Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

I know this conversation has drifted quite a bit but I wanted to point out that if I was a weary lecturer teaching 6 classes a semester, who was thrilled to get anything with complete sentences and a vague semblance of thought, the chat bot gets an A on its responses. If it is in one of the ad

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

, March 14, 2023 11:49 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James It's in their interest to invest in explainable AI (a.k.a. "ethical" AI), if only to hone their engineering skills and improve the product. If they play th

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Tuesday, March 14, 2023 11:44 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James We had a conversation with some MS guy the other day who claimed secret "front end" buildouts for GPT backends that cover more and refine existing APIs. I suspect some of his secre

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

wrote: Yeah, well I’m buying more Microsoft stock. *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow *Sent:* Tuesday, March 14, 2023 11:11 AM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James This was good, too: https://nymag.com/intel

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Yeah, well I’m buying more Microsoft stock. From: Friam On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 11:11 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James This was good, too: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

ls wrote: > > How? > > > > *From:* Friam *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 > > > &g

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 11:03 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James Not buying it. On Mar 14, 2023, at 10:58 AM, Barry MacKichan mailto:barry.mackic...@mackichan.com>> wrote:  I haven’t followed the discussions here carefull

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

RIAM] 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 mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote: However, it's important to r

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

&smid=url-share —Barry On 6 Mar 2023, at 16:49, Marcus Daniels wrote: How? From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 12:50 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James And we humans are different? In a

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

For some reason, this post went to spam. But if I can knead this post into a disambiguation device, I'd land on: parameter: the relatively more stable schema that parses the ambience input/data: the relatively more volatile parsed ambience So there might be 2 differences between a baby and

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

trained extensively how to respond correctly by humans. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/03/1069311/inside-story-oral-history-how-chatgpt-built-openai/ -J. Original message From: glen Date: 3/7/23 12:17 AM (GMT+01:00) To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT a

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

huge pile of human made texts, and second by RLHF.https://huggingface.co/blog/rlhf-J. Original message From: Prof David West Date: 3/7/23 11:49 PM (GMT+01:00) To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James I am sure that none of the respectable members

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

/2023/03/03/1069311/inside-story-oral-history-how-chatgpt-built-openai/ > > -J. > > > Original message > From: glen > Date: 3/7/23 12:17 AM (GMT+01:00) > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James > > I'm confused

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

This is such a great example of Glen's assertion (probably a misquote) that "Communication doesn't exist".   We are all (mostly?) talking past one another with different assumptions and definitions?   I can use the term "input" with nouns but they only make sense with "nouns which represent pro

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

rrectly by humans.https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/03/1069311/inside-story-oral-history-how-chatgpt-built-openai/-J. Original message From: glen Date: 3/7/23 12:17 AM (GMT+01:00) To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James I'm confused by the em

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

“self modifying” is functionally the same as creating a variant and running it while destroying the old version. Gene regulation, say. > On Mar 7, 2023, at 7:18 AM, glen wrote: > > Why does the "agent" have to be the same across the transition from gametes > to zygote? Historical transition

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Why does the "agent" have to be the same across the transition from gametes to zygote? Historical transitions exist. Genes are input to humans in the same way, for example, a traumatic injury at age 10 is input to the human at age 20. Theseus' ship, anyone? I wrote and deleted a long post abou

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Good concepts in which to express this would seem to me to be the problem of statistical learning of some “data”, and the choice of how the “data” are “represented”. All terms that have to be given meaning operationally in some problem or set of problems that we say are similarly structured. I

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Lisp or Haskell macros.. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 6, 2023, at 8:22 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:  Let's consider the word "input" again. The implication is that there is an "agent" of some sort that is separated/distinguishable from some "environment" from which it gets "input." The question (or

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Let's consider the word "input" again. The implication is that there is an "agent" of some sort that is separated/distinguishable from some "environment" from which it gets "input." The question (or at least one question) concerns our specification of what that "agent" is. If, as Glen suggested, ge

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

ay Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James Are the laws of physics "input?" Is the existence of the universe "input?" If so, what issues are we arguing about? -- Russ Abbott Professor Emeritus, Computer Science California State Univers

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Well put. When Frank emphasized "data", he doubled-down on the ambiguity. The fact is, those who claim a human is categorically different from a machine have no legs on which to stand. Every single boundary between them is broken, year after year. On 3/6/23 15:47, Russ Abbott wrote: Are the la

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Are the laws of physics "input?" Is the existence of the universe "input?" If so, what issues are we arguing about? -- Russ Abbott Professor Emeritus, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:42 PM glen wrote: > Well, again, it seems like we're equivoc

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Well, again, it seems like we're equivocating on "input". Are the genes the baby inherited from its parents "input"? I'd say, yes. On 3/6/23 15:36, Russ Abbott wrote: Hard to see how you could simulate an infant on the basis of input it's received. It cries; it smiles; it pees; it poops; it pu

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Hard to see how you could simulate an infant on the basis of input it's received. It cries; it smiles; it pees; it poops; it pumps blood; it breathes, etc. There are many experiments in which one concludes things about what's going on in an infant's brain by how long it looks at something. -- Russ

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

I'm confused by the emphasis on "data". While I'm tempted to agree with my simulation of Frank and say that a human's output is not based solely on statistical patterns in the input the human's been trained on, to dissemble on the meaning of "data" or "input" or "statistical patterns" is a bridg

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

*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 w

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

How? From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 12:50 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 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 87

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 wrote: > *However, it's important to remember that there are also important > differences between a large langu

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

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 hum

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Interesting. EricS' layout triggered me. I've used the word "registration" a lot, mostly because of BC Smith's re-terming from "inscription error" to "pre-emptive registration". But I'd never actually looked at the etymology of "register" . From Eric

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

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

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

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

[FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

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. Toda