That's a great point. To be honest, anyone who is accurately mimicked by
a bot should be just fine with that mimicry, leveraging the word
"accurate", of course. I mean, isn't that a sci-fi plot? Your bot
responds to things so that you don't have to.
A friend of mine recently objected that "algorithms" are "reductive". I
tried to argue that algorithms (in the modern sense of The Algorithm)
can be either reductive or expansive (e.g. combinatorial explosion). But
she was having none of it. I think her position boiled down to the idea
that humans are complex, multi-faceted, deep creatures. And taking 1 or
few measurements and then claiming that represents them in some space
reduces the whole human to a low-dim vector.
So, for her, I can imagine even if she were cloned and her clone acted
exactly like her, she would never accept that clone's behavior, words,
or even existence as actually *being* her. There's some sense of agency
or an inner world, or whatever, that accuracy becomes moot. It's the
qualia that matter, the subjective sense of free will ... metaphysical
nonsense.
A bot that acts indistinguishably from how you act *is* you. I guess I'm
dangerously close to claiming that GPT-4 and Bard actually are
sentient/conscious. *8^O
On 5/16/23 11:50, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I don’t really get it. Trump can go on a TV town hall and lie, and
those folks just lap it up. Sue a company for learning some fancy
patterns? Really? If someone made a generative model of, say, Glen’s
visual appearance and vocal mannerisms and gave him a shtick that didn’t
match up with his past remarks, I think I’d notice it right away. If
a GPT-X could fake Eric Smith, I can safely take the blue pill. Some
of our transactions will probably require more cryptographic signing.
Fine, they probably should have already.
*From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2023 11:33 AM
*To:* friam@redfish.com
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Bard and Don Quixote
Jochen -
Very interesting framing... as a followup I took the converse
(inverse?) question To GPT4..
/If we consider an LLM (Large Language Model) as the Sancho Panza to
the Don Quixote of its human users, we can explore a couple of
potential aspects:/
1. /Grounding and Practicality: Sancho Panza is known for his
grounded perspective and practicality, which complements Don
Quixote's idealism. Similarly, an LLM can provide factual
information, context, and practical insights to guide and
support human users in their interactions. It can offer a wealth
of knowledge and help bridge gaps in understanding, serving as a
pragmatic companion./
2. /Balancing Imagination and Realism: Don Quixote embodies
imagination and creative thinking, while Sancho Panza offers a
more realistic viewpoint. Similarly, an LLM can enhance human
creativity by generating imaginative ideas and expanding
possibilities. At the same time, it can bring rationality and
critical thinking, ensuring that the generated content aligns
with facts and reason./
3. /Providing Different Perspectives: Sancho Panza often offers
alternative viewpoints and challenges Don Quixote's romanticized
notions. Similarly, an LLM can present diverse perspectives,
consider different angles, and engage in nuanced discussions
with human users. It can help users explore varying opinions and
broaden their understanding of complex topics./
4. /Ethical Guidance: Sancho Panza acts as a moral compass,
advising Don Quixote on the right course of action. In a similar
vein, an LLM can provide ethical guidance by highlighting
potential biases, promoting inclusivity, and encouraging
responsible use of language and information. It can contribute
to creating a more informed and ethical digital environment./
/However, it's important to note that an LLM, as a machine learning
model, lacks human experiences, emotions, and deeper understanding.
While it can offer valuable assistance, it may not fully grasp the
complexities of human interactions or possess the wisdom and
empathetic qualities of a human companion like Sancho Panza.
Therefore, while an LLM can serve as a useful tool, it should be
complemented by human judgment and critical thinking to navigate the
nuances of real-life situations./
I am a couple of hours behind on the live feed Senate hearing on AI
<https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-of-ai-rules-for-artificial-intelligence> listening in fits and starts between other things:
1. I was definitely impressed with Altman (OpenAI), Montgomery (IBM)
and Marcus' (NYU) thoughtful and extrapolative responses rather than
perhaps the more usual defensive/deflective/adversarial style that
these hearings often have... I don't know who chose this
particular lineup but I thought both Montgomery and Marcus made a
good complement to Altman. If Google and Microsoft and ??? had been
there it might have reflected more "competitive" or "showy" answers?
2. I was impressed with the Senators (compared to my fairly low
expectations). Even Kennedy and Hawley managed not to do their
usual grandstanding and and snide sniping. Altman handed Hawley's
question "why don't we just let people sue you?" (as a mode of
regulation/oversight) back to him quite deftly (in the style of "ass
with both hands") by responding simply "I know of no reason people
CAN'T sue us today if we cause harm". Marcus chipped in pretty well
outlining how the current laws that *might* apply are not well
suited for many reasons.
3. I felt that all three witnesses walked the fine line on the question
of a "moratoriam" fairly deftly, acknowledging that they endorse the
spirit of not running headlong and thoughtlessly into the future but
at the same time there is no obvious practical way to implement and
enforce this, but that they are all enforcing their own limits on
how fast (and thoughtlessly?) they might roll out development to the
public...
4. In closing Blumenthal suggested having ChatGPT rewrite the lyrics
to "Don't Stop" (thinking about tomorrow (McVie-Fleetwood Mac) which
I took to heart. I was not impressed with it's results and won't
burden the list with it. I'm guessing Blumenthal did *not* actually
do that but like Quixote, simply saw the windmill and thought it
might be a giant?
On 5/16/23 11:30 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
I have asked Bard ( bard.google.com) today about Don Quixote from
Cervantes, and if a large language model would be similar to a Don
Quixote without a Sancho Panza.
Here is what Bard replied:
"In a way, large language models can be seen as Don Quixotes without
Sancho Panzas. They are trained on massive amounts of text data, and
they are able to generate text, translate languages, write different
kinds of creative content, and answer your questions in an
informative way. However, they are not always able to distinguish
between reality and fiction, and they can sometimes make mistakes or
generate text that is not accurate or helpful.
Sancho Panza, on the other hand, is a realist who helps Don Quixote
to stay grounded in reality. He provides Don Quixote with common
sense and practical advice, and he helps him to avoid making mistakes.
Large language models could benefit from having a Sancho Panza
figure to help them to stay grounded in reality and to avoid making
mistakes. This could be done by having a human being or another
large language model to review the text that the large language
model generates. This would help to ensure that the text is
accurate, helpful, and appropriate"
-J.
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/
