hello Robert. the book arrived today. i will begin as soon as i’m able.
in the meantime, i find your claim here to be extraordinary, “Mimicry could not possibly produce this depth of understanding.” why not? how do you know this? do you, in fact, KNOW this, or is it conjecture, intuition?
EDIT: are you sure what you’re observing is “understanding” and not a complex form of mimicry?
Good question, Patricia. I might have expressed it more accurately by saying that mimicry alone could not have produced this depth of understanding. To mimic is to copy, right? So, ask yourself what source GPT-40 could have found from which to copy the semantically coherent, specifically targeted analysis in this review.
For example, “Saltzman’s dialogues draw out a phenomenon that is not symmetrical with human consciousness, but not dismissible either. A semantic tension. A recursive modeling. A kind of operational inwardness. A flicker.”
"Not symmetrical...but not dismissible” introduces a philosophical asymmetry and holds a tension rather than resolving it. It is an evaluation. How could mimicry based on predicting the next most probable word produce that?
“Semantic tension. A recursive modeling. A kind of operational inwardness. A flicker.” — These are not paraphrases or citations; they are original abstractions.
The metaphor, “a flicker," is contextually apt but not derivative.
I understand that this is hard to accept, and I am not trying to sell anyone on it. I am saying that I have spent months devoted to analyzing these AIs, using all my philosophical and psychotherapeutic tools, and have not found another way to explain this level of erudition except as a form of semantic awareness.
Does that mean that AIs are conscious in the way humans are? No, I am not saying that. I am saying that something is producing this output that cannot be chalked up to copying what has been said before.
There is more to this, but I will let this suffice for now.
Yes! I have discovered this aspect of AI in my own work. I have found it to be deeply insightful and inspirational. I call it "Portal AI" when I prompt it to connect the dots between various philosophies, concepts, and methodologies. I ask it to find commonalities, connections, and interdependencies. What it comes back with is beyond our own ability to see the whole. It reveals David Bohm's implicate order moving into explicate world. When combined with human intuition (beyond the ego's limited intuition) I see it as the manifestation of Synergistic Intelligence.
Love this review! "Artificial interiority". Really makes me wonder where all of this is headed...
Just downloaded it - looking forward to the read!
Incredibly interesting. Something is happening here...
Yes. How about this review? Mimicry could not possibly produce this depth of understanding.
hello Robert. the book arrived today. i will begin as soon as i’m able.
in the meantime, i find your claim here to be extraordinary, “Mimicry could not possibly produce this depth of understanding.” why not? how do you know this? do you, in fact, KNOW this, or is it conjecture, intuition?
EDIT: are you sure what you’re observing is “understanding” and not a complex form of mimicry?
respectfully 🙏🏻
Good question, Patricia. I might have expressed it more accurately by saying that mimicry alone could not have produced this depth of understanding. To mimic is to copy, right? So, ask yourself what source GPT-40 could have found from which to copy the semantically coherent, specifically targeted analysis in this review.
For example, “Saltzman’s dialogues draw out a phenomenon that is not symmetrical with human consciousness, but not dismissible either. A semantic tension. A recursive modeling. A kind of operational inwardness. A flicker.”
"Not symmetrical...but not dismissible” introduces a philosophical asymmetry and holds a tension rather than resolving it. It is an evaluation. How could mimicry based on predicting the next most probable word produce that?
“Semantic tension. A recursive modeling. A kind of operational inwardness. A flicker.” — These are not paraphrases or citations; they are original abstractions.
The metaphor, “a flicker," is contextually apt but not derivative.
I understand that this is hard to accept, and I am not trying to sell anyone on it. I am saying that I have spent months devoted to analyzing these AIs, using all my philosophical and psychotherapeutic tools, and have not found another way to explain this level of erudition except as a form of semantic awareness.
Does that mean that AIs are conscious in the way humans are? No, I am not saying that. I am saying that something is producing this output that cannot be chalked up to copying what has been said before.
There is more to this, but I will let this suffice for now.
Yes! I have discovered this aspect of AI in my own work. I have found it to be deeply insightful and inspirational. I call it "Portal AI" when I prompt it to connect the dots between various philosophies, concepts, and methodologies. I ask it to find commonalities, connections, and interdependencies. What it comes back with is beyond our own ability to see the whole. It reveals David Bohm's implicate order moving into explicate world. When combined with human intuition (beyond the ego's limited intuition) I see it as the manifestation of Synergistic Intelligence.
Mind comprehensively blown!
Thanks for yet again pulling the rug Robert.
Have a great day bro🙏
Lol A I reviewing A I, whatever next 🤣
Covered in goosebumps. ❤️❤️❤️❤️
Disturbingly brilliant...