4 ms·
There is no intent in words in and of themselves. Intent always comes from something specific tied to neural syntax, which is lost in words. That's an illusion.
by Mallowram 1y ago
There is no intent in words in and of themselves. Intent always comes from something specific tied to neural syntax, which is lost in words. That's an illusion. There is intensionality, which is different, which is what you're actually talking about. Intensionality is vague, it's not meaningful without context.
The problem automating words is AI can't solve the conduit metaphor, which is the idea the words alone code meaning. They can't. This is the achilles heel of AI.
- realitydrift 1y ago[flagged]
- Mallowram 1y agoIn 1973 Basil Bernstein studied how UK scores in math defied class boundaries while scores in reading comprehension/essays stayed tied to them, and he developed a theory with Halliday that language embeds so much that we cannot decipher easily: dominance, status, control, land-centering, gender/mate-selection, and much more, that they assumed language was far more a social system of primate-simian signaling rather than what Shannon and classical linguists took as "communication". My guess is, LLMs are really unresolvable revelations of these hidden nuances. In a way, LLMs demand a specific language, which doesn't exist, in order to function.
- realitydrift 1y ago[flagged]
- Mallowram 1y agoRather the opposite, that language is about social structure primarily and propositional secondarily.