4 ms·
>The fact that we can now communicate so effectively (with remarkably few contextual errors and razor-sharp conveyance of intent) with an entity/technology that
by operatingthetan 4y ago
>The fact that we can now communicate so effectively (with remarkably few contextual errors and razor-sharp conveyance of intent) with an entity/technology that is not even human pretty much destroys so much of Derrida's oeuvre as false and delusionally solipsistic
Isn't the LLM just good at giving us the illusion of such effective communication? How can we have true "shared meaning" with a device designed to simulate the experience of shared meaning? Isn't the fact that it's 'mind' is truly unknowable and unrelatable a demonstration of Derrida's point?
- AgentME 4y agoIf you can tell it things in a way that it successfully acts on that information, then that seems like effective communication. When I use GitHub Copilot, I'll often write a comment describing some code I want it to implement and then it spits out a suggestion. Occasionally it fails badly at this and I realize I worded my comment badly. When I reword the comment better and then find that Copilot's next suggestion nails it what I wanted, is that not the result of me effectively communicating with it through the comment? (If I did that with a human coworker instead, is that communication?)