Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance
Proofs, library development. Koza’s second book introduced the latter idea. (Just using the facilities that are inherent to programming languages.) These days there are good, mature functional programming languages. Lean would be versatile. From: Friam On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2023 11:16 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance Interesting idea. I wonder what you could produce running massive computing power for many weeks on GP and RL. The thing about LLMs is that they are general-purpose products. What sort of general-purpose product might one try to create using GP and/or RL and massive computing power over an extended period? -- Russ Abbott Professor Emeritus, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:40 PM Stephen Guerin mailto:stephen.gue...@simtable.com>> wrote: Yes, there was a certain golden period of gp's building on Koza and others work like Forrest Bennett's Beowulf 1000-pentium cluster back in the late 90s. https://www.genetic-programming.com/machine1000.html I agree with you, Marcus, that it would be good to see versions of this springing forth on modern architectures. CEO Founder, Simtable.com stephen.gue...@simtable.com<mailto:stephen.gue...@simtable.com> Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab stephengue...@fas.harvard.edu<mailto:stephengue...@fas.harvard.edu> mobile: (505)577-5828 On Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 4:18 PM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote: I don’t understand why Genetic Programming hasn’t been a bigger thing. It seems like another case, like ML, where having adequate hardware is key to really making it work. I hope interest in AI will dust-off or reinvent many such approaches.I don’t care who gets the credit. From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 3:05 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance I see I missed this on HackerNews yesterday, the comments cover a range of positions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38642651 -- rec -- On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:48 PM Roger Critchlow mailto:r...@elf.org>> wrote: On the subject of cognitive dissonance, and working for large research institutions https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ai-priority-disputes.html in which Jürgen Schmidhuber complains that LeCun, Bengio, and Hinton claim to have invented modern AI when they were actually mostly reinventing, improving, and reimplementing 30 year old work from Schmidhuber's lab on faster hardware, without crediting any of the prior work. -- rec -- On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:17 PM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote: While I think LLMs will be hard to use for analysis tasks, there is something satisfying to see certain people squirm as LLMs, as Altman says, “Blow right through the Turing test.” From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Roger Frye Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:47 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance Eric, I agree with your critique, especially about Dresser's two-facedness. What struck me most was how Chomsky’s cognitive dissonance about military application could drive him to abstraction and unworkable theory. Chomsky has been one of my heroes. I have marched with him, but never agreed with his linguistics. But then never fully agreed with any linguist. I worked with people back in the 60s at Bolt Beranek and Newman and with professors at MIT who believed they could communicate with computers in English but was unaware of the military intention. I created English style GUIs and wrote COBOL compilers, but none very successful. Who knew that AI chat would be so successful this year. -Roger On Dec 13, 2023, at 3:34 AM, David Eric Smith mailto:desm...@santafe.edu>> wrote: Wanted to say thank you for this. I don’t know that I find Dresser’s psychologizing of Chomsky persuasive at all. But it’s nice that what leaks through the general history is Chomsky’s commitment as an operator. I liked that they had the little video clip in there. What comes through (to me, so bright that it quenches out everything else) is the one constant of Chomsky, across his history and in all the modes of his activity: the superciliousness, and the attitude of Olympian contempt he puts on, at all times, standing in judgment of everyone and everything. The way Dresser doesn’t roll over to Chomsky’s
Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance
Interesting idea. I wonder what you could produce running massive computing power for many weeks on GP and RL. The thing about LLMs is that they are general-purpose products. What sort of general-purpose product might one try to create using GP and/or RL and massive computing power over an extended period? -- Russ Abbott Professor Emeritus, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:40 PM Stephen Guerin wrote: > Yes, there was a certain golden period of gp's building on Koza and others > work like Forrest Bennett's Beowulf 1000-pentium cluster back in the late > 90s. > https://www.genetic-programming.com/machine1000.html > > I agree with you, Marcus, that it would be good to see versions of this > springing forth on modern architectures. > > > CEO Founder, Simtable.com > stephen.gue...@simtable.com > > Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab > stephengue...@fas.harvard.edu > > mobile: (505)577-5828 > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 4:18 PM Marcus Daniels wrote: > >> I don’t understand why Genetic Programming hasn’t been a bigger thing. >> It seems like another case, like ML, where having adequate hardware is key >> to really making it work. I hope interest in AI will dust-off or reinvent >> many such approaches.I don’t care who gets the credit. >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow >> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2023 3:05 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology >> Causes Cognitive Dissonance >> >> >> >> I see I missed this on HackerNews yesterday, the comments cover a range >> of positions. >> >> >> >> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38642651 >> >> >> >> -- rec -- >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:48 PM Roger Critchlow wrote: >> >> On the subject of cognitive dissonance, and working for large research >> institutions >> >> >> >>https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ai-priority-disputes.html >> >> >> >> in which Jürgen Schmidhuber complains that LeCun, Bengio, and Hinton >> claim to have invented modern AI when they were actually mostly >> reinventing, improving, and reimplementing 30 year old work from >> Schmidhuber's lab on faster hardware, without crediting any of the prior >> work. >> >> >> >> -- rec -- >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:17 PM Marcus Daniels >> wrote: >> >> While I think LLMs will be hard to use for analysis tasks, there is >> something satisfying to see certain people squirm as LLMs, as Altman says, >> “Blow right through the Turing test.” >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Roger Frye >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:47 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology >> Causes Cognitive Dissonance >> >> >> >> Eric, >> >> >> >> I agree with your critique, especially about Dresser's two-facedness. >> What struck me most was how Chomsky’s cognitive dissonance about military >> application could drive him to abstraction and unworkable theory. >> >> >> >> Chomsky has been one of my heroes. I have marched with him, but never >> agreed with his linguistics. But then never fully agreed with any linguist. >> >> >> >> I worked with people back in the 60s at Bolt Beranek and Newman and with >> professors at MIT who believed they could communicate with computers in >> English but was unaware of the military intention. I created English style >> GUIs and wrote COBOL compilers, but none very successful. Who knew that AI >> chat would be so successful this year. >> >> >> >> -Roger >> >> >> >> On Dec 13, 2023, at 3:34 AM, David Eric Smith >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Wanted to say thank you for this. >> >> >> >> I don’t know that I find Dresser’s psychologizing of Chomsky persuasive >> at all. But it’s nice that what leaks through the general history is >> Chomsky’s commitment as an operator. >> >> >> >> I liked that they had the little video clip in there. What comes through >> (to me, so bright that it quenches out everything else) is the one constant >> of
Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance
Yes, there was a certain golden period of gp's building on Koza and others work like Forrest Bennett's Beowulf 1000-pentium cluster back in the late 90s. https://www.genetic-programming.com/machine1000.html I agree with you, Marcus, that it would be good to see versions of this springing forth on modern architectures. CEO Founder, Simtable.com stephen.gue...@simtable.com Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab stephengue...@fas.harvard.edu mobile: (505)577-5828 On Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 4:18 PM Marcus Daniels wrote: > I don’t understand why Genetic Programming hasn’t been a bigger thing. It > seems like another case, like ML, where having adequate hardware is key to > really making it work. I hope interest in AI will dust-off or reinvent > many such approaches.I don’t care who gets the credit. > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow > *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2023 3:05 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology > Causes Cognitive Dissonance > > > > I see I missed this on HackerNews yesterday, the comments cover a range of > positions. > > > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38642651 > > > > -- rec -- > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:48 PM Roger Critchlow wrote: > > On the subject of cognitive dissonance, and working for large research > institutions > > > >https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ai-priority-disputes.html > > > > in which Jürgen Schmidhuber complains that LeCun, Bengio, and Hinton claim > to have invented modern AI when they were actually mostly reinventing, > improving, and reimplementing 30 year old work from Schmidhuber's lab on > faster hardware, without crediting any of the prior work. > > > > -- rec -- > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:17 PM Marcus Daniels > wrote: > > While I think LLMs will be hard to use for analysis tasks, there is > something satisfying to see certain people squirm as LLMs, as Altman says, > “Blow right through the Turing test.” > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Roger Frye > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:47 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology > Causes Cognitive Dissonance > > > > Eric, > > > > I agree with your critique, especially about Dresser's two-facedness. What > struck me most was how Chomsky’s cognitive dissonance about military > application could drive him to abstraction and unworkable theory. > > > > Chomsky has been one of my heroes. I have marched with him, but never > agreed with his linguistics. But then never fully agreed with any linguist. > > > > I worked with people back in the 60s at Bolt Beranek and Newman and with > professors at MIT who believed they could communicate with computers in > English but was unaware of the military intention. I created English style > GUIs and wrote COBOL compilers, but none very successful. Who knew that AI > chat would be so successful this year. > > > > -Roger > > > > On Dec 13, 2023, at 3:34 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: > > > > Wanted to say thank you for this. > > > > I don’t know that I find Dresser’s psychologizing of Chomsky persuasive at > all. But it’s nice that what leaks through the general history is > Chomsky’s commitment as an operator. > > > > I liked that they had the little video clip in there. What comes through > (to me, so bright that it quenches out everything else) is the one constant > of Chomsky, across his history and in all the modes of his activity: the > superciliousness, and the attitude of Olympian contempt he puts on, at all > times, standing in judgment of everyone and everything. > > > > The way Dresser doesn’t roll over to Chomsky’s assertion of absolute > domination, in the main text, was kind of a relief, though his blithe > dismissal of Chomsky’s having had any substantive reason for being an > influencer looked like trouble. The comments — surprisingly content-rich — > unpack that trouble, but even there the exchange is interesting. The > defenders say Dresser misses the point of the syntactic work and > mis-represents by taking things out of context (I think probably true), and > then Dresser answers by providing explicit statements that are hard to > understand as being any less ridiculous than he claims, since they are > asserted with characteristic Chomskian authoritarianism. What I take this > for is evidence of what
Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance
I don’t understand why Genetic Programming hasn’t been a bigger thing. It seems like another case, like ML, where having adequate hardware is key to really making it work. I hope interest in AI will dust-off or reinvent many such approaches.I don’t care who gets the credit. From: Friam On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 3:05 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance I see I missed this on HackerNews yesterday, the comments cover a range of positions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38642651 -- rec -- On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:48 PM Roger Critchlow mailto:r...@elf.org>> wrote: On the subject of cognitive dissonance, and working for large research institutions https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ai-priority-disputes.html in which Jürgen Schmidhuber complains that LeCun, Bengio, and Hinton claim to have invented modern AI when they were actually mostly reinventing, improving, and reimplementing 30 year old work from Schmidhuber's lab on faster hardware, without crediting any of the prior work. -- rec -- On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:17 PM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote: While I think LLMs will be hard to use for analysis tasks, there is something satisfying to see certain people squirm as LLMs, as Altman says, “Blow right through the Turing test.” From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Roger Frye Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:47 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance Eric, I agree with your critique, especially about Dresser's two-facedness. What struck me most was how Chomsky’s cognitive dissonance about military application could drive him to abstraction and unworkable theory. Chomsky has been one of my heroes. I have marched with him, but never agreed with his linguistics. But then never fully agreed with any linguist. I worked with people back in the 60s at Bolt Beranek and Newman and with professors at MIT who believed they could communicate with computers in English but was unaware of the military intention. I created English style GUIs and wrote COBOL compilers, but none very successful. Who knew that AI chat would be so successful this year. -Roger On Dec 13, 2023, at 3:34 AM, David Eric Smith mailto:desm...@santafe.edu>> wrote: Wanted to say thank you for this. I don’t know that I find Dresser’s psychologizing of Chomsky persuasive at all. But it’s nice that what leaks through the general history is Chomsky’s commitment as an operator. I liked that they had the little video clip in there. What comes through (to me, so bright that it quenches out everything else) is the one constant of Chomsky, across his history and in all the modes of his activity: the superciliousness, and the attitude of Olympian contempt he puts on, at all times, standing in judgment of everyone and everything. The way Dresser doesn’t roll over to Chomsky’s assertion of absolute domination, in the main text, was kind of a relief, though his blithe dismissal of Chomsky’s having had any substantive reason for being an influencer looked like trouble. The comments — surprisingly content-rich — unpack that trouble, but even there the exchange is interesting. The defenders say Dresser misses the point of the syntactic work and mis-represents by taking things out of context (I think probably true), and then Dresser answers by providing explicit statements that are hard to understand as being any less ridiculous than he claims, since they are asserted with characteristic Chomskian authoritarianism. What I take this for is evidence of what I see as the major pattern: Chomsky’s writing is as close to Newspeak as we probably have in something that is glossed by some as a science (and that, in a good world, could be, and is trying to become, more of a science). His writing, over the decades and lots of books (here referring to the linguistics) has essentially no stable constructive assertions, yet at every point the delivery is “This is what I say and this is what I have always said.” (Not that Dresser comes out of this looking like any much-better character. Claiming he isn’t out to write a hit-piece on Chomsky’s intellectual contributions, while transparently wanting mainly to do that, and then at the end saying how grateful he is for Chomsky’s activism, rings pretty disingenuous. I am also struck because to me the style of The Man is recognizably the same in both. But enough on Dresser. He will be forgotten by tomorrow, so one can just comment on the content of the writing.) I don’t know where Chomsky ranks in the guruness indices. But he is a case study in the patterns of mem
Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance
I see I missed this on HackerNews yesterday, the comments cover a range of positions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38642651 -- rec -- On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:48 PM Roger Critchlow wrote: > On the subject of cognitive dissonance, and working for large research > institutions > >https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ai-priority-disputes.html > > in which Jürgen Schmidhuber complains that LeCun, Bengio, and Hinton claim > to have invented modern AI when they were actually mostly reinventing, > improving, and reimplementing 30 year old work from Schmidhuber's lab on > faster hardware, without crediting any of the prior work. > > -- rec -- > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:17 PM Marcus Daniels > wrote: > >> While I think LLMs will be hard to use for analysis tasks, there is >> something satisfying to see certain people squirm as LLMs, as Altman says, >> “Blow right through the Turing test.” >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Roger Frye >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:47 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology >> Causes Cognitive Dissonance >> >> >> >> Eric, >> >> >> >> I agree with your critique, especially about Dresser's two-facedness. >> What struck me most was how Chomsky’s cognitive dissonance about military >> application could drive him to abstraction and unworkable theory. >> >> >> >> Chomsky has been one of my heroes. I have marched with him, but never >> agreed with his linguistics. But then never fully agreed with any linguist. >> >> >> >> I worked with people back in the 60s at Bolt Beranek and Newman and with >> professors at MIT who believed they could communicate with computers in >> English but was unaware of the military intention. I created English style >> GUIs and wrote COBOL compilers, but none very successful. Who knew that AI >> chat would be so successful this year. >> >> >> >> -Roger >> >> >> >> On Dec 13, 2023, at 3:34 AM, David Eric Smith >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Wanted to say thank you for this. >> >> >> >> I don’t know that I find Dresser’s psychologizing of Chomsky persuasive >> at all. But it’s nice that what leaks through the general history is >> Chomsky’s commitment as an operator. >> >> >> >> I liked that they had the little video clip in there. What comes through >> (to me, so bright that it quenches out everything else) is the one constant >> of Chomsky, across his history and in all the modes of his activity: the >> superciliousness, and the attitude of Olympian contempt he puts on, at all >> times, standing in judgment of everyone and everything. >> >> >> >> The way Dresser doesn’t roll over to Chomsky’s assertion of absolute >> domination, in the main text, was kind of a relief, though his blithe >> dismissal of Chomsky’s having had any substantive reason for being an >> influencer looked like trouble. The comments — surprisingly content-rich — >> unpack that trouble, but even there the exchange is interesting. The >> defenders say Dresser misses the point of the syntactic work and >> mis-represents by taking things out of context (I think probably true), and >> then Dresser answers by providing explicit statements that are hard to >> understand as being any less ridiculous than he claims, since they are >> asserted with characteristic Chomskian authoritarianism. What I take this >> for is evidence of what I see as the major pattern: Chomsky’s writing is as >> close to Newspeak as we probably have in something that is glossed by some >> as a science (and that, in a good world, could be, and is trying to become, >> more of a science). His writing, over the decades and lots of books (here >> referring to the linguistics) has essentially no stable constructive >> assertions, yet at every point the delivery is “This is what I say and this >> is what I have always said.” >> >> >> >> (Not that Dresser comes out of this looking like any much-better >> character. Claiming he isn’t out to write a hit-piece on Chomsky’s >> intellectual contributions, while transparently wanting mainly to do that, >> and then at the end saying how grateful he is for Chomsky’s activism, rings >> pretty disingenuous. I am also struck because to me the style of The Man >> is recognizably the same in both. But enough on Dresser. He will be >
Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance
As I recall, CMU had a strong AI group before Hinton got there. Raj Reddy, Scott Fahlman, Marc Raibert, etc. I wondered why the media called him "The Godfather". On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:48 PM Roger Critchlow wrote: > On the subject of cognitive dissonance, and working for large research > institutions > >https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ai-priority-disputes.html > > in which Jürgen Schmidhuber complains that LeCun, Bengio, and Hinton claim > to have invented modern AI when they were actually mostly reinventing, > improving, and reimplementing 30 year old work from Schmidhuber's lab on > faster hardware, without crediting any of the prior work. > > -- rec -- > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:17 PM Marcus Daniels > wrote: > >> While I think LLMs will be hard to use for analysis tasks, there is >> something satisfying to see certain people squirm as LLMs, as Altman says, >> “Blow right through the Turing test.” >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Roger Frye >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:47 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology >> Causes Cognitive Dissonance >> >> >> >> Eric, >> >> >> >> I agree with your critique, especially about Dresser's two-facedness. >> What struck me most was how Chomsky’s cognitive dissonance about military >> application could drive him to abstraction and unworkable theory. >> >> >> >> Chomsky has been one of my heroes. I have marched with him, but never >> agreed with his linguistics. But then never fully agreed with any linguist. >> >> >> >> I worked with people back in the 60s at Bolt Beranek and Newman and with >> professors at MIT who believed they could communicate with computers in >> English but was unaware of the military intention. I created English style >> GUIs and wrote COBOL compilers, but none very successful. Who knew that AI >> chat would be so successful this year. >> >> >> >> -Roger >> >> >> >> On Dec 13, 2023, at 3:34 AM, David Eric Smith >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Wanted to say thank you for this. >> >> >> >> I don’t know that I find Dresser’s psychologizing of Chomsky persuasive >> at all. But it’s nice that what leaks through the general history is >> Chomsky’s commitment as an operator. >> >> >> >> I liked that they had the little video clip in there. What comes through >> (to me, so bright that it quenches out everything else) is the one constant >> of Chomsky, across his history and in all the modes of his activity: the >> superciliousness, and the attitude of Olympian contempt he puts on, at all >> times, standing in judgment of everyone and everything. >> >> >> >> The way Dresser doesn’t roll over to Chomsky’s assertion of absolute >> domination, in the main text, was kind of a relief, though his blithe >> dismissal of Chomsky’s having had any substantive reason for being an >> influencer looked like trouble. The comments — surprisingly content-rich — >> unpack that trouble, but even there the exchange is interesting. The >> defenders say Dresser misses the point of the syntactic work and >> mis-represents by taking things out of context (I think probably true), and >> then Dresser answers by providing explicit statements that are hard to >> understand as being any less ridiculous than he claims, since they are >> asserted with characteristic Chomskian authoritarianism. What I take this >> for is evidence of what I see as the major pattern: Chomsky’s writing is as >> close to Newspeak as we probably have in something that is glossed by some >> as a science (and that, in a good world, could be, and is trying to become, >> more of a science). His writing, over the decades and lots of books (here >> referring to the linguistics) has essentially no stable constructive >> assertions, yet at every point the delivery is “This is what I say and this >> is what I have always said.” >> >> >> >> (Not that Dresser comes out of this looking like any much-better >> character. Claiming he isn’t out to write a hit-piece on Chomsky’s >> intellectual contributions, while transparently wanting mainly to do that, >> and then at the end saying how grateful he is for Chomsky’s activism, rings >> pretty disingenuous. I am also struck because to me the style of The Man >> is recognizably the same in both. But enough on
Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance
On the subject of cognitive dissonance, and working for large research institutions https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ai-priority-disputes.html in which Jürgen Schmidhuber complains that LeCun, Bengio, and Hinton claim to have invented modern AI when they were actually mostly reinventing, improving, and reimplementing 30 year old work from Schmidhuber's lab on faster hardware, without crediting any of the prior work. -- rec -- On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:17 PM Marcus Daniels wrote: > While I think LLMs will be hard to use for analysis tasks, there is > something satisfying to see certain people squirm as LLMs, as Altman says, > “Blow right through the Turing test.” > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Roger Frye > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:47 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology > Causes Cognitive Dissonance > > > > Eric, > > > > I agree with your critique, especially about Dresser's two-facedness. What > struck me most was how Chomsky’s cognitive dissonance about military > application could drive him to abstraction and unworkable theory. > > > > Chomsky has been one of my heroes. I have marched with him, but never > agreed with his linguistics. But then never fully agreed with any linguist. > > > > I worked with people back in the 60s at Bolt Beranek and Newman and with > professors at MIT who believed they could communicate with computers in > English but was unaware of the military intention. I created English style > GUIs and wrote COBOL compilers, but none very successful. Who knew that AI > chat would be so successful this year. > > > > -Roger > > > > On Dec 13, 2023, at 3:34 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: > > > > Wanted to say thank you for this. > > > > I don’t know that I find Dresser’s psychologizing of Chomsky persuasive at > all. But it’s nice that what leaks through the general history is > Chomsky’s commitment as an operator. > > > > I liked that they had the little video clip in there. What comes through > (to me, so bright that it quenches out everything else) is the one constant > of Chomsky, across his history and in all the modes of his activity: the > superciliousness, and the attitude of Olympian contempt he puts on, at all > times, standing in judgment of everyone and everything. > > > > The way Dresser doesn’t roll over to Chomsky’s assertion of absolute > domination, in the main text, was kind of a relief, though his blithe > dismissal of Chomsky’s having had any substantive reason for being an > influencer looked like trouble. The comments — surprisingly content-rich — > unpack that trouble, but even there the exchange is interesting. The > defenders say Dresser misses the point of the syntactic work and > mis-represents by taking things out of context (I think probably true), and > then Dresser answers by providing explicit statements that are hard to > understand as being any less ridiculous than he claims, since they are > asserted with characteristic Chomskian authoritarianism. What I take this > for is evidence of what I see as the major pattern: Chomsky’s writing is as > close to Newspeak as we probably have in something that is glossed by some > as a science (and that, in a good world, could be, and is trying to become, > more of a science). His writing, over the decades and lots of books (here > referring to the linguistics) has essentially no stable constructive > assertions, yet at every point the delivery is “This is what I say and this > is what I have always said.” > > > > (Not that Dresser comes out of this looking like any much-better > character. Claiming he isn’t out to write a hit-piece on Chomsky’s > intellectual contributions, while transparently wanting mainly to do that, > and then at the end saying how grateful he is for Chomsky’s activism, rings > pretty disingenuous. I am also struck because to me the style of The Man > is recognizably the same in both. But enough on Dresser. He will be > forgotten by tomorrow, so one can just comment on the content of the > writing.) > > > > I don’t know where Chomsky ranks in the guruness indices. But he is a > case study in the patterns of meme-authoritarianism. A vast discourse of > negative statements, which (seen in many people I have to deal with) seem > to have only the goal of denying something specific somebody else is trying > to say or to do, accompanied by shifting, or shifty, assertive-sounding > statements, but ones that turn out to be slippery enough that you are never > permitted to attach a meaning to them and decide for yourself whether
Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance
While I think LLMs will be hard to use for analysis tasks, there is something satisfying to see certain people squirm as LLMs, as Altman says, “Blow right through the Turing test.” From: Friam On Behalf Of Roger Frye Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:47 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance Eric, I agree with your critique, especially about Dresser's two-facedness. What struck me most was how Chomsky’s cognitive dissonance about military application could drive him to abstraction and unworkable theory. Chomsky has been one of my heroes. I have marched with him, but never agreed with his linguistics. But then never fully agreed with any linguist. I worked with people back in the 60s at Bolt Beranek and Newman and with professors at MIT who believed they could communicate with computers in English but was unaware of the military intention. I created English style GUIs and wrote COBOL compilers, but none very successful. Who knew that AI chat would be so successful this year. -Roger On Dec 13, 2023, at 3:34 AM, David Eric Smith mailto:desm...@santafe.edu>> wrote: Wanted to say thank you for this. I don’t know that I find Dresser’s psychologizing of Chomsky persuasive at all. But it’s nice that what leaks through the general history is Chomsky’s commitment as an operator. I liked that they had the little video clip in there. What comes through (to me, so bright that it quenches out everything else) is the one constant of Chomsky, across his history and in all the modes of his activity: the superciliousness, and the attitude of Olympian contempt he puts on, at all times, standing in judgment of everyone and everything. The way Dresser doesn’t roll over to Chomsky’s assertion of absolute domination, in the main text, was kind of a relief, though his blithe dismissal of Chomsky’s having had any substantive reason for being an influencer looked like trouble. The comments — surprisingly content-rich — unpack that trouble, but even there the exchange is interesting. The defenders say Dresser misses the point of the syntactic work and mis-represents by taking things out of context (I think probably true), and then Dresser answers by providing explicit statements that are hard to understand as being any less ridiculous than he claims, since they are asserted with characteristic Chomskian authoritarianism. What I take this for is evidence of what I see as the major pattern: Chomsky’s writing is as close to Newspeak as we probably have in something that is glossed by some as a science (and that, in a good world, could be, and is trying to become, more of a science). His writing, over the decades and lots of books (here referring to the linguistics) has essentially no stable constructive assertions, yet at every point the delivery is “This is what I say and this is what I have always said.” (Not that Dresser comes out of this looking like any much-better character. Claiming he isn’t out to write a hit-piece on Chomsky’s intellectual contributions, while transparently wanting mainly to do that, and then at the end saying how grateful he is for Chomsky’s activism, rings pretty disingenuous. I am also struck because to me the style of The Man is recognizably the same in both. But enough on Dresser. He will be forgotten by tomorrow, so one can just comment on the content of the writing.) I don’t know where Chomsky ranks in the guruness indices. But he is a case study in the patterns of meme-authoritarianism. A vast discourse of negative statements, which (seen in many people I have to deal with) seem to have only the goal of denying something specific somebody else is trying to say or to do, accompanied by shifting, or shifty, assertive-sounding statements, but ones that turn out to be slippery enough that you are never permitted to attach a meaning to them and decide for yourself whether they are valid or not. Any judgment you pass against the constructive-sounding statements can always be parried by an accusation that you are too low a life-form to have understood the wisdom they encode. Johnny Yune did this nicely in the ancient camp-movie They Call me Bruce (maybe the sequel), in the line “You are not ready for the tech-a-niques of the master.) Not sure why I feel compelled to compose typologies of the styles of shiftiness in the world. The impulse to see some fingerprints that occur repeatedly seems to scratch some itch. Eric On Dec 8, 2023, at 7:54 AM, Roger Frye mailto:frye.ro...@gmail.com>> wrote: An anthropologist studies the warring ideas of Noam Chomsky | Aeon Essays<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2faeon.co%2fessays%2fan-anthropologist-studies-the-warring-ideas
Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance
Eric, I agree with your critique, especially about Dresser's two-facedness. What struck me most was how Chomsky’s cognitive dissonance about military application could drive him to abstraction and unworkable theory. Chomsky has been one of my heroes. I have marched with him, but never agreed with his linguistics. But then never fully agreed with any linguist. I worked with people back in the 60s at Bolt Beranek and Newman and with professors at MIT who believed they could communicate with computers in English but was unaware of the military intention. I created English style GUIs and wrote COBOL compilers, but none very successful. Who knew that AI chat would be so successful this year. -Roger > On Dec 13, 2023, at 3:34 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: > > Wanted to say thank you for this. > > I don’t know that I find Dresser’s psychologizing of Chomsky persuasive at > all. But it’s nice that what leaks through the general history is Chomsky’s > commitment as an operator. > > I liked that they had the little video clip in there. What comes through (to > me, so bright that it quenches out everything else) is the one constant of > Chomsky, across his history and in all the modes of his activity: the > superciliousness, and the attitude of Olympian contempt he puts on, at all > times, standing in judgment of everyone and everything. > > The way Dresser doesn’t roll over to Chomsky’s assertion of absolute > domination, in the main text, was kind of a relief, though his blithe > dismissal of Chomsky’s having had any substantive reason for being an > influencer looked like trouble. The comments — surprisingly content-rich — > unpack that trouble, but even there the exchange is interesting. The > defenders say Dresser misses the point of the syntactic work and > mis-represents by taking things out of context (I think probably true), and > then Dresser answers by providing explicit statements that are hard to > understand as being any less ridiculous than he claims, since they are > asserted with characteristic Chomskian authoritarianism. What I take this > for is evidence of what I see as the major pattern: Chomsky’s writing is as > close to Newspeak as we probably have in something that is glossed by some as > a science (and that, in a good world, could be, and is trying to become, more > of a science). His writing, over the decades and lots of books (here > referring to the linguistics) has essentially no stable constructive > assertions, yet at every point the delivery is “This is what I say and this > is what I have always said.” > > (Not that Dresser comes out of this looking like any much-better character. > Claiming he isn’t out to write a hit-piece on Chomsky’s intellectual > contributions, while transparently wanting mainly to do that, and then at the > end saying how grateful he is for Chomsky’s activism, rings pretty > disingenuous. I am also struck because to me the style of The Man is > recognizably the same in both. But enough on Dresser. He will be forgotten > by tomorrow, so one can just comment on the content of the writing.) > > I don’t know where Chomsky ranks in the guruness indices. But he is a case > study in the patterns of meme-authoritarianism. A vast discourse of negative > statements, which (seen in many people I have to deal with) seem to have only > the goal of denying something specific somebody else is trying to say or to > do, accompanied by shifting, or shifty, assertive-sounding statements, but > ones that turn out to be slippery enough that you are never permitted to > attach a meaning to them and decide for yourself whether they are valid or > not. Any judgment you pass against the constructive-sounding statements can > always be parried by an accusation that you are too low a life-form to have > understood the wisdom they encode. Johnny Yune did this nicely in the > ancient camp-movie They Call me Bruce (maybe the sequel), in the line “You > are not ready for the tech-a-niques of the master.) > > Not sure why I feel compelled to compose typologies of the styles of > shiftiness in the world. The impulse to see some fingerprints that occur > repeatedly seems to scratch some itch. > > Eric > > > >> On Dec 8, 2023, at 7:54 AM, Roger Frye wrote: >> >> https://aeon.co/essays/an-anthropologist-studies-the-warring-ideas-of-noam-chomsky >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> 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,RVh5I_OSkx6gAWMMOkKEYLQOEJN74xKK5R3la6mfTpmPlt1IBjVazeSbQSTbKbAxQji87grlMApg1r4fLjhWq0uLpRlcWoygnnQstrlhZ1WhCZozkdI,&typo=1 >> to (un)subscribe >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,ZbtdTuHCsdPl2Rh_N05LMdRWY4qr7p8adVsWunB6YZ-bBCU6bAN9OzO
Re: [FRIAM] Working for the Military Institute of Technology Causes Cognitive Dissonance
Wanted to say thank you for this. I don’t know that I find Dresser’s psychologizing of Chomsky persuasive at all. But it’s nice that what leaks through the general history is Chomsky’s commitment as an operator. I liked that they had the little video clip in there. What comes through (to me, so bright that it quenches out everything else) is the one constant of Chomsky, across his history and in all the modes of his activity: the superciliousness, and the attitude of Olympian contempt he puts on, at all times, standing in judgment of everyone and everything. The way Dresser doesn’t roll over to Chomsky’s assertion of absolute domination, in the main text, was kind of a relief, though his blithe dismissal of Chomsky’s having had any substantive reason for being an influencer looked like trouble. The comments — surprisingly content-rich — unpack that trouble, but even there the exchange is interesting. The defenders say Dresser misses the point of the syntactic work and mis-represents by taking things out of context (I think probably true), and then Dresser answers by providing explicit statements that are hard to understand as being any less ridiculous than he claims, since they are asserted with characteristic Chomskian authoritarianism. What I take this for is evidence of what I see as the major pattern: Chomsky’s writing is as close to Newspeak as we probably have in something that is glossed by some as a science (and that, in a good world, could be, and is trying to become, more of a science). His writing, over the decades and lots of books (here referring to the linguistics) has essentially no stable constructive assertions, yet at every point the delivery is “This is what I say and this is what I have always said.” (Not that Dresser comes out of this looking like any much-better character. Claiming he isn’t out to write a hit-piece on Chomsky’s intellectual contributions, while transparently wanting mainly to do that, and then at the end saying how grateful he is for Chomsky’s activism, rings pretty disingenuous. I am also struck because to me the style of The Man is recognizably the same in both. But enough on Dresser. He will be forgotten by tomorrow, so one can just comment on the content of the writing.) I don’t know where Chomsky ranks in the guruness indices. But he is a case study in the patterns of meme-authoritarianism. A vast discourse of negative statements, which (seen in many people I have to deal with) seem to have only the goal of denying something specific somebody else is trying to say or to do, accompanied by shifting, or shifty, assertive-sounding statements, but ones that turn out to be slippery enough that you are never permitted to attach a meaning to them and decide for yourself whether they are valid or not. Any judgment you pass against the constructive-sounding statements can always be parried by an accusation that you are too low a life-form to have understood the wisdom they encode. Johnny Yune did this nicely in the ancient camp-movie They Call me Bruce (maybe the sequel), in the line “You are not ready for the tech-a-niques of the master.) Not sure why I feel compelled to compose typologies of the styles of shiftiness in the world. The impulse to see some fingerprints that occur repeatedly seems to scratch some itch. Eric > On Dec 8, 2023, at 7:54 AM, Roger Frye wrote: > > https://aeon.co/essays/an-anthropologist-studies-the-warring-ideas-of-noam-chomsky > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > 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,RVh5I_OSkx6gAWMMOkKEYLQOEJN74xKK5R3la6mfTpmPlt1IBjVazeSbQSTbKbAxQji87grlMApg1r4fLjhWq0uLpRlcWoygnnQstrlhZ1WhCZozkdI,&typo=1 > to (un)subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,ZbtdTuHCsdPl2Rh_N05LMdRWY4qr7p8adVsWunB6YZ-bBCU6bAN9OzOEF7Js-xnCkEfyZyy2o4KbcxRkjrRcFJhsE7_UNLYp65FosiTKM5sqyQ,,&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,1o3MuIdAd2B-h91edK12jG0ZRGDbXW3O9Z3Keix2OCfOz4O4vWukURT1tBUfKI9AvKREkNcCOXZRDUfuWf6ijvoygeJXn0Fma9P2i4_HP5VupJQ5HmqmNes-4M4,&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,1,11ngnGtLTcEqISne021xnGG2C0Th13t9-_Gl4fZ9bj5kdEq0KMKSUXo-dXKyElLRUDKvsi24tT4266OxHrMDzj5CIilBY6suS-JAQLOvcFGTGOQ,&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 htt
