111–120 of 159 posts
This is really, really, good. Ignore the commenters in this thread who don’t see the connections. It takes a very high degree of artistic creativity and linguistic imagination to see these types of connections, and many of the “engineer types” on this forum are unfamiliar with that mode of thinking. Ignore them. Every one of these connected threads are really good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I saw that the trail goes through just one word like "Us/Them", "fictions" I thought it might be more useful if the trail went through concepts.
The links drawn between the books are “weaker than weak” (to quote Little Richard). This is akin to just thumbing the a book and saying, “oh, look, they used the word fracture and this other book used the word crumble, let’s assign a theme.” It’s a cool idea, but fails in the execution.
¹ Oh, that's just LLMs in general? Cool!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't doubt there is a difference in the mechanism of arriving at a given connection. What I think it's not possible to distinguish is the connection that someone made intuitively after reading many sources and the one that the AI makes, because both will have to undergo scrutiny before being accepted as relevant. We can argue there could be a difference in quality, depth and search space, maybe, but I don't think…
The one that you thought of in the shower has a much greater chance of being right, and also of being relevant to you.
This is a beautiful piece of work. The actual data or outputs seem to be more or less...trash? Maybe too strong a word. But perhaps you are outsourcing too much critical thought to a statistical model. We are all guilty of it. But some of these are egregious, obviously referential LLM dog. The world has more going on than whatever these models seem to believe. Edit/update: if you are looking for the phantom thread be…
Take for example the OODA loop. How are the connections made here of any use? Seems like the words are semantically related but the concept are not. And even if they are, so what?
I am missing the so what.
Now imagine a human had read all these books. It would have come up with something new, I’m pretty sure about that.
"There are, you see, two ways of reading a book: you either see it as a box with something inside and start looking for what it signifies, and then if you're even more perverse or depraved you set off after signifiers. And you treat the next book like a box contained in the first or containing it. And you annotate and interpret and question, and write a book about the book, and so on and on. Or there's the other way:…
I am not familiar with the source of this quote, but I don't disagree, it is just incredibly reductive. Gilles Deleuze him-/her-self was not born and did not live in a vacuum. They were influenced and mimetically reproduced ideas they were exposed to, like we all do. I don't find the point of this project meaningless myself. The opposite in fact. But the results are not accurate for anyone who has actually read any o…
This is an IQ test lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
give it a more thorough look maybe? https://trails.pieterma.es/trail/collective-brain/ is great
This is a software engineering forum. Most of the engineer types here lack the critical education needed to appreciate this sort of thing. I have a literary education and I’m actually shocked at how good most of these threads are.
wow I hope the bubble pops soon.. now that you discovered books with AI that was illegally trained on them, how about reading them?