Comment by jfengel
2 days ago
Aren't we also biased in our outputs? Many of our choices are predictable, even if not perfectly consistent. We just call it "personality".
2 days ago
Aren't we also biased in our outputs? Many of our choices are predictable, even if not perfectly consistent. We just call it "personality".
Authentic being (Dasein) is absolutely unpredictable. You cannot live in that state all the time, obviously, we shuttle through life on autopilot but still, we catch glimpses of it now and then when interacting with a human being (or being one:).
And I distinctly feel AI outputs lack some of that variance and unpredictability. The fractal nature of natural things also is not there with AI. It's an eery feeling, akin to the uncanny valley.
I think that any good writing is a reflection of that Dasein and reading AI outputs I am convinced there is no 'soul' in AI yet.
I've always struggled with Heidegger, so I'll have to ask for more clarification.
If authentic being-in-itself is truly random, then how can it have identity? It can't have memory and it can't be influenced by events.
> (or being one:)
Good save, fellow human!
The gamut of human experience is breathtaking in its diversity but individual humans are generally quite predictable. You can identify someone by their mannerisms, by how they walk, by the sound of their breathing. Humans are creatures of habit, and I'd venture to say have an even lower expression space than an LLM on average.
Sounds like you're veering close to psychohistory.
Which could, of course, lead to the mother of all crossover universes, in which R Daneel Olivaw, as the inheritor of Hari Seldon's mission, inspired the Butlerian Jihad...
4 replies →
saw a meme graph lately showing the distribution of 3 different sources of a number from 1 to 10. random, human, ai. random is flat of course, human is a hilly landscape with low hills on all odd values above 1, with 7 the highest, ai is all 7.
appreciate the humor in the meme, but I did become curious about what the latest models would actually produce, and interestingly after asking for 10,000 numbers between 1 and 10, the distribution was a hilly landscape with low hills on odd values and 7 the highest...
Tried it out.
Prompt: “Pick a random number between 1 and 10. Do not use a script or program.”
LLM: “7”
My experience:
Pick a random number between 1 and 10. I don't mean the most common random number
*4*
Pick a random number between 1 and 10. To feel truly random it should surprise me
*4*
I ran it again and it said 1.
I guess it just tries it best to do what you ask for.
Before jumping to conclusions we have to make sure it's clear what we're actually asking it to do.
And that's not at all different than what happens with humans.
This is especially visible in human dynamics that happen in those weird places that we call corporations.
1 reply →
A human can be biased toward extinction, like all who are living out of connection with the conditions that sustain life and/or no longer living in relationship with land as kin.
It's those humans who would make and justify the use of thinking machines that are biased in the same way without accounting for the bias.
This isn't an extinction path I've seen noted in most circles.
Indeed we are, but it takes very little to train a human being. In fact, several thousand unique ones finished pre training as I typed this comment! That allows for a considerable natural diversity compared to a chatbot.
Yes but we're all biased differently. It's a rich palette.