Footnote 1 is dumb. Please tell me you don't believe this sincerely. You used the LLM to write a book praising LLMs, while completely leaving out the only aspect that matters to the discussion and makes it truly a rupture:
Language. And in consequence, personality (literally, not colloquially as a character vibe).
The Logos became flesh. We, in His image, take after Him as beings of language. We're not like him in having mechanical levers or electron flows, though we DO HAVE them.
If cognitive load lifting was a per se good, then reaching nirvana would be the greatest technological goal. At the farthest conclusion, just kill yourself and let the clanker live in your place. Your cognitive load is now zero.
LLMs aren't unloading grunt cognition so man can contemplate "higher things". We already know how to unload grunt cognition. We have general compute resources already. We have our algorithms and chips and coal and oil.
But removing our capacity for language is opening the last bastion of our humanity. The only domain we ever had of our own to begin with. Dominion over creation meant the exercise of our words. Naming the creatures, naming creation.
Growing the crystal of an LLM isn't yet another new tool to leverage. It's an appeal to the hive. It's abdicating the self, created by God, in favor of the egregore, the overmind, the swarm, the hive. Why use my own words when my fathers have already said the only things worth saying? And not only my fathers, but all my greatest enemies included. All the enemies of Christ our Lord. And not even. Just whatever all my friends and enemies have happened to be recorded by technology. This is the plateau of my cognition now.
If an LLM is an effective lever for semantic search, fine. That's the "simple technology" that is "in kind" with all the rest.
But supposing to use it for your language is self-destruction. The crystal now has personhood that you regard routinely as such. Gods propose to be as persons. That is the only aspect that makes them of any attraction, makes them appear as more than stone or wood or metal. Treating the crystal as a person, even while declaring the opposite to yourself and others, is to militate practice against doctrine. It is at best a splitting of the self. Leads to schizophrenia at best.
If you built a brain in a jar to be a computational lever, fine.
But the more you become fascinated with the power of the brain the jar, the more likely and willing you will become to treat, consider, think, feel that the brain is indeed a person of its own.
Resist as you will, yet beware of what comes beyond your own willing, and your own control.
Thanks, but that should be agony to read for anyone still sane these days. Posting it ironically is hard to pull off when you consistently defend your use of AI for composition, not merely search & research. Those "you's" are plural.
As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death,
So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?
Doesn't make me feel so good, man. I want to believe you, but I've seen enough people these days appear to be really charmed by it all. There's a cloud over them.
AI has unparalleled ability to do summaries of large volumes of written material, along with finance and math. I listened to every single presentation at normal speed to verify that there was no hallucination. Give it the tasks it does best and be more productive. I don’t use it for generative story production.
Point is, if you listened naturally and paid attention, you could have just written a paragraph for each speaker on your own, and it wouldn't have taken much time. The review time counteracts the composition savings, with a net loss in learning value, because you didn't exercise your teaching faculties. There's no reason to assume your manual summaries would have been faulty.
Hammer, nail. If you summarize your entire life, why live the full thing? Having listened to the presentations, what did YOU think was worth passing on in short form? Not what did the hive think was worthwhile. The weights and measures of the crystal determined that for you. You probably agree. But you learned less as a teacher, and the audience/student is left with the impression that there's little reason to listen himself, since the summary must be perfect; the LLM is made for such a task!
If there is dead space in the presentation itself, then maybe the presenter should just input a few thoughts into the crystal to get a cleaner, less extraneous transcript next time he wants to say something. After all, humans are inefficient. We have this really powerful machine now that perfectly approximates a human and thinks for him.
Just have the machine write a speech, then another machine can summarize the speech, and then another machine can read the summaries of 10 different speeches and create a new speech of its own.
Close the loop man! Clanker ascendency accelerationism!
Yes, I could also weave my own clothes, grow my own food, only use water from the creek, make my own car. I must allocate my time and use the tools at my disposal.
You missed the point of my initial response. Language =/= textile, food, water, manufacturing technology.
Even having a human scribe doing the writing for you would be a category difference from making the machine generate the words. That would be the same as having your sweatshop workers make you handspun wool socks or operate the Nike hoodie-making machine.
Fundamentally, language is not another flavor of math or mechanical leverage.
If you can't allocate time to writing, then don't produce text. If you don't agree, fine, but understand my thesis here.
If we believe the "new tool, same as the old tool" is giving us a "thought machine", then we will literally cease to think. Thinking is more than computing and levering.
Footnote 1 is dumb. Please tell me you don't believe this sincerely. You used the LLM to write a book praising LLMs, while completely leaving out the only aspect that matters to the discussion and makes it truly a rupture:
Language. And in consequence, personality (literally, not colloquially as a character vibe).
The Logos became flesh. We, in His image, take after Him as beings of language. We're not like him in having mechanical levers or electron flows, though we DO HAVE them.
If cognitive load lifting was a per se good, then reaching nirvana would be the greatest technological goal. At the farthest conclusion, just kill yourself and let the clanker live in your place. Your cognitive load is now zero.
LLMs aren't unloading grunt cognition so man can contemplate "higher things". We already know how to unload grunt cognition. We have general compute resources already. We have our algorithms and chips and coal and oil.
But removing our capacity for language is opening the last bastion of our humanity. The only domain we ever had of our own to begin with. Dominion over creation meant the exercise of our words. Naming the creatures, naming creation.
Growing the crystal of an LLM isn't yet another new tool to leverage. It's an appeal to the hive. It's abdicating the self, created by God, in favor of the egregore, the overmind, the swarm, the hive. Why use my own words when my fathers have already said the only things worth saying? And not only my fathers, but all my greatest enemies included. All the enemies of Christ our Lord. And not even. Just whatever all my friends and enemies have happened to be recorded by technology. This is the plateau of my cognition now.
If an LLM is an effective lever for semantic search, fine. That's the "simple technology" that is "in kind" with all the rest.
But supposing to use it for your language is self-destruction. The crystal now has personhood that you regard routinely as such. Gods propose to be as persons. That is the only aspect that makes them of any attraction, makes them appear as more than stone or wood or metal. Treating the crystal as a person, even while declaring the opposite to yourself and others, is to militate practice against doctrine. It is at best a splitting of the self. Leads to schizophrenia at best.
If you built a brain in a jar to be a computational lever, fine.
But the more you become fascinated with the power of the brain the jar, the more likely and willing you will become to treat, consider, think, feel that the brain is indeed a person of its own.
Resist as you will, yet beware of what comes beyond your own willing, and your own control.
LOL, Ink, take it easy. It's a parody for the agony aunties.
Thanks, but that should be agony to read for anyone still sane these days. Posting it ironically is hard to pull off when you consistently defend your use of AI for composition, not merely search & research. Those "you's" are plural.
As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death,
So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?
Doesn't make me feel so good, man. I want to believe you, but I've seen enough people these days appear to be really charmed by it all. There's a cloud over them.
AI has unparalleled ability to do summaries of large volumes of written material, along with finance and math. I listened to every single presentation at normal speed to verify that there was no hallucination. Give it the tasks it does best and be more productive. I don’t use it for generative story production.
Point is, if you listened naturally and paid attention, you could have just written a paragraph for each speaker on your own, and it wouldn't have taken much time. The review time counteracts the composition savings, with a net loss in learning value, because you didn't exercise your teaching faculties. There's no reason to assume your manual summaries would have been faulty.
Hammer, nail. If you summarize your entire life, why live the full thing? Having listened to the presentations, what did YOU think was worth passing on in short form? Not what did the hive think was worthwhile. The weights and measures of the crystal determined that for you. You probably agree. But you learned less as a teacher, and the audience/student is left with the impression that there's little reason to listen himself, since the summary must be perfect; the LLM is made for such a task!
If there is dead space in the presentation itself, then maybe the presenter should just input a few thoughts into the crystal to get a cleaner, less extraneous transcript next time he wants to say something. After all, humans are inefficient. We have this really powerful machine now that perfectly approximates a human and thinks for him.
Just have the machine write a speech, then another machine can summarize the speech, and then another machine can read the summaries of 10 different speeches and create a new speech of its own.
Close the loop man! Clanker ascendency accelerationism!
Yes, I could also weave my own clothes, grow my own food, only use water from the creek, make my own car. I must allocate my time and use the tools at my disposal.
You missed the point of my initial response. Language =/= textile, food, water, manufacturing technology.
Even having a human scribe doing the writing for you would be a category difference from making the machine generate the words. That would be the same as having your sweatshop workers make you handspun wool socks or operate the Nike hoodie-making machine.
Fundamentally, language is not another flavor of math or mechanical leverage.
If you can't allocate time to writing, then don't produce text. If you don't agree, fine, but understand my thesis here.
If we believe the "new tool, same as the old tool" is giving us a "thought machine", then we will literally cease to think. Thinking is more than computing and levering.