Oddly enough, I’ve considered it the other way around: the LLM and AI interpretations based upon it are more like a subconscious, an accumulation of experiences sitting in a misted-over well, with elements plucked out of it to build our more considered thoughts; the conscious is the active mind, able to reason, to knit memories together into coherence, and make the kind of absurd leaps and authentic inventions that AI cannot match. Whatever… there’s such a human place between the two that remains a mystery to AI. It’s where mad reality lives, sparkling dialogue, wit, new wisdom.
That’s a very interesting take, Ian. I can see where you are coming from and I like the concept of the misted over well. I shall be thinking about it. I suppose the nub of it is where and how the connections are made, consciously or unconsciously, actively or passively, or through some mystic blend of these.
Thank you Mike. I think this helps us realise AI is a tool - not an alternative to us or owt we do. It could not of it's own volition conjure up a scheme to overthrow us. Look at algorithms - note US spelling (?) I always thought these were to do with rhythm but anyway, my point is, you look at one thing and this baby keeps presenting you with more of the same. Anyotherway, I thought I'd "ask" AI about a few salient points. Here - be enlightened!!! Damn, the text won't copy and I can't attach a screenshot. AI actually references Sixty Odd Poets and a TV episode of 'Watching' - about Uncle Bernard..........and yet more..........:)
You’ll have to email me the screenshot. Now that you have significantly depleted the worlds water supply in its procurement. (Sorry - I’m back on the Dickens)
Two things, a poem on this topic immediately springs to mind. Second, in looking at this from a human point of view are we missing the notion, machines don't need ideas.
Hope the poem is a fruitful one Steve. And no, machines don't need ideas, but many of us seem to expect them to have, so much so that we turn to them rather than go to the bother of exploring our own.
Oddly enough, I’ve considered it the other way around: the LLM and AI interpretations based upon it are more like a subconscious, an accumulation of experiences sitting in a misted-over well, with elements plucked out of it to build our more considered thoughts; the conscious is the active mind, able to reason, to knit memories together into coherence, and make the kind of absurd leaps and authentic inventions that AI cannot match. Whatever… there’s such a human place between the two that remains a mystery to AI. It’s where mad reality lives, sparkling dialogue, wit, new wisdom.
That’s a very interesting take, Ian. I can see where you are coming from and I like the concept of the misted over well. I shall be thinking about it. I suppose the nub of it is where and how the connections are made, consciously or unconsciously, actively or passively, or through some mystic blend of these.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Thank you Mike. I think this helps us realise AI is a tool - not an alternative to us or owt we do. It could not of it's own volition conjure up a scheme to overthrow us. Look at algorithms - note US spelling (?) I always thought these were to do with rhythm but anyway, my point is, you look at one thing and this baby keeps presenting you with more of the same. Anyotherway, I thought I'd "ask" AI about a few salient points. Here - be enlightened!!! Damn, the text won't copy and I can't attach a screenshot. AI actually references Sixty Odd Poets and a TV episode of 'Watching' - about Uncle Bernard..........and yet more..........:)
You’ll have to email me the screenshot. Now that you have significantly depleted the worlds water supply in its procurement. (Sorry - I’m back on the Dickens)
They can't think. They can't feel. And this is how they "teach" writing: https://www.josieholford.com/how-to-teach-writing/
Trouble is - they learned from us, and we taught them all the wrong stuff.
Good piece, Mike.
Thanks for the link Josie. I enjoyed your poem, and shall be exploring the project further.
Two things, a poem on this topic immediately springs to mind. Second, in looking at this from a human point of view are we missing the notion, machines don't need ideas.
Hope the poem is a fruitful one Steve. And no, machines don't need ideas, but many of us seem to expect them to have, so much so that we turn to them rather than go to the bother of exploring our own.
I agree with you there. Maybe we are witnessing the slow death of ideas?
Not whilst there are children and poets around.