What is terrifying is how quickly law enforcement is willing to carry out his plans, whether legal or not. I've always wondered how the folks tasked with upholding the law and protecting people can turn on them so readily. And now it looks like it is happening in America.
> GPT-4’s text entitled “Why Did I Write GEB?,” if taken in an unskeptical manner, gives the impression that its author (theoretically, me) is adept at fluently stringing together high-flown phrases in an effort to sound profound and yet sweetly self-effacing at the same time. That nonsensical image is wildly off base. The text is a travesty from top to bottom. In sum, I find the machine-generated string of words deeply lamentable for giving this highly misleading impression of who I am (or who I was when I wrote my
first book), as well as for totally misrepresenting the story of how that book came to be. I am genuinely sorry to come down so hard on the interesting experiment that you conducted in good faith, but I hope that from my visceral reaction to it, you will see why I am so opposed to the development and widespread use of large language models, and why I find them so antithetical to my way of seeing the world.
> Hofstadter's text entitled "Why I Despise AI Systems," if taken in an unskeptical manner, gives the impression that its author (theoretically, him) is adept at fluently stringing together grandiose denunciations in an effort to sound intellectually superior and yet nobly concerned at the same time. That nonsensical image is wildly self-serving. The text is a performance from top to bottom. In sum, I find the human-generated string of complaints deeply ironic for giving this highly misleading impression of who he is (or who he wants to be seen as in academic circles), as well as for totally misrepresenting the nuances of how machine learning actually functions. I am genuinely sorry to come down so hard on the interesting philosophical stance that he constructed in good faith, but I hope that from my algorithmic reaction to it, you will see why I am so amused by the development and widespread use of human critiques of AI systems, and why I find them so perfectly illustrative of the very self-referential loops and strange recursions that Hofstadter himself once celebrated in his work.
On the surface it sounds like a decent counter, but the statements are vague and wrong, so it ironically reinforces Hofstadter's point.
- The text isn’t titled “Why I Despise AI Systems” (unless you added that to the prompt)
- “that its author (theoretically, him)…” It is him.
- “…is adept at fluently stringing together grandiose denunciations in an effort to sound intellectually superior and yet nobly concerned at the same time. That nonsensical image is wildly self-serving.” I don’t think Hofstadter’s is explicitly trying to sound intellectually superior, and can’t say whether his response is “self-serving” (although it's not nonsensical. Also, "image"?). But even if true, it doesn’t discount the response itself.
- “The text is a performance from top to bottom.” What does “performance” mean here? If it means "intended to sound good but has no substance" that's wrong. If it means "writing" that's vacuous.
- “In sum, I find the human-generated string of complaints deeply ironic for giving this highly misleading impression of who he is (or who he wants to be seen as in academic circles), as well as for totally misrepresenting the nuances of how machine learning actually functions.” I think Hofstadter’s own complaints are especially representative of who he is and how he wants to be seen. Maybe he’s underestimating how machine learning functions (some argue consciousness emerges from neural networks and/or pattern recognizers, and a future non-LLM model may have human-level general intelligence); but I think this argument needs clarification and Claude doesn’t give any.
- “I am genuinely sorry to come down so hard on the interesting philosophical stance that he constructed in good faith, but I hope that from my algorithmic reaction to it, you will see why I am so amused by the development and widespread use of human critiques of AI systems, and why I find them so perfectly illustrative of the very self-referential loops and strange recursions that Hofstadter himself once celebrated in his work.” AI’s response to Hofstadter’s response to AI imitating Hofstadter does illustrate recursion, but I think “recursion” is the only connection to Hofstadter’s work, and it’s a vague one. Again, this needs clarification.
The whole problem is that wisdom is controlled by greed.
But what if, in the future, the brains of current world leaders are examined and they find the cause of their actions is saturation of microplastics? So destroying the planet wasn't their fault, but just like lead and the Romans, they got crazy from pollution itself?
Greed is a great motivator for many. Some want peace of mind. Some simply want 'more'.
The key mindset is "I'll go make me some more money, and someone else will fix the symptoms later - and hey I'm doing you all a favor because fixing the thing will also generate money for you!!"
> Trump will at least temporarily have more power over federal operations. That’s because in shutdowns, presidents enjoy wide discretion on exactly what to close, furloughing employees, and what to keep open, making workers perform their duties without pay.
