3 ms·
In a way the opposite, I'd say: the archetypes in Plato are the most stable reality and are akin to the logos that the past and future tradition hunted - knowin
by mdp2021 2y ago
In a way the opposite, I'd say: the archetypes in Plato are the most stable reality and are akin to the logos that the past and future tradition hunted - knowing it is to know how things are (how things work), hence knowledge of the state of things, hence a faithful world model.
To utter conformist statements spawned from surface statistics would be "doxa" - repeating "opinions".
- marcosdumay 2y agoIt has a profound and extensive knowledge about something. But that "something" is how words follow each other on popular media. LLMs are very firmly stuck inside the Cave Allegory.
- mdp2021 2y agoIf you mean that just like the experiencer in the cave, seeing shadows instead of things (really, things instead of Ideas), the machine sees words instead of things, that would be in a way very right. But we could argue it could not be impossible to create an ontology (a very descriptive ontology - "this is said to be that, and that, and that...") from language alone. Hence the question whether the ontology is there. (Actually, the question at this stage remains: "How do they work - in sufficient detail? Why the appearance of some understanding?")
- marcosdumay 2y agoYeah, what I'm saying is that something very similar to an ontology is there. (It's incomplete but extensive, not coherent, and it's deeper in details than anything anybody ever created.) It's just that it's a kind of a useless ontology, because the reality it's describing is language. Well, only "kind of useless" because it should be very useful to parse, synthesize and transform language. But it doesn't have the kind of "knowledge" that most people expect an intelligence to have. Also, its world isn't only composed of words. All of them got a very strong "Am I fooling somebody?" signal during training.