<div dir="auto"><div>Are you saying it's unique to a degree? ;-)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">____________________________________________<br>CEO Founder, Simtable.com<br><a href="mailto:stephen.guerin@simtable.com">stephen.guerin@simtable.com</a> <br><br>Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab<br><a href="mailto:stephenguerin@fas.harvard.edu">stephenguerin@fas.harvard.edu</a><br><br>mobile: (505)577-5828</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 9:31 AM Prof David West <<a href="mailto:profwest@fastmail.fm">profwest@fastmail.fm</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u><div><div style="font-family:Arial">this is 'unique' only if you exclude Vedic, Buddhist, Taoist, ... thought.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial">davew<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial"><br></div><div>On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, at 9:54 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="m_-1358957021482259866qt"><div dir="auto"><div>Prompt:<br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(236,236,236);background-color:rgb(33,33,33)"><span style="font-family:söhne,ui-sans-serif,"system-ui",-apple-system,"segoe ui",roboto,ubuntu,cantarell,"noto sans",sans-serif,"helvetica neue",arial,"apple color emoji","segoe ui emoji","segoe ui symbol","noto color emoji""><span style="font-size:16px">Express a unique concept. Make it as profound as possible</span></span></span><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="color:rgb(236,236,236);background-color:rgb(33,33,33)"><span style="font-family:söhne,ui-sans-serif,"system-ui",-apple-system,"segoe ui",roboto,ubuntu,cantarell,"noto sans",sans-serif,"helvetica neue",arial,"apple color emoji","segoe ui emoji","segoe ui symbol","noto color emoji""><span style="font-size:16px"></span></span></span><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://chat.openai.com/share/649bd4ca-f856-451e-83a2-01fc2cfe47fb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://chat.openai.com/share/649bd4ca-f856-451e-83a2-01fc2cfe47fb</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 6:50 AM glen <<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">gepropella@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>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:<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Susie Alegre on how digital technology undermines free thought<br></div><div> <a href="https://freethinker.co.uk/2024/03/interview-susie-alegre/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://freethinker.co.uk/2024/03/interview-susie-alegre/</a><br></div><div> <br></div><div> 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).<br></div><div> <br></div><div> 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.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> I.e. there is no such thing as free thought. Thought can't decouple from social manipulation.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> On 3/21/24 13:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br></div><div> > 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.<br></div><div> > <br></div><div> > 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.<br></div><div> > <br></div><div> > -----Original Message-----<br></div><div> > From: Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>> On Behalf Of glen<br></div><div> > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:50 AM<br></div><div> > To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">friam@redfish.com</a><br></div><div> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity<br></div><div> > <br></div><div> > 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.<br></div><div> > <br></div><div> > 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.<br></div><div> > <br></div><div> > What matters is *how* things are the same and how they differ. Their qualities and values (nearly) orthogonal to novelty.<br></div><div> > <br></div><div> > <br></div><div> > On 3/21/24 11:29, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br></div><div> >> 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.<br></div><div> >><br></div><div> >> 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.<br></div><div> >><br></div><div> >> -----Original Message-----<br></div><div> >> From: Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>> On Behalf Of glen<br></div><div> >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:49 AM<br></div><div> >> To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">friam@redfish.com</a><br></div><div> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity<br></div><div> >><br></div><div> >> 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.<br></div><div> >><br></div><div> >> 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.<br></div><div> >><br></div><div> >> 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".<br></div><div> >><br></div><div> >> On 3/20/24 13:14, Frank Wimberly wrote:<br></div><div> >>> What's wrong with "unusual"? It avoids the problem.<br></div><div> >>><br></div><div> >>><br></div><div> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 1:55 PM Steve Smith <<a href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">sasmyth@swcp.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">sasmyth@swcp.com</a>>> wrote:<br></div><div> >>>><br></div><div> >>>> I'm hung up on the usage of qualified "uniqueness" as well, but in perhaps the opposite sense.<br></div><div> >>>><br></div><div> >>>> 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?<br></div><div> >>>><br></div><div> >>>> 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.<br></div><div> >>>><br></div><div> >>>> 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!"<br></div><div> >>>><br></div><div> >>>> 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.<br></div><div> >>>><br></div><div> >>>> The closest thing to a conclusion I have at the moment is:<br></div><div> >>>><br></div><div> >>>> 1. Most people do and will continue to treat "uniqueness" as a relative/spectral/subjective qualifier.<br></div><div> >>>> 2. Many people like Frank and myself (half the time) will have an allergic reaction to this usage.<br></div><div> >>>> 3. The common (mis)usage might be attributable to conflating "unique" with "distinct"?<br></div><div> > <br></div><div> <br></div><div> <br></div><div> -- <br></div><div> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ<br></div><div> <br></div><div> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .<br></div><div> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br></div><div> to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></div><div> FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br></div><div> archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br></div><div> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br></div></blockquote></div><div>-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .<br></div><div>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div>Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br></div><div>to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></div><div>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br></div><div>archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br></div><div> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial"><br></div></div>-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</blockquote></div>