Re: [FRIAM] Bard and Don Quixote

[glen]

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  *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 
 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...   

[FRIAM] Regulatng LLMs. (was: Bard and Don Quixote)

[Russ Abbott]

Steve Smith mentioned the Senate hearing about regulating LLMs. During the
hearing someone mentioned (sort of in passing) that it would make sense to
release such systems in stages: first to a small group of people, then to a
larger group, etc. That reminded me of the standard approach to drug
trials. Perhaps something like that could be implemented/required.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles


On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:33 AM Steve Smith  wrote:

> ...
>
> I am a couple of hours behind on the live feed Senate hearing on AI
> 
> 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?
>
> ...
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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] Bard and Don Quixote

[Marcus Daniels]

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  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
 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 

Re: [FRIAM] Bard and Don Quixote

[Steve Smith]

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 
 
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 

[FRIAM] Bard and Don Quixote

[Jochen Fromm]

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/

Re: [FRIAM] Perhaps of Interest to the (other) old timers here!

[Stephen Guerin]

Thanks, Steve! I enjoy these slices of history and peeking into the
discussions of the time on fundamental issues.

Owen, were you involved with the Interscript project mentioned near the end
of the story? Interscript being the scripting of dynamic Interpress
documents which later spun out to Postscript.

https://bitsavers.org/pdf/xerox/interscript/IntroductionToInterscript.pdf

As mentioned in story, the vision they had still hasn't been delivered.
Maybe JavaScript for the DOM or perhaps agentscript.org? :-)

 “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.”


On Tue, May 16, 2023, 9:52 AM Steve Smith  wrote:

> https://medium.com/chmcore/a-backup-of-historical-proportions-93f5f502f608
>
> Interesting article on recovery of a huge cache of Xerox PARC archives
> which also references more than a little bit of both DEC and Adobe history.
>
> As I watch the live questioning of Altman on AI in Congress...
> "interesting times, all of them?"
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> 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] Perhaps of Interest to the (other) old timers here!

[Steve Smith]

https://medium.com/chmcore/a-backup-of-historical-proportions-93f5f502f608

Interesting article on recovery of a huge cache of Xerox PARC archives 
which also references more than a little bit of both DEC and Adobe history.


As I watch the live questioning of Altman on AI in Congress... 
"interesting times, all of them?"



-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/