27 ms·

I dislike how LLMs are causing lay people to recapitulate the debates about private language that have been had in the philosophy of language community. At firs

by ttpphd 3y ago

I dislike how LLMs are causing lay people to recapitulate the debates about private language that have been had in the philosophy of language community. At first I was so excited that people were talking about one of my favorite topics (finally! My niche interest! People care!) but it became clear that people were doing way more talking than reading and thinking, so the conversations are typically not that great. If you thought that this blog post had provocative ideas, you might be interested in reading some of Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy of language or Roy Harris's work on integrationist linguistics. These ideas have been debated for a long time.

jasode 3y ago
>If you thought that this blog post had provocative ideas, you might be interested in reading some of Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy of language Yes, I've mentioned Wittgenstein before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27650343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27650343 The older writings about language/linguistics are mostly about observing misunderstandings -- or -- complaining that progress isn't being made in philosophy because people (unknowingly) use different definitions of the same word. They weren't talking about any new yet-to-be-invented machines to bridge the gap of misunderstandings -- and understandably so because they lived in a time before computer algorithms like Large Language Models existed. In contrast, because Venkatesh Rao is living right now in this LLM world (e.g. him playing with ChatGPT/GPT4/Berduck/etc), he's revising his prior opinion about evolution of communication. This thread's blog post is talking about new possibilities of technology enabling a more direct understanding. Maybe it's a poorly written blog post and maybe his prediction won't happen. In any case, I'm just trying to explain what the article's is about since some readers seem to misunderstand it. (E.g. some readers may think he's a misanthrope detached from real human interaction but his article is actually envisioning future scenarios of the opposite situation!) EDIT reply to: >Like I said there is a whole debate about the concept of private language that you are missing. And as I was trying to convey back to you, the previous "debates about private language" are not relevant to _this_ thread's article about future technology scenarios. His article is about predicting a technology trajectory, and not about philosophical debates. To use this very thread we're in as an example of the author's point: This thread's article was written by a high-IQ intelligent author. And you, the reader, is presumed to also be highly intelligent. And yet -- you seemingly misunderstood the core idea of what the author was trying to communicate. (E.g. You feel his article is low quality because it re-hashes "private language debates" already covered by previous philosophy). And to use a mirror assessment of the author's writing, he didn't string together the perfect sequence of chosen words to make his point easier to understand. So... can new technology (e.b. future improved LLMs) ... bridge that gap of misunderstanding ... between what the author wrote ... and your misinterpretation of it? Neither you nor the author are illiterate... and yet there's a gap between you and the author. Can a future technology help bridge that gap?
- bluepizza 3y ago
  Nice try, Mr. Rao. Btw, I'm a fan of your texts. The world is a bit better for the presence of someone willing to think deeply, and express themselves freely. The themes are always fascinating.
- ttpphd 3y ago
  >The older writings about language/linguistics are mostly about observing misunderstandings -- or -- complaining that progress isn't being made in philosophy because people (unknowingly) use different definitions of the same word. Uh... No. Like I said there is a whole debate about the concept of private language that you are missing.
- dS0rrow 3y ago
  > This thread's article was written by a high-IQ intelligent author. Does he also have a Mensa membership?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
082349872349872 3y ago
Re: Witttgenstein's philosophy of language, here is a finnish comedian's contribution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGksgZKecKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGksgZKecKE
- kalimanzaro 3y ago
  Comedians and (great) sci-fi authors: apex disruptors, intermittently disrupting the self-styled disruptor-disruptors (i.e., philosophers, or maybe more accurately, epistemologists)

by ttpphd 3y ago

jasode 3y ago

>If you thought that this blog post had provocative ideas, you might be interested in reading some of Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy of language Yes, I've mentioned Wittgenstein before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27650343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27650343 The older writings about language/linguistics are mostly about observing misunderstandings -- or -- complaining that progress isn't being made in philosophy because people (unknowingly) use different definitions of the same word. They weren't talking about any new yet-to-be-invented machines to bridge the gap of misunderstandings -- and understandably so because they lived in a time before computer algorithms like Large Language Models existed. In contrast, because Venkatesh Rao is living right now in this LLM world (e.g. him playing with ChatGPT/GPT4/Berduck/etc), he's revising his prior opinion about evolution of communication. This thread's blog post is talking about new possibilities of technology enabling a more direct understanding. Maybe it's a poorly written blog post and maybe his prediction won't happen. In any case, I'm just trying to explain what the article's is about since some readers seem to misunderstand it. (E.g. some readers may think he's a misanthrope detached from real human interaction but his article is actually envisioning future scenarios of the opposite situation!) EDIT reply to: >Like I said there is a whole debate about the concept of private language that you are missing. And as I was trying to convey back to you, the previous "debates about private language" are not relevant to _this_ thread's article about future technology scenarios. His article is about predicting a technology trajectory, and not about philosophical debates. To use this very thread we're in as an example of the author's point: This thread's article was written by a high-IQ intelligent author. And you, the reader, is presumed to also be highly intelligent. And yet -- you seemingly misunderstood the core idea of what the author was trying to communicate. (E.g. You feel his article is low quality because it re-hashes "private language debates" already covered by previous philosophy). And to use a mirror assessment of the author's writing, he didn't string together the perfect sequence of chosen words to make his point easier to understand. So... can new technology (e.b. future improved LLMs) ... bridge that gap of misunderstanding ... between what the author wrote ... and your misinterpretation of it? Neither you nor the author are illiterate... and yet there's a gap between you and the author. Can a future technology help bridge that gap?

bluepizza 3y ago
Nice try, Mr. Rao. Btw, I'm a fan of your texts. The world is a bit better for the presence of someone willing to think deeply, and express themselves freely. The themes are always fascinating.
ttpphd 3y ago
>The older writings about language/linguistics are mostly about observing misunderstandings -- or -- complaining that progress isn't being made in philosophy because people (unknowingly) use different definitions of the same word. Uh... No. Like I said there is a whole debate about the concept of private language that you are missing.
dS0rrow 3y ago
> This thread's article was written by a high-IQ intelligent author. Does he also have a Mensa membership?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

082349872349872 3y ago

Re: Witttgenstein's philosophy of language, here is a finnish comedian's contribution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGksgZKecKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGksgZKecKE

kalimanzaro 3y ago
Comedians and (great) sci-fi authors: apex disruptors, intermittently disrupting the self-styled disruptor-disruptors (i.e., philosophers, or maybe more accurately, epistemologists)