Re: [FRIAM] Dope slaps, anyone? Text displaying correctly?
Ouch. My bad. I meant Solomon Feferman: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Feferman I've mentioned him so many times on the list, I ass/u/me/d everyone would know who I meant. I'll try to do better in the future. On January 12, 2023 7:54:46 PM PST, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >Dear EricS, Glen, and anybody else who is following. > >Thank you so much for pitching in. As I have often said, I am incapable >of thinking alone, so your comments are wonderfully welcome. And thank you >also for confirming that what I wrote was readable. I am having to work in >gmail at the moment, which is , to me, an unfamiliar medium. > >First, Eric: I am trying to talk math-talk in this passage, so poetry is >not an excuse if I fail to be understood by you. > >*FWIW: as I have heard these discussions over the years, to the extent that >there is a productive analogy, I would say (unapologetically using my >words, and not trying to quote his) that Peirce’s claimed relation between >states of knowledge and truth (meaning, some fully-faithful representation >of “what is the case”) is analogous to the relation of sample estimators in >statistics to the quantity they are constructed to estimate. We don’t have >any ontological problems understanding sample estimators and the quantities >estimated, as both have status in the ordinary world of empirical things. >In our ontology, they are peers in some sense, but they clearly play >different roles and stand for different concepts.* > >I like very much what you have written here and think it states, perhaps >more precisely than I managed, exactly what I was trying to say. I do want >to further stress the fact that if a measurement system is tracking a >variate that is going to stabilize in the very long run, then it will on >average approximate that value with greater precision the more measures are >taken. Thus, not only does the vector of the convergence constitute >evidence for the location of the truth, the fact that there is convergence >is evidence that there is a truth to be located. Thus I agree with you >that the idea behind Peirce's notion of truth is the central limit theorem. > >Where we might disagree is whether there is any meaning to truth beyond >that central limit. This is where I found you use of "ontology" so >helpful. When talking about statistics, we are always talking about >mathematical structures in experience and nothing beyond that. We are >assuredly talking about only one kind of thing. However, I see you >wondering, are there things to talk about beyond the statistical structures >of experience? I hear you wanting to say "yes" and I see me wanting to >say "no". > >God knows ... and I use the term advisedly ... my hankering would seem to >be arrogant to the point of absurdity. Given all the forms of discourse in >which the words "truth" and "real" are used, all the myriad language games >in which these words appear as tokens, how, on earth, could I (or Peirce) >claim that there exists one and only one standard by which the truth of any >proposition or the reality of any abject can be demonstrated? I think I >have to claim (and I think Peirce claims it) that whatever people may say >about how they evaluate truth or reality claims, their evaluation always >boils down to an appeal to the long run of experience. > >Our difference of opinion, if we have one, is perhaps related to the >difference of opinion between James and Peirce concerning the relation >between truth as a believed thing and truth as a thing beyond the belief of >any finite group of people. James was a physician, and presumably knew a >lot about the power of placebos. He also was a ditherer, who famously took >years to decide whom to marry and agonized about it piteously to his >siblings. James was fascinated by the power of belief to make things true >and the power of doubt to make them impossible. Who could jump a chasm who >did not believe that he could jump a chasm! For Peirce, this sort of >thinking was just empty psychologizing. Truth was indeed a kind of >opinion, but it was the final opinion, that opinion upon which the >operation of scientific practices and logical inquiry would inevitably >converge. > >EricC, the Jamesian, will no doubt have a lot to say about this, including >that it is total garbage. > >As for Fefferman, my brief attempt to learn enough about Fefferman to >appear intelligent led me to the website, >http://www.vipfaq.com/Charles%20Fefferman.html, which might be the weirdest >website I have ever gone to. I don't THINK that a language-free language >is my unicorn, but Glen NEVER says something for nothing, so I am >withholding judgement until he boxes my ears again. I think my unicorn may >be that all truth is statistical and, therefore, provisional. Literally: >a seeing into the future. > >Thanks again for helping out, you guys! > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group
Re: [FRIAM] Dope slaps, anyone? Text displaying correctly?
Dear EricS, Glen, and anybody else who is following. Thank you so much for pitching in. As I have often said, I am incapable of thinking alone, so your comments are wonderfully welcome. And thank you also for confirming that what I wrote was readable. I am having to work in gmail at the moment, which is , to me, an unfamiliar medium. First, Eric: I am trying to talk math-talk in this passage, so poetry is not an excuse if I fail to be understood by you. *FWIW: as I have heard these discussions over the years, to the extent that there is a productive analogy, I would say (unapologetically using my words, and not trying to quote his) that Peirce’s claimed relation between states of knowledge and truth (meaning, some fully-faithful representation of “what is the case”) is analogous to the relation of sample estimators in statistics to the quantity they are constructed to estimate. We don’t have any ontological problems understanding sample estimators and the quantities estimated, as both have status in the ordinary world of empirical things. In our ontology, they are peers in some sense, but they clearly play different roles and stand for different concepts.* I like very much what you have written here and think it states, perhaps more precisely than I managed, exactly what I was trying to say. I do want to further stress the fact that if a measurement system is tracking a variate that is going to stabilize in the very long run, then it will on average approximate that value with greater precision the more measures are taken. Thus, not only does the vector of the convergence constitute evidence for the location of the truth, the fact that there is convergence is evidence that there is a truth to be located. Thus I agree with you that the idea behind Peirce's notion of truth is the central limit theorem. Where we might disagree is whether there is any meaning to truth beyond that central limit. This is where I found you use of "ontology" so helpful. When talking about statistics, we are always talking about mathematical structures in experience and nothing beyond that. We are assuredly talking about only one kind of thing. However, I see you wondering, are there things to talk about beyond the statistical structures of experience? I hear you wanting to say "yes" and I see me wanting to say "no". God knows ... and I use the term advisedly ... my hankering would seem to be arrogant to the point of absurdity. Given all the forms of discourse in which the words "truth" and "real" are used, all the myriad language games in which these words appear as tokens, how, on earth, could I (or Peirce) claim that there exists one and only one standard by which the truth of any proposition or the reality of any abject can be demonstrated? I think I have to claim (and I think Peirce claims it) that whatever people may say about how they evaluate truth or reality claims, their evaluation always boils down to an appeal to the long run of experience. Our difference of opinion, if we have one, is perhaps related to the difference of opinion between James and Peirce concerning the relation between truth as a believed thing and truth as a thing beyond the belief of any finite group of people. James was a physician, and presumably knew a lot about the power of placebos. He also was a ditherer, who famously took years to decide whom to marry and agonized about it piteously to his siblings. James was fascinated by the power of belief to make things true and the power of doubt to make them impossible. Who could jump a chasm who did not believe that he could jump a chasm! For Peirce, this sort of thinking was just empty psychologizing. Truth was indeed a kind of opinion, but it was the final opinion, that opinion upon which the operation of scientific practices and logical inquiry would inevitably converge. EricC, the Jamesian, will no doubt have a lot to say about this, including that it is total garbage. As for Fefferman, my brief attempt to learn enough about Fefferman to appear intelligent led me to the website, http://www.vipfaq.com/Charles%20Fefferman.html, which might be the weirdest website I have ever gone to. I don't THINK that a language-free language is my unicorn, but Glen NEVER says something for nothing, so I am withholding judgement until he boxes my ears again. I think my unicorn may be that all truth is statistical and, therefore, provisional. Literally: a seeing into the future. Thanks again for helping out, you guys! Nick Consider, for a moment, the role of placebos in medicine. Consider the ritual of transubstantiation. At the moment that you sip it, is the contents of the chalice Really "blood." *Peirce writes, "Consider what effects, which may have practical bearing, the object of your conception to have. Then our conception of those effects is our whole of our conception of the object.* "The Whole"?! Really? Now somebody of Peircean Pursuasion would point out
Re: [FRIAM] A new age of AI is dawning
This paper covers (nicely I think) the idea of embedding a LLM in a larger context, including error correcting against the world. It's not a slam dunk. It still might be the case that all *we* do is predict the next token. But I think the results around predictive processing indicate that even if that's what we're doing fundamentally, we do it in lower and higher orders ... something an LLM won't be able to do. We'd need a (large) visual model, a (large) enteroception model, maybe a (large) environment model, etc. Cue the metaphor-philes! This article was interesting: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/16/how-should-we-think-about-our-different-styles-of-thinking I've doubted "learning styles" as any kind of scientifically justifiable thing. But I do admit to being "verbal" ... or what I call "algebraic" ... instead of "object" or "spatial". If LLMs can be safely chalked up as fundamentally sequential reasoners (that may simulate visual reasoning), then we're a tiny step closer to tests that could falsify AGI. On 1/12/23 12:08, Jochen Fromm wrote: The buzz about chatGPT has apparently convinced Microsoft to invest $10 billion (!) in OpenAI. It looks like a new arms race between Google, Microsoft and Meta is emerging. Who will create the first self-aware AI by connecting such a large language model to the world? https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/10/microsoft-to-invest-10-billion-in-chatgpt-creator-openai-report-says.html It feels as if human-level AI is not that far away anymore now that machines have learned language. This NY Times article about large language models and ChatGPT is a bit older, but still good. As the article says "maybe predicting the next word is just part of what thinking is." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/magazine/ai-language.html -- 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] A new age of AI is dawning
The buzz about chatGPT has apparently convinced Microsoft to invest $10 billion (!) in OpenAI. It looks like a new arms race between Google, Microsoft and Meta is emerging. Who will create the first self-aware AI by connecting such a large language model to the world?https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/10/microsoft-to-invest-10-billion-in-chatgpt-creator-openai-report-says.htmlIt feels as if human-level AI is not that far away anymore now that machines have learned language. This NY Times article about large language models and ChatGPT is a bit older, but still good. As the article says "maybe predicting the next word is just part of what thinking is."https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/magazine/ai-language.html-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/
Re: [FRIAM] Sorting Algorithm? AI? Identifying "types" within data
I don't mind building something, I don't know where to start. What are some keywords to look for, or some articles to start from? I'm asking here exactly because neither I, nor the two data scientists who now ostensibly work for me, seem to be able to figure out where to start at it. (Obviously I would have preferred to find that there WAS something out-of-the-box, I'm happy for anything that is appreciably ahead of starting-from-scratch, because if that's where we are, it's never happening.) On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 9:51 AM glen wrote: > Well, it *is* a "thing". We're doing something very similar on our > project, classifying patient types. It's just that there's no > standard/generic/singular way to do it. I get the feeling you're looking > for some sort of black box process you can blindly apply. And that's not a > thing. But there's loads of research and methods on how to classify such > things. Which one will actually work with your data is a question only > those looking at the data can answer. > > You could anonymize that data and post it here (or wherever) and hold a > contest to see who gets the best classifier. Offer a $1000 reward. 8^D > > On 1/11/23 18:08, Eric Charles wrote: > > I'm also trying to do some sort of career classification game, > originally because I thought it wouldn't be too hard. IF it was possible to > do the career classification game, it would de facto assist with the > attrition prediction. But if that just kind of isn't a thing, then I guess > it isn't a thing . > > -- > 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] unrest in SoAm & Global ideological/sociopolitical/economic alignment...
GaryS, et al - I was recently trying to make a little more sense of the larger sociopolitical situation across central/south America and realized that your location in Ecuador might provide some useful parallax. https://www.as-coa.org/articles/2023-elections-latin-america-preview I was (not?) surprised to read that there was a renewed interest in "regional integration". This article references Lula and Obrador and several other Latin American leaders who might be attempting a broader ideological (and economic) alignment/cooperation across the region. https://www.bloomberglinea.com/english/will-lula-achieve-regional-integration-in-latin-america/ With the unrest of the summer triggered? by energy/fossil-fuel prices it seems like Ecuador has become (temporarily, modestly) unbalanced which seems like an opportunity for change, whether for better or worse. I see in the first article (Elections Preview) that Lasso has a very low approval rating and the upcoming (February) elections might include/yield a recall for him? I lived on the border of AZ/MX as a teen in the early 70s and the recent memory/residue of the Golden Age of Latin America was still evident. The Mexican border town (Agua Prieta) still had moderately grand facilities and institutions (e.g. A huge library with elaborate fountains on the grounds, etc) even though they were not able to support them in that grandeur... So I think I still have an ideation that Latin America has many of the resources or (hidden) momentum to achieve a resurgence of some sort. These reflections are partly triggered by this interview/article produced by WBUR/Boston and distributed via NPR: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/01/11/8-billion-earth-population-rise-human Which reminded me that while we *do* have a total-population problem with our 8B and rising numbers (and 90+ % of land animal by mass being human or human domesticates), the *distribution* of people, and more to the point the demographic fecundity/fertility distribution is very uneven and in fact seems to be inversely proportional to various features of human civilization ranging from GDP to education to technological development. Some (like DJT) turn this into a judgement and a reason for resentment/fear (e.g. S*hole country labels) but others have a more progressive view. An excerpt from the WBUR interview/article: *Jennifer Sciubba: *"We're moving toward this aging and shrinking world, and we are worried because we can't sustain that same huge level of economic growth in the past. And we do need to think about what that might look like, so we can look relook at concepts like retirement. We can look at concepts like what is work life. We also, though, have to start thinking about family and marriage. And, you know, we're talking about a paradigmatic shift. "That means we have to look at the world through a completely different lens than we've looked at the world in the past. But all of our theories about the good life, our economic theories, our political theories, those were all developed under conditions of population growth and economic growth, as William said. So it's really hard to get a paradigmatic shift and say, what if we try to look at the world in a different way? Can we look at an aging and shrinking society as a good thing? Can we look at growing older individually as a good thing? We've not been good at that. And so we're kind of taking that negativity and applying it at the societal level." This passage specifically references aging (individual and population) but there are other references to economic/technological disparities. I also defer here to others who have an international POV (e.g. Pieter in South Africa, Sarbajit in India, Jochen in Germany, and I believe we have someone from Cuba, I think we lost (off the list) Mohammed from Egypt a few years ago, etc.) as well. We are not a very demographicly representative group here but still offer a somewhat broad samplying by some measures. I realize this is yet another of my rambly maunderings but I'd be curious to hear what others are observing/thinking about these issues in this current time of global flux. - Steve -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/
Re: [FRIAM] Sorting Algorithm? AI? Identifying "types" within data
Well, it *is* a "thing". We're doing something very similar on our project, classifying patient types. It's just that there's no standard/generic/singular way to do it. I get the feeling you're looking for some sort of black box process you can blindly apply. And that's not a thing. But there's loads of research and methods on how to classify such things. Which one will actually work with your data is a question only those looking at the data can answer. You could anonymize that data and post it here (or wherever) and hold a contest to see who gets the best classifier. Offer a $1000 reward. 8^D On 1/11/23 18:08, Eric Charles wrote: I'm also trying to do some sort of career classification game, originally because I thought it wouldn't be too hard. IF it was possible to do the career classification game, it would de facto assist with the attrition prediction. But if that just kind of isn't a thing, then I guess it isn't a thing . -- 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/
