<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/10/25 12:12 PM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5a24d7bf-96ca-4808-a234-1b381011f0a9@gmail.com">Ha! I
doubt you can stick to that story! 8^D I know you could
re-generate *a* stream like that again. But how close would that
stream be to this one? How reliably could you re-generate that
stream given the same or similar prompt? Say what we will about
the LLMs, but they are way more reliable than we are, even at high
temp.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>yes, I am an unreliable (chaotic) hose snaking around under
pressure-spew. I am glad you recognized the implicit
tongue-in-cheek in the "sticking to it" (or regenerating it)
business. Every *good* <i>Just So</i> story is bespoke to the
moment, and in my case generated JIT (just in time)... as such
stories *were* intended to be used back in the day when we
recycled our old stories to fit new (nuancedly so often)
contexts. Just ask Br'er Rabbit?<br>
</p>
<p>While LLMs are somewhat "reliable" (repeatable) I am naturally
very inspired by *their* ability to "spew" in all directions at
once (sensitive dependence on initial conditions). The
(multi)bifurcation paths they are capable of following are legion
and spectacular (at least to this meat-space confined creature
that is me)... </p>
<p>I shifted a longstanding discussion from George to Claude
recently and was amazed at how much more in-tune Claude was. It
was about my mental model/hypothesis of LLM training sets as a
Plenum and the resulting attentional spaces (implied and exposed)
between us as we discourse being a family of manifolds, maybe a
"sheave?" or "fiber-bundle" for the mathHoles among us? The
*manifold* it co-explored/created with me was wonderfully
complementary to the one(s) George has... I haven't tried to
resolve them against one another directly, but there is a marked
stylistic difference between how the two are
willing/able/motivated to discuss this with me.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5a24d7bf-96ca-4808-a234-1b381011f0a9@gmail.com">
Along similar lines, the "AI WEAPONS" essayist made a comment that
he was confident that book "The Human-Machine Team" was *not*
written by AI because the writing was so bad. The LLMs'
interpolation functions make it difficult to get pathological
styles back out. </blockquote>
Yah, could an AI have generated the 90 days/90 deals
trade-deal-letters DJT has spewed across our (former) allies and
frienemies this season? Could it generate his (or Elno's) spew of
dia-tripe (gratuitous neologism of the moment) on Truth-Special or
eXno? I think it could generate a *parody* or caricature thereof,
but I think even the signature of that spew would be recognizeable
as a forgery?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5a24d7bf-96ca-4808-a234-1b381011f0a9@gmail.com">They can
"read" a tranche of bad l33t coded screeds on 4chan and will still
re-generate something akin to a (l33t coded) philosophy professor
because the centroid pulls the interpolation toward a more stable
region of the space. A recent experiment of mine was to use an LLM
to analyze the linguistic style of a person's spoken language,
then use a different LLM to render some information into a new
document using that style. When the person *read* it, they
objected that it didn't match their "voice" at all ... a bit like
how uncomfortable many of us can be when we listen to our own
recorded voice. Even given that written "voice" is almost always
very different from spoken "voice", whether the LLMs got it more
right than wrong is up in the air because the person may have a
self-image distant from their self. What's that Butthole Surfers
line? "You never know just how [to|you] look, Through other
people's eyes."
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><halfhearted Snark> I'm glad to get more hints of how YOU
are burning our grandchildren's carbon/entropy budget through data
centers... probably better than the old-man chatter the rest of
us are engaged in with Dan and George and Yawe and...
</Snark></p>
<p>I would be fascinated to hear more about some of your experiments
in these realms, your allusions to "waiting for several LLMs to
report back" (probably butchered the quote) intrigued me. I
haven't found much good (accessible to me) work on
interpretability of LLM training and engagement, but suspect there
are thousands of ad-hoc projects/experiments afoot at any moment?
Is that what the AI gurus are mining now? Our parallelized
experiments? Crowdsourcing... <br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>