Philosophy Eats AI

> what counts as knowledge (epistemology), and how AI represents reality (ontology) also shape value creation.

As a skeptic with only a few drums to beat, my quasi-philosophical complaint about LLMs: we have a rampant problem where humans confuse a character they perceive out of a text-document with a real-world author.

In all these hyped-products, you are actually being given the "and then Mr. Robot said" lines from a kind of theater-script. This document grows as your contribution is inserted as "Mr. User says", plus whatever the LLM author calculates "fits next."

So all these excited articles about how SomethingAI has learned deceit or self-interest? Nah, they're really probing how well it assembles text (learned from ones we make) where we humans can perceive a fictional character which exhibits those qualities. That can including qualities we absolutely know the real-world LLM does not have.

It's extremely impressive compared to where we used to be, but not the same.

Philosophy eats AI because we're in the exploration phase of the s-curve and there's a whole bunch of VC money pumping into the space. When we switch to an extraction regime, we can expect a lot of these conversations to evaporate and replaced with, "what makes us the most money" regardless of philosophic implication.

> The critical enterprise challenge is whether leaders will possess the self-awareness and rigor to use philosophy as a resource for creating value with AI

what the fuck. they haven't even done that with post 90's technology in general and it's not only that no intelligent person wants to work among them that they will fall just as short with AI. I'm still grateful they are doing a job.

but please, a dying multitude right at your feet and all you need to save - so you can learn even more from - them in your hands and you scale images, build drones for cleaning at home and war and imitate to replace people who love or need their jobs.

and faking all those AI gains - deceit, self-interest and what not - is so ridiculously obvious just build-in linguistics that can be read from a paper by someone who does not even speak that language. it's "just" parameters and conditional logic, cool and fancy and ready to eat up and digest almost any variation of user input, but it's nowhere even close to intelligence, let alone artificial intelligence.

philosophy eats nothing. there's those on all fours waiting for whatever gives them status and recognition and those who, thankfully, stay silent to not give those leaders more tools of power.

That's one of the things. Even in human-written fiction, the depths of any character you read about is pure smoke and mirrors. People regularly perceive fictional characters as if they are real people (and it's fun to do so), but it would be impossible for an author to simulate a complete human being in their head.

It seems that LLMs operate a lot like I would in improv. In a scene, I might add, "This is the fifth time you've driven your car into a ditch this year." I don't know what the earlier four times were like. No one there had any idea I was even going to say that. I just say it as a method of increasing stakes and creating the illusion of history in order to serve a narrative purpose. I'll often include real facts to serve the verisimilitude of a scene, but I don't have time to do real fact checking. I need to keep the momentum going and will gladly make up facts as a suits the narrative and my character.

The world is becoming an algorithm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creepy_Line Algorithms create a compression of search values not unlike a Cartesian plane.

The question is, will more people embrace the Cartesian compression of ubiquitous internet communication?