11–20 of 24 posts
>This is as Tolstoy tells us that it is sincerity that “separates art from its adulterations”. Therefore, if the artist did not truly experience the feelings, the piece of work they produce would not be sincere, and hence not art. LLMs have neurons relating to emotion.[0] It reasonably follows that generative art networks do too, which would make their art genuine by Tolstoy's definition. (I don't think he would have…
>This is as Tolstoy tells us that it is sincerity that “separates art from its adulterations”. Therefore, if the artist did not truly experience the feelings, the piece of work they produce would not be sincere, and hence not art. LLMs have neurons relating to emotion.[0] It reasonably follows that generative art networks do too, which would make their art genuine by Tolstoy's definition. (I don't think he would have…
LLMs have lines of code which statistically classify groupings of characters or pixels. It is concerning that this apparently requires saying, but they do not have neurons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs have lines of code which statistically classify groupings of characters or pixels. It is concerning that this apparently requires saying, but they do not have neurons.
It didn't require saying, and you're also wrong. They don't have physical neurons like a brain but they are made up of abstractions we all agree to call neurons
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't require saying, and you're also wrong. They don't have physical neurons like a brain but they are made up of abstractions we all agree to call neurons
Which works well and good until people start conflating them with real neurons, suggesting that an abstract nickname for a pattern of code is "experiencing" anything in the same way humans are. It very much required saying because the person I was responding to was suggesting this code genuinely met Tolstoy's definition, a conclusion you could not possibly come to unless you had some kind of grevious misconception.
Nice! I like this, not a connection I would have thought of! > Therefore, if the artist did not truly experience the feelings, the piece of work they produce would not be sincere, and hence not art. This also covers malicious attempts to produce a piece of art without having experienced the feelings. As the art is a successful representation of the agreed upon feelings, and the art is a Tolstoyan piece of art, the ar…
I don't think it is circular however, if you did not have any feelings and others got feelings from looking at what you did then you did not produce art. If they then went and produced some art based on the feelings they had received from the non-art you produced what they produced would be art.
It's not very well thought out, but not per se circular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which works well and good until people start conflating them with real neurons, suggesting that an abstract nickname for a pattern of code is "experiencing" anything in the same way humans are. It very much required saying because the person I was responding to was suggesting this code genuinely met Tolstoy's definition, a conclusion you could not possibly come to unless you had some kind of grevious misconception.
Their comment was thoughtful and at least added to conversation. Your comment is just "LLMs don't really have neurons" which is obvious to literally every user of this site including the person you're responding to. Much prefer their contributions over yours
I should add that though it should be, it is not obvious to every user on this site. Even ELIZA was sufficient for people to lose attachment with reality, and it doesn't help that an estimated trillion dollar company is intentionally muddying the waters, posting press releases about emotions, suggesting their model has a "soul", and musing about "model welfare". There are distressing numbers of people who genuinely believe and will argue that this code is perfectly analogous to human intelligence and emotion. Anthromorphic terminology becomes a problem when it is not understood to be metaphorical and fuels such delusions.
>This is as Tolstoy tells us that it is sincerity that “separates art from its adulterations”. Therefore, if the artist did not truly experience the feelings, the piece of work they produce would not be sincere, and hence not art. LLMs have neurons relating to emotion.[0] It reasonably follows that generative art networks do too, which would make their art genuine by Tolstoy's definition. (I don't think he would have…
LLMs have neurons related to things that cluster in a vector space, some of them are tokens that describe emotion (but that hypes less). It can be emotions or anything else, but in the end it's just tokens. Taking it to the extreme, an LLM can endlessly talk about self-transforming machine elves, but it certainly hasn't experienced them.
Nice! I like this, not a connection I would have thought of! > Therefore, if the artist did not truly experience the feelings, the piece of work they produce would not be sincere, and hence not art. This also covers malicious attempts to produce a piece of art without having experienced the feelings. As the art is a successful representation of the agreed upon feelings, and the art is a Tolstoyan piece of art, the ar…
Tolstoy is generally not thought of as a great critic or philosopher. I don't think it is circular however, if you did not have any feelings and others got feelings from looking at what you did then you did not produce art. If they then went and produced some art based on the feelings they had received from the non-art you produced what they produced would be art. It's not very well thought out, but not per se circul…
I guess what I meant was: the only way for art to meet one of the ZKP criteria is for us to assume it's art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tolstoy is generally not thought of as a great critic or philosopher. I don't think it is circular however, if you did not have any feelings and others got feelings from looking at what you did then you did not produce art. If they then went and produced some art based on the feelings they had received from the non-art you produced what they produced would be art. It's not very well thought out, but not per se circul…
Yes, good point! I guess what I meant was: the only way for art to meet one of the ZKP criteria is for us to assume it's art.