[FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity

Marcus Daniels marcus at snoutfarm.com
Sat Mar 23 12:41:56 EDT 2024


$ sort | uniq -c | sort -n 

 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 7:22 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity

 

Quantifying Uniquity? I don't remember if I've publicly anecdotalized it but I first learned about the Drake Equation from a LASL (now LANL) old-timer (who was not there but was at least one (Bacon-Erdos) degree of indirection from the event) in about 1982 whilst standing in the location where Enrico Fermi first posed the paradox... I suspect the location was traded out several times (like Lincoln's or Washington's Axe or the Ship of Theseus) until I was in a quonset hut lunchroom that may well not have even been manufactured, much less erected in 1950 when 

Fermi first postulated his paradox? 

Me: what I was asking for (of GPT below) perhaps was a "drake equation" for uniquity (uniqueness)?

U=P×D×C×I×S×A

For anyone interested in reflecting on the factors in the product, here is my personal (qualitative)estimation:

P(t)=Population is a low-exponent exponential (the product of population growth in the world and the increased literacy within the population)
D(t)=Diversity might be a decreasing factor as globalization and other factors assimilate diverse intellectual traditions get assimilated or extincted.
C(t)= Connectivity might be growing combinatorically thanks to various factors ranging from socio-cultural mixing to telecommunications technology explosion (qualitative and quantitative)
I(t) = Intensity.  I'm not sure I want to judge which sense or magnitude to associate... call it a wash?
S(t, gp) = Stability (function of time and geopolitics?) Another I don't want to judge,   I think S(gp) is a function of C and D?   I'll call it (another) wash for the purpose.
A(t) = Accessibility.  I believe that for the most part this is also a (supra)linear function over time... based primarily on C above?






ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Creating a "Drake Equation" for uniqueness—or "uniquity," as you've intriguingly termed it—would involve identifying the factors that contribute to the emergence of unique ideas or concepts, much like the Drake Equation does for extraterrestrial civilizations. While quantifying uniqueness in ideas is inherently more abstract than estimating the number of communicative civilizations in the galaxy, we can propose a framework inspired by the Drake Equation to explore this concept.

Let's define �U as the total number of unique, profound concepts that could potentially be generated within a given cultural or intellectual ecosystem over a specific period. We can then break down �U into several factors:

�=�×�×�×�×�×�U=P×D×C×I×S×A

Where:

*	�P = Population engaged in creative or intellectual pursuits.
*	�D = Diversity of thought within the population, representing different cultural, disciplinary, and individual perspectives.
*	�C = Connectivity among the population, reflecting the ability to share and combine ideas.
*	�I = Intensity of intellectual exploration, indicating how deeply individuals or societies engage with complex or abstract concepts.
*	�S = Stability of the environment, as both too much and too little can either stifle creativity or not give it enough ground to develop.
*	�A = Accessibility of information and educational resources, which fuel the generation of new ideas.


Explaining the Factors:


*	Population (P): More people potentially means more ideas, but sheer numbers don't guarantee uniqueness. This factor considers not just the global population but specifically those engaged in generating new concepts.
*	Diversity of Thought (D): This is crucial for uniqueness. A homogeneous group is less likely to generate radically new ideas compared to a diverse group with varied experiences, disciplines, and cultural backgrounds.
*	Connectivity (C): In today's world, connectivity is higher than ever, facilitating the rapid combination and evolution of ideas. However, the quality of connections matters as much as quantity.
*	Intensity (I): This reflects the depth of engagement with ideas. Societies or groups that encourage deep, philosophical, or speculative thinking are more likely to generate unique concepts.
*	Stability (S): A certain level of stability is necessary for complex ideas to develop and be preserved, but too much stability might prevent the emergence of radically new concepts.
*	Accessibility (A): Easy access to education, information, and intellectual resources empowers more of the population to contribute to the generation of unique ideas.


Considerations:


The "Drake Equation for Uniquity" is, of course, a theoretical and playful exploration rather than a precise mathematical model. The abstract nature of concepts and ideas, combined with the subjective criteria for what constitutes "uniqueness" or "profoundness," makes it challenging to apply strict numerical values to these factors. However, this framework highlights the complexity and interdependence of conditions that foster the creation of unique ideas, mirroring the way the Drake Equation conceptualizes the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

By exploring the components that might contribute to the generation of unique, profound concepts, we can appreciate the vast potential for creativity and innovation within and across societies, emphasizing the value of diversity, connectivity, and accessibility in enriching our intellectual and cultural landscapes.

Apologies for not being able to cut-paste HTML/CSS from GPT into mail more effectively...

 

On 3/22/24 2:50 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

"Unique in a qualified manner"? 

FWIW, I prompted (Indra's Net edition) and sent my DALL-E images before I read Dave's entry into this fray...   

I have beat GPT and Gemini around the head and shoulders a bit at times to try to get it to expose it's own East/West (or hopefully more subtle and gradated) distribution of knowledge/training/???   but mostly I'd say it reports (given I have the same intrinsic myopias) on "Western" views of "Eastern" thought.

I do wonder if DaveW or anyone else here with more interest or qualifications than I has explored the bi(multi?)modal distribution in the LLMs?

I know EricS at the very least has some significant grounding in linguistics (and semiotics?) and perhaps perspective on the socio cultural implications of language constructions, etc. which might be evidenced in LLMs as-trained by our tech-billionaire (wannabes?) 

 

On 3/22/24 12:07 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:

Are you saying it's unique to a degree? ;-)

 

 

 

____________________________________________
CEO Founder, Simtable.com
stephen.guerin at simtable.com <mailto:stephen.guerin at simtable.com>  

Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu <mailto:stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu> 

mobile: (505)577-5828

 

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 9:31 AM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm <mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm> > wrote:

this is 'unique' only if you exclude Vedic, Buddhist, Taoist, ... thought.

 

davew

 

 

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, at 9:54 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:

Prompt:

Express a unique concept. Make it as profound as possible

 

https://chat.openai.com/share/649bd4ca-f856-451e-83a2-01fc2cfe47fb

 

 

 

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 6:50 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com> > wrote:

I guess the question returns to one's criteria for assuming decoupling between the very [small|fast] and the very [large|slow]. Or in this case, the inner vs. the outer:

 

Susie Alegre on how digital technology undermines free thought

https://freethinker.co.uk/2024/03/interview-susie-alegre/

 

It would be reasonable for Frank to argue that we can generate the space of possible context definitions, inductively, from the set of token definitions, much like an LLM might. Ideally, you could then measure the expressiveness of those inferred contexts/languages and choose the largest (most complete; by induction, each context/language *should* be self-consistent so we shouldn't have to worry about that).

 

And if that's how things work (I'm not saying it is), then those "attractors" with the finest granularity (very slow to emerge, very resistant to dissolution) would be the least novel. Novelty (uniqueness) might then be defined in terms of fragility, short half-life, missable opportunity. But that would also argue that novelty is either less *real* or that the universe/context/language is very *open* and the path from fragile to robust obtains like some kind of Hebbian reinforcement, use it or lose it, win the hearts and minds or dissipate to nothing.

 

I.e. there is no such thing as free thought. Thought can't decouple from social manipulation.

 

On 3/21/24 13:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> In the LLM example, completions from some starting state or none, have specific probabilities.   An incomplete yet-unseen (unique) utterance would be completed based on prior probabilities of individual tokens.

> 

> I agree that raw materialist uniqueness won't necessarily or often override constraints of a situation.  For example, if an employer instructs an employee how to put a small, lightweight product in a box, label it, and send it to a customer by UPS, the individual differences metabolism of the employees aren't likely to matter much when shipping more small, lightweight objects to other customers.   It could be the case for a professor and student too.   The attractors come from the instruction or the curriculum.  One choice constrains the next.

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> > On Behalf Of glen

> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:50 AM

> To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> 

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity

> 

> I was arguing with that same friend yesterday at the pub. I was trying to describe how some of us have more cognitive power than others (he's one of them). Part of it is "free" power, freed up by his upper middle class white good diet privilege. But if we allow that some of it might be genetic, then that's a starting point for deciding when novelty matters to the ephemerides of two otherwise analogical individuals (or projects if projects have an analog to genetics). Such things are well-described in twin studies. One twin suffers some PTSD the other doesn't and ... boom ... their otherwise lack of uniqueness blossoms into uniqueness.

> 

> His objection was that even identical twins are not identical. They were already unique ... like the Pauli Exclusion Principle or somesuch nonsense. Even though it's a bit of a ridiculous argument, I could apply it to your sense of avoiding non-novel attractors. No 2 attractors will be identical. And no 1 attractor will be unique. So those are moot issues. Distinctions without differences, maybe. Woit's rants are legendary. But some of us find happiness in wasteful sophistry.

> 

> What matters is *how* things are the same and how they differ. Their qualities and values (nearly) orthogonal to novelty.

> 

> 

> On 3/21/24 11:29, Marcus Daniels wrote:

>> If GPT systems capture some sense of "usual" context based on trillions of internet tokens, and that corpus is regarded approximately "global context", then it seems not so objectionable to call "unusual", new training items that contribute to fine-tuning loss.

>> 

>> It seems reasonable to worry that ubiquitous GPT systems reduce social entropy by encouraging copying instead of new thinking, but it could also have the reverse effect:  If I am immediately aware that an idea is not novel, I may avoid attractors that agents that wrongly believe they are "independent" will gravitate toward.

>> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> > On Behalf Of glen

>> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:49 AM

>> To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> 

>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity

>> 

>> A friend of mine constantly reminds me that language is dynamic, not fixed in stone from a billion years ago. So, if you find others consistently using a term in a way that you think is wrong, then *you* are wrong in what you think. The older I get, the more difficult it gets.

>> 

>> But specifically, the technical sense of "unique" is vanishingly rare ... so rare as to be merely an ideal, unverifiable, nowhere, non-existent. So if the "unique" is imaginary, unreal, and doesn't exist, why not co-opt it for a more useful, banal purpose? Nothing is actually unique. So we'll use the token "unique" to mean (relatively) rare.

>> 

>> And "unusual" is even worse. Both tokens require one to describe the context, domain, or universe within which the discussion is happening. If you don't define your context, then the "definitions" you provide for the components of that context are not even wrong; they're nonsense. "Unusual" implies a usual. And a usual implies a perspective ... a mechanism of action for your sampling technique. So "unusual" presents even more of a linguistic *burden* than "unique".

>> 

>> On 3/20/24 13:14, Frank Wimberly wrote:

>>> What's wrong with "unusual"?  It avoids the problem.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 1:55 PM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>  <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com> >> wrote:

>>>> 

>>>>       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"?

> 

 

 

-- 

ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

 

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .

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/

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .

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/

 

 

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/





-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/





-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/20240323/7cb9f431/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5594 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240323/7cb9f431/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the Friam mailing list