4 ms·

This is an excellent description by Cal Newport, who I hadn't heard of until now. He is a MIT-trained computer science professor at Georgetown University & Bes

This is an excellent description by Cal Newport, who I hadn't heard of until now. He is a MIT-trained computer science professor at Georgetown University & Bestselling Author. I'm always impressed by New Yorker content. I would add a couple of things. William S. Burroughs and Brion Gysin came up with some interesting results with their cut up technique invented by Gysin, with random sentence fragments juxtaposed and massaged by them into sensible sounding sentences. https://www.briongysin.com/cut-ups/ https://www.briongysin.com/cut-ups/ Also, I think the kind of mind it has is a subjective experience in part, because artificial intelligence is like artificial grass and if you have no experience with real grass or real intelligence you tend to think the artificial kind is more real than it is. I think we tend to anthropomorphize our intelligent programs, more so if they are smarter than us we have a more difficult time detecting their machine flaws. So one person might say "that thing is really bright and has a mind of it's own" while a computer scientist might say of the same thing "I can see it's machinations failing in some cases in stupid ways that indicate to me it's just a dumb program"

crooked-v 4y ago
One of the more obvious failings I've run into that really reinforces the nature of it being an extremely elaborate vector search is that ChatGPT regularly gets relationships between concepts reversed. For example, it's easy to nudge into it completely reversing shorter/taller or younger/older in its replies. It feels like it could be related to the whole "Waluigi effect" thing (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D7PumeYTDPfBTp3i7/the-waluigi-effect-mega-post https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D7PumeYTDPfBTp3i7/the-waluig...).
kashyapc 4y ago
If I may, I'd like to slightly temper the enthusiasm about Newport. I'm familiar with his work for 4-5 years. He has a few things of value to say, but he slathers them in too much filler and churns out "books" (they make the same point with small variations). To see what I'm talking about, have a gander at these previous threads[1][2]. (One of those threads also happens to be a New Yorker article; but that one was a fluff piece.) The article in question itself is better than I expected, frankly. I just wish he resisted using the click-bait word "mind" here. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29035674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29035674 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20082125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20082125
- labrador 4y ago
  Thanks for the info. He seems rather more lucid than some of the other writers and more in line with my thinking so I'll take him with a grain of salt as I familiarize myself with his writings. I don't think "mind" is the necessarily wrong word. When I was beat by a chess machine in 1981 I sensed an intelligence that felt like a mind. I didn't know anything about computers then. I imagine a lot of people are having that experience right now.
  - b_emery 4y ago
    'Deep Work' and 'So good they can't ignore you' are his best works IMO, and worth reading if you're into applications of deliberate practice toward thinking types of work.

crooked-v 4y ago

One of the more obvious failings I've run into that really reinforces the nature of it being an extremely elaborate vector search is that ChatGPT regularly gets relationships between concepts reversed. For example, it's easy to nudge into it completely reversing shorter/taller or younger/older in its replies. It feels like it could be related to the whole "Waluigi effect" thing (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D7PumeYTDPfBTp3i7/the-waluigi-effect-mega-post https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D7PumeYTDPfBTp3i7/the-waluig...).

kashyapc 4y ago

If I may, I'd like to slightly temper the enthusiasm about Newport. I'm familiar with his work for 4-5 years. He has a few things of value to say, but he slathers them in too much filler and churns out "books" (they make the same point with small variations). To see what I'm talking about, have a gander at these previous threads[1][2]. (One of those threads also happens to be a New Yorker article; but that one was a fluff piece.) The article in question itself is better than I expected, frankly. I just wish he resisted using the click-bait word "mind" here. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29035674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29035674 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20082125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20082125

labrador 4y ago
Thanks for the info. He seems rather more lucid than some of the other writers and more in line with my thinking so I'll take him with a grain of salt as I familiarize myself with his writings. I don't think "mind" is the necessarily wrong word. When I was beat by a chess machine in 1981 I sensed an intelligence that felt like a mind. I didn't know anything about computers then. I imagine a lot of people are having that experience right now.
- b_emery 4y ago
  'Deep Work' and 'So good they can't ignore you' are his best works IMO, and worth reading if you're into applications of deliberate practice toward thinking types of work.