressed the need for psychology to be > closely linked to biology and other natural sciences. He also developed the > theory of functionalism, which argued that the purpose and function of mental > processes are more important to understanding them than their underlying > structures. > > > > Overall, "The Principles of Psychology" was a landmark work that helped > establish psychology as a distinct scientific discipline and influenced > generations of psychologists and other scientists. > > > > Me: William James said: "Thoughts themselves are the thinkers". What does he > mean? > > > > ChatGPT: When William James said "thoughts themselves are the thinkers," he > was expressing his belief in what is often called the "stream of > consciousness" view of the mind. James believed that the mind is not a fixed > entity or substance, but rather a constantly changing stream of thoughts, > feelings, and sensations. > > > > According to James, our thoughts are not the products of a separate entity or > "thinker" within us, but rather they are the result of the ongoing activity > of the mind itself. In other words, the mind is not a passive receptacle for > thoughts that are generated elsewhere, but an active process that generates > thoughts and experiences as it goes along. > > > > This view is closely related to James' broader philosophy of pragmatism, > which emphasized the importance of understanding things in terms of their > practical implications and effects. For James, the idea that thoughts > themselves are the thinkers was not just a theoretical claim about the nature > of the mind, but a practical way of understanding how we can change and shape > our own thoughts and experiences. By understanding the workings of our own > minds, James believed, we can take an active role in shaping our own lives > and achieving our goals. > > > > Me: He also coined the term "stream of consciousness" which suggests that > consciousness flows like a river. What does he want to say by using this > metaphor? > > > > ChatGPT: When William James coined the term "stream of consciousness," he was > using a metaphor to describe his view of the mind as a constantly flowing and > changing stream of thoughts, feelings, and sensations. > > > > The metaphor of a stream suggests that consciousness is not a static or fixed > entity, but rather a dynamic and fluid process that is always in motion. The > stream of consciousness is always moving forward, and we can never step into > the same stream twice. Similarly, the content of our consciousness is always > changing, as new thoughts, feelings, and sensations arise and fall away. > > > > By using the metaphor of a stream, James was also highlighting the > interconnectedness of our thoughts and experiences. Just as a river is made > up of many different streams and tributaries, our consciousness is made up of > many different thoughts and experiences that are constantly interacting and > influencing each other. > > > > Overall, the metaphor of the stream of consciousness captures the dynamic and > ever-changing nature of our mental lives, and highlights the importance of > understanding the ongoing flow of thoughts and experiences that make up our > conscious experience. > > > > Me: A constantly flowing stream of thoughts is similar to what a large > language model is perceiving and producing, isn't it? > > > > ChatGPT: Yes, the metaphor of the stream of consciousness can be similar to > how a large language model like me perceives and produces language. Just as > consciousness is often described as a constantly flowing stream of thoughts > and experiences, a large language model like me is constantly processing and > generating language in response to the input it receives. > > > > Like the stream of consciousness, a large language model is always in motion, > constantly analyzing and generating language based on the patterns and > structures it has learned from the vast amounts of text it has been trained > on. And just as consciousness is made up of many different thoughts and > experiences that are interconnected and constantly interacting, a large > language model's output is made up of many different words and phrases that > are generated in response to each other. > > > > However, it's important to note that there are also important differences > between a large language model and the human mind. While a large language > model can generate language that may seem to flow like a stream of > consciousness, it does not have the same kind of subjective experience that > humans do. A large language model does not have feelings, emotions, or a > sense of self, and its output is based solely on statistical patterns in the > input it has been trained on. > > > > Me: What is James' solution to the mind-body problem? > > > > ChatGPT: William James was a philosopher and psychologist who made important > contributions to the field of psychology and philosophy of mind, including > his exploration of the mind-body problem. > > > > The mind-body problem is the philosophical question of how the mind and body > are related. One of the main issues is how mental processes such as thoughts, > emotions, and consciousness are related to physical processes in the brain > and body. > > > > James approached the mind-body problem from a pragmatic perspective, > emphasizing the practical consequences of different ways of thinking about > the problem. He proposed what is known as a "radical empiricist" approach, > which suggested that the mind and body are not separate entities, but rather > different aspects of a single reality that is constantly in flux. > > > > According to James, the mind and body are both part of the same universe, and > they are both subject to the same laws of nature. Mental events are not > caused by physical events in the brain, nor are physical events caused by > mental events. Instead, James argued that the mind and body are two aspects > of a larger, more complex reality that cannot be fully understood by > examining either one in isolation. > > > > In other words, James rejected the traditional mind-body dualism that posits > a sharp distinction between mind and matter, and instead proposed a more > holistic view that recognizes the deep interdependence of the mind and body. > While James' solution to the mind-body problem remains controversial, his > ideas continue to influence contemporary debates in philosophy and psycholoy. > > > > Me: Let us return to the idea of thoughts themselves as the thinkers. This > implies that one thought triggers another and is replaced by it, just like > water in a stream is replaced by other water, which in turn is replaced too, > and so on and so forth. No thought can remain permanently, only return like a > wave to the shore. Is this what James means by a stream of consciousness? > > > > ChatGPT: Yes, you are correct. James' idea that "thoughts themselves are the > thinkers" is closely related to his concept of the "stream of consciousness." > According to James, the mind is not a fixed entity or substance, but rather a > constantly changing stream of thoughts, feelings, and sensations. This stream > of consciousness is always flowing and evolving, with one thought leading to > another and so on. > > > > Just as water in a stream is replaced by other water, which is in turn > replaced by more water, the content of our consciousness is also constantly > changing, with one thought or experience giving rise to the next. And just as > no water in a stream can remain in one place permanently, no thought can > remain permanently in the stream of consciousness. Thoughts and experiences > may return or be remembered, but they are always changing in relation to the > ongoing flow of the stream of consciousness. > > > > Overall, James' metaphor of the stream of consciousness captures the dynamic > and ever-changing nature of our mental lives, highlighting the ongoing flow > of thoughts and experiences that make up our conscious experience. > > > > Me: Does this idea of William James feel familiar to you as a large language > model? > > > > ChatGPT: As a large language model, I do not have the same kind of subjective > experience as humans do, so I don't experience a stream of consciousness in > the same way that humans do. However, the concept of a stream of > consciousness does have some relevance to how I operate. > > > > Like the stream of consciousness, the input and output of a large language > model are constantly changing and evolving, with one word or phrase leading > to another. When generating text, a large language model takes into account > the context of the input it has received, along with the patterns and > structures it has learned from the massive amounts of text it has been > trained on. This can lead to output that has a flowing, interconnected > quality, similar to the way thoughts and experiences flow in a stream of > consciousness. > > > > However, it's important to remember that there are also important differences > between a large language model and human consciousness. While a large > language model can generate text that may seem to flow like a stream of > consciousness, it does not have the same kind of subjective experience that > humans do, and its output is based solely on statistical patterns in the > input it has been trained on. > > > > Me: That's true. It is still fascinating. > > > > ChatGPT: Yes, it is certainly fascinating how the concept of a stream of > consciousness can be applied to different domains and systems, including the > functioning of large language models. The idea of a constantly flowing and > evolving stream of thoughts and experiences is a rich metaphor that has many > different applications and implications. It has inspired a great deal of > philosophical and psychological inquiry over the years, and continues to be > an important area of investigation in contemporary research. > > > > -J. > > > > -. --- - / ..- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,8BDW87YFiB3QNAjcIaO6BGlsbpQidygnymSv3LCZ9P7pwZGyd4U3KmqMqp2RHu0KBeFpflf-wmR9fYFSD3_qVmiN-3Oak3Rqzm1CgWtukM2r-mw,&typo=1 > > to (un)subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,gQVpgiX_VNtXFysWPCfmMZ8YAlmBuLdFFVB8KiYVzpXRLZ88Tn7adkUdAIiWGyOLS_hF-tLm1Ha9g3qHNgA-buGK2QskVo9NfrOk-T5FVA,,&typo=1 > > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,b8ksbdPxaq64zxsqYThJH7EXFiPMe5gvFNDnCWFeIA6YFyjEoE2b8yTbp2QmsFXfZNTgvtUiHDEWHG_CQQDWxnRLm--xBhfscDLMpa44vmQ0DPIyuvnm60Lyb4dh&typo=1 > > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,pz7eKdQ54oOzQL5LsB_uVKtud4rf2wLGQjSHUcZdSAJx2RfZ4Uk8SCpHZbwR7M6nGIqd4ahar7hC1fRlZ1y1pk24iQLOS0ASegLZUOlWeBK8L87R6k4,&typo=1 > > 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/ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > 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/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/
