[FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 20 16:14:16 EDT 2024
What's wrong with "unusual"? It avoids the problem.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 1:55 PM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/20/24 12:54 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>
> Everyday as I am listening to CNN I say, "There are no degrees of
> uniqueness," multiple times.
>
>
> I'm hung up on the usage of qualified "uniqueness" as well, but in
> perhaps the opposite sense.
>
> I agree with the premise that "unique" in it's purest, simplest form does
> seem to be inherently singular. On the other hand, this mal(icious)
> propensity of qualifying uniqueness (uniqueish?) is so common, that I have
> to believe there is a concept there which people who use those terms are
> reaching for. They are not wrong to reach for it, just annoying in the
> label they choose?
>
> I had a round with GPT4 trying to discuss this, not because I think LLMs
> are the authority on *anything* but rather because the discussions I have
> with them can help me brainstorm my way around ideas with the LLM nominally
> representing "what a lot of people say" (if not think). Careful prompting
> seems to be able to help narrow down *all people* (in the training data)
> to different/interesting subsets of *lots of people* with certain
> characteristics.
>
> GPT4 definitely wanted to allow for a wide range of gradated, speciated,
> spectral uses of "unique" and gave me plenty of commonly used examples
> which validates my position that "for something so obviously/technically
> incorrect, it sure is used a lot!"
>
> We discussed uniqueness in the context of evolutionary biology and
> cladistics and homology and homoplasy. We discussed it in terms of cluster
> analysis. We discussed the distinction between objective and subjective,
> absolute and relative.
>
> The closest thing to a conclusion I have at the moment is:
>
> 1. Most people do and will continue to treat "uniqueness" as a
> relative/spectral/subjective qualifier.
> 2. Many people like Frank and myself (half the time) will have an
> allergic reaction to this usage.
> 3. The common (mis)usage might be attributable to conflating "unique"
> with "distinct"?
>
> - Steve
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> 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/20240320/773ae98f/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list