←back to thread

303 points FigurativeVoid | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.605s | source | bottom
Show context
codeulike ◴[] No.41842106[source]
“I am sitting with a philosopher in the garden; he says again and again 'I know that that’s a tree', pointing to a tree that is near us. Someone else arrives and hears this, and I tell him: 'This fellow isn’t insane. We are only doing philosophy.”

― Ludwig Wittgenstein

replies(1): >>41845311 #
1. tucnak ◴[] No.41845311[source]
I often wonder if LLMs would have made Wittgenstein cry...
replies(3): >>41846737 #>>41846823 #>>41849743 #
2. awanderingmind ◴[] No.41846737[source]
I don't know, but I reckon he would have been unimpressed.
replies(1): >>41848533 #
3. pjc50 ◴[] No.41846823[source]
It's remarkable how LLMs have skipped any kind of philosophical grounding for "how do we know that this output is valid?" and just gone straight to "looks good to me". Very postmodernist. Also why LLMs are going to turn us into a low-trust society.

A tool for filling the fields with papier-mache cows.

replies(3): >>41847164 #>>41847383 #>>41850399 #
4. ben_w ◴[] No.41847164[source]
> A tool for filling the fields with papier-mache cows.

Cargo culting as a service.

5. ndndjdjdn ◴[] No.41847383[source]
The scary thing is excellent advances in all the other AI/ML need to fake people: text to speech and back, yolo, video generation. The illusion might become the reality. We need a few generations to die (100 years time?) before we will shake of this need to even be human! Who is going to say no to a perfect memory implant. Now a never get dementia implant. And so on! Finally what is the cow even?
6. tucnak ◴[] No.41848533[source]
I would argue the opposite; LLM technology is the first viable means to computing "language games" as such, and quite in line with the late W. theory.
7. osullivj ◴[] No.41849743[source]
Suspect not as later Wittgenstein tells us "the meaning is the use"; don't look at the dictionary definition, look at many examples. And that's what LLMs do.
replies(1): >>41868978 #
8. LemonyOne ◴[] No.41850399[source]
Because reality is imperfect, and our perception of reality is even less perfect than that. And reality is full of "good enough" things, so if nature is "ok" with "good enough" things, why not artificial things?
9. tucnak ◴[] No.41868978[source]
Tears of joy!