[FRIAM] Datasets as Experience

[Roger Critchlow]

broChatGPT?  we told them they needed more diversity in AI development
teams.

-- rec --

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 2:52 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> I am a little surprised that gaslighting / mansplaining would be so
> prevalent in the media sources used to train chatGPT.   Cold-blooded
> gaslighting occurs with some people, but in my experience disagreements
> amongst people don’t cycle that way.   People will get mad or disengage
> from conversation.   Maybe there is a simpler explanation why chatGPT fails
> in this way?
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2023 12:00 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Datasets as Experience
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've been in long-standing confusion about the meaning of "ethics". And
> almost without fail, if/when I say that to a group of people, particularly
> men, everyone jumps in and explains to me what they think it means.
>
> <let me try a little of my own mansplaining> As for "mansplaining", I find
> that there is a different mode (I find it different/complementary to proper
> mansplaining) which is to report the mental scattering that a particular
> word/phrase/concept generates in the receiver.  A collective
> free-associative exploration (worst case is random tangenting?  word-salad
> from a salad shooter instead of a nicely laid out salad bar or well
> constructed Cobb?).
>
> Maybe it is all on the same spectrum.  When tightly focused and (intended
> to be) coherent, it *becomes* mansplaining I think?   I am pretty sure that
> the concept (if not precisely the term) was first popularized in Rebecca
> Solnit's Men Explain things to me
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Explain_Things_to_Me>.
>
> She described being introduced to a man at a party who had just read her
> book (River of Shadows <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_of_Shadows>)
> on Muybridge's early stop-action photo work and motion studies.   The
> hostess was apparently fairly clear to the man that he was being introduced
> to the *author* of the book he was so taken with, but instead of hearing
> that I saw Solnit as his next victim to tell *all about* the subject of the
> book that he just read that she *wrote*.   As she tells it, the
> conversation ended without him ever twigging to the fact that when she
> tried to interrupt him, it was to tell him that *she* was the author (and
> would be happy to talk with him about the subject but probably didn't need
> a lecture on the content of her own book).   I don't know if her failing to
> clue him in was her own passive aggressive trick or if she really couldn't
> get a word in edgewise.  I've seen both things happen...   but her essay on
> this really moved me.  Her work/voice in general has been a great thing
> to/for me... FWIW.
>
> Of course, each of their explanations is different and often pairwise
> incommensurate. So, if they're sedate, by the end of the conversation, I
> can convince most people *they* don't know what "ethics" means, either. Add
> to that the implicit question of whether non-humans have ethics and the
> file metaphor (from paper to bits on disk to orchestrated bits on multiple
> disks to in-context learning modified bits on multiple disks), then that
> sentence is all over the map of possible meanings. That was supposed to be
> the point of my remark ... in the context of DaveW's question about the
> semantics of LLM workflows.
>
> I don't know if I'm coming around to what it is you mean when you talk
> about communication being an illusion, but it is a much more comfortable
> concept now than it was the first time I heard you say it.   Maybe you are
> getting through to me?  Is that communication?
>
> I'd ask what *co*-munnication and *commune*-ication might mean if not this
> highly-technical   transfer of
> mental-emotional-states-between-entities-via-serialization-and-tokenization
> ?   I tend to think of "communication" more as the process of
> seeking/building resonance in many modes across many entities...  though
> this is probably not a definition most here want to use...
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20230209/7f4dbc84/attachment.html>