2 ms·

> Goo goo ga ga level civilization You’re not being open minded here. Our traditional languages are so inefficient at actually conveying information. Whenever

> Goo goo ga ga level civilization You’re not being open minded here. Our traditional languages are so inefficient at actually conveying information. Whenever we try to explain very complicated concepts, we always dumb it down to very basic illustrations like philosopher’s diners or ice cream stands explain complex actor model. This is necessary for intuition because using parsing “adult” language at this level is extremely hard. I think what OP meant is that we will have more of this. LLMs have opened up more possibilities in how we convey information to one another. Why _should_ we stick to English? Why can’t we all converse in generated images, real-time generated videos and illustrations? For example, instead of having PDFs, slides, Jupyter notebooks or whatever for class material. We will instead of 1000 long line of unreadable and undecipherable prompt to an LLM that will generate that course content that you can talk and interact with?

eternalban 3y ago
Conjuring a group of philosophers together with the intermittent (fork - plate) cycle is a subtle structural setup. There is thought behind that gestalt of simple elements that started off in a thicket of complexity. That thought is also the product of collaboration over time by experts. Finally, at the end of that discourse, someone reduced it to its essential complexity and showed applicability to general patterns of interaction. None of that is child talk. OP started off on a promising note and one hoped that he would start playing the song of 'vector languages' for machine intelligence -- but alas, he then started singing out of tune. > You’re not being open minded here. Unfair. Rather may I suggest you did not read carefully. I did say "civilization". In a civilization, you will need both teachers and students; thinkers, and readers. What language will the thinkers use? "Explaining" is a concern regarding established results. What about deriving new results? (See above)
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  > Language is a repository of cultural memory broken down to composable bits. So we already have examples of discourse in which we alternate natural language with some other, more formal, language: english with formulae (math), english with tabs [less formal] or staff notation [more formal] (music criticism), english with a set of images with formal denotations (memes), etc. Even Montaigne's essays (which were attempts at deriving results, not just explaining established ones) somewhat follow the pattern in that at times they alternate french with classical quotations. I hope —I think along with eternalban and Hermann Hesse— that we may see the introduction of new combinators, new forms of composition, that are general enough to serve both as explanations of established thought and tools of generating new thought. (cf Aristotle Organon)
  - eternalban 3y ago
    (Glasperlenspiel? A favorite of mine.) > generating new thought I was beguiled yesterday (reflecting on our chattering mechanical friends) with the idea (new for me) that production of 'thought' doesn't necessarily require a 'thinker'. It's just that we thinkers -- that is the HomoSapiens -- have only known of production of thought as thinkers, and assumed there is 'thinking' involved. (This is what is causing the confusion in some granting GPT the coveted 'thinker' and 'thinking' status.) If that is the case, then we have misnamed 'thought': It was always nothing more than a proposition, but we assumed it was intimately connected with the experience of thinking.
    - 082349872349872 3y ago
      > Glasperlenspiel? Genau. I especially appreciate how millefiori glass beads are a physical incarnation of the literary device of quoting other works... > If that is the case, then we have misnamed 'thought': It was always nothing more than a proposition, but we assumed it was intimately connected with the experience of thinking. That makes a great deal of sense to me; in that world 'thinking' is like imperative small-step operational semantics, while 'thought' would correspond with functional big-step denotational semantics. The former suffices to produce the latter, but is by no means necessary.

eternalban 3y ago

Conjuring a group of philosophers together with the intermittent (fork - plate) cycle is a subtle structural setup. There is thought behind that gestalt of simple elements that started off in a thicket of complexity. That thought is also the product of collaboration over time by experts. Finally, at the end of that discourse, someone reduced it to its essential complexity and showed applicability to general patterns of interaction. None of that is child talk. OP started off on a promising note and one hoped that he would start playing the song of 'vector languages' for machine intelligence -- but alas, he then started singing out of tune. > You’re not being open minded here. Unfair. Rather may I suggest you did not read carefully. I did say "civilization". In a civilization, you will need both teachers and students; thinkers, and readers. What language will the thinkers use? "Explaining" is a concern regarding established results. What about deriving new results? (See above)

082349872349872 3y ago
> Language is a repository of cultural memory broken down to composable bits. So we already have examples of discourse in which we alternate natural language with some other, more formal, language: english with formulae (math), english with tabs [less formal] or staff notation [more formal] (music criticism), english with a set of images with formal denotations (memes), etc. Even Montaigne's essays (which were attempts at deriving results, not just explaining established ones) somewhat follow the pattern in that at times they alternate french with classical quotations. I hope —I think along with eternalban and Hermann Hesse— that we may see the introduction of new combinators, new forms of composition, that are general enough to serve both as explanations of established thought and tools of generating new thought. (cf Aristotle Organon)
- eternalban 3y ago
  (Glasperlenspiel? A favorite of mine.) > generating new thought I was beguiled yesterday (reflecting on our chattering mechanical friends) with the idea (new for me) that production of 'thought' doesn't necessarily require a 'thinker'. It's just that we thinkers -- that is the HomoSapiens -- have only known of production of thought as thinkers, and assumed there is 'thinking' involved. (This is what is causing the confusion in some granting GPT the coveted 'thinker' and 'thinking' status.) If that is the case, then we have misnamed 'thought': It was always nothing more than a proposition, but we assumed it was intimately connected with the experience of thinking.
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    > Glasperlenspiel? Genau. I especially appreciate how millefiori glass beads are a physical incarnation of the literary device of quoting other works... > If that is the case, then we have misnamed 'thought': It was always nothing more than a proposition, but we assumed it was intimately connected with the experience of thinking. That makes a great deal of sense to me; in that world 'thinking' is like imperative small-step operational semantics, while 'thought' would correspond with functional big-step denotational semantics. The former suffices to produce the latter, but is by no means necessary.