3 ms·
How much power and control do we assume we have in determining the ultimate purpose or "end goal" (telos) of large language models? Assuming teleological essen
by kelseyfrog 1y ago
How much power and control do we assume we have in determining the ultimate purpose or "end goal" (telos) of large language models?
Assuming teleological essentialism is real, where does the telos come from? How much of it comes from the creators? If there are other sources, what are they and what's the mechanism of transfer?
- gchamonlive 1y agoLLMs by themselves are pretty useless, it's only during inference where they produce potentially valuable output. So the analysis of causality isn't just exclusive to the LLM, but the combination of the model and prompt. So there is some cause and influence by the models biases, or its essence if you must, but the prompt takes an important role too. I believe it's important for companies to figure this out, but for me personally I'm not interested at all in this balance. What I'm interested in is how I can use these models as an extension of myself. And I'm also interested in showing people around me how they could do the same.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoIt's a bit difficult to understand how your comment responds to the teleology of LLMs. Can you please clarify?
- gchamonlive 1y agoI said it's important for companies, but for me I'm more interest in how it functions for me personally, for the average consumer.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoIt sounds like you're trying to respond to another comment thread.
- gchamonlive 1y agoMore like you are unable to pose your questions clearly. The "end goal" you are assuming to be essential, isn't. It's essential for those profiting from them. For the average consumer the only concern is how it behaves and what they can do with it. That is, the teleology is post hoc, it comes after the fact, not before, which means it isn't essential.