Trying out a new thing to better my recall and find connections between all the various things I have read as of late. So, some thoughts:
““Large language models work better than any system we have ever had before,” said Pascale Fung, an AI researcher at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. “Why do they struggle with something that’s seemingly simple while it’s demonstrating amazing power in other things that we don’t expect it to?” Recent studies have finally started to explain the difficulties, and what programmers can do to get around them. But researchers still don’t understand whether machines will ever truly know the word “no.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-like-chatgpt-are-no-good-at-not-20230512?mc_cid=bbc6d126b1&mc_eid=f83944a043
Thought: It’s hard to program negation perhaps because it is difficult to infer mistakes? Most of the time most of what we do is make mistakes – we just have built up a society of safety nets that can tolerate a lot of that, plus social structures. And as most of that is common sense and unwritten, it is very hard for LLMs or other models to learn how to handle that – also potentially worth noting it’s extremely hard to mathematically weight all possible avenues/reasons why something is “no”?
“…hell is founded on God’s love. It is not a place where God exacts endless retributive punishment from those whose sins do not merit what they receive there. It is the condition of those who reject the love that God bathes them in—to the extent to which they will allow it.”hell is founded on God’s love. It is not a place where God exacts endless retributive punishment from those whose sins do not merit what they receive there. It is the condition of those who reject the love that God bathes them in—to the extent to which they will allow it.”
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/can-hell-and-the-god-of-love-coexist/?utm_campaign=CLJ_Weekly%20Subscriber%20Email_19-0507&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=254754043&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8RVQ268q-FXPdY14Z5IUWgxW_8LwvIProKP6i9NA51OetXXu0tvlWQ6OJJC4hglLwntNz6zlRhj_lwJxh33mJdtGIkNDjW5DFEaJFeDHlrwkM3WQg&utm_content=254754043&utm_source=hs_email
Thought: A very useful clarification of something I’ve struggled with in the past. We create our own hells, in short.
“…The new creed does not take animals to be natural automata, but it does find a gulf between the brutes and us: no non-human animal has a sexed soul. And as to sex, maybe non-human animals unproblematically come in female and male varieties, but as far as humans are concerned—as my old sparring partner Robin Dembroff puts it—the notion that female and male are “universal, stable and discrete categories … is false.” To think otherwise is to be “ignorant of the history and sociology of sex categorization.”
https://quillette.com/2023/04/17/philosophys-no-go-zone/?ref=quillette-newsletter
Thought: Much like critical race theory, what perplexes me is that if gender is a construct, then we can’t even hope to organize beyond a “human person” category, as there could be endless varieties of genders. But then, how does one even know one is correct? Nothing matters, all is relative to either feelings and/or appearance.
“Many waypoint names are gibberish, but others are more colourful – DRAKE in the English Channel (for Sir Francis); BARBQ near Kansas City; WHALE in the Mediterranean, off Benghazi. When descending to Portsmouth, New Hampshire, fans of the Tweety and Sylvester cartoons will enjoy this sequence: ITAWT ITAWA PUDYE TTATT (followed by IDEED). The authorities in the US, more than most countries, have made a habit of writing five-letter distillations of history and culture onto the sky; as passengers never encounter them, this is for no reason other than that it might be fun for pilots to fly to and from them. And so it is.”
https://aeon.co/essays/the-language-of-the-cockpit-is-technical-obscure-and-irresistibly-romantic?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=deff1315c3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_05_08&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-dee638f785-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D
Thought: Had no idea on this and human creativity at its best is always a joy.
