un-diletante

To be friends with a rapist is to help that person to stop raping. If the actions that you take have helped a rapist to stop raping, even if they were cruel or harsh, you have been more of a friend to that rapist than someone who has reinforced their behavior through inordinate kindness.

You're right, my comment was off topic and a knee-jerk reaction from just the title, though I didn't have the phrase "cancel culture" in my mind when I wrote it. While on that topic though, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with "cancelling" someone, but more-so that second degree cancelling of someone who doesn't join in on the cancelling

I'm finding more and more onerous the social expectation that I should be punishing transgressors of law or morality through shunning and disrespect. In my opinion punishment should be purely an affair of the state, and I don't believe that someone should be looked down upon because they treated someone who has done wrong with dignity and respect.

The vibe that I get is that the author is trying to write down as much of their idea as possible without violating social taboos, such that what is written down is not exactly what they think, but the maximal intersection between what they think and what they perceive they are allowed to say.

Do human brain organoids provide any advantage over animal brain organoids in these types of use cases?

I wonder if Claude will descend into hell to rescue the poor souls of those who died before it's coming, patiently awaiting digitization in the bosom of Turing.

Compaction is not even an intrinsic function of an LLM, but of it's harness or whatever code is calling it. When an LLM compacts something it's just creating a summary of the previous conversation using the same mechanism that it uses to generate any other text. It doesn't "forget" the text from before the summary, it just no longer receives it when it is invoked.

In contrast, when we forget something we are not summarizing anything, we are just losing the ability to recall something. We might remember what we have forgotten later on, showing that it is still somewhere in the mind, and that the reason we have forgotten it is not necessarily because it has been discarded.

Even then, what this article is talking about is not even normal forgetting as a function of the brain. It's talking about a degenerative and dysfunctional form of memory loss where different memories are confused with each other.

I agree with conveyance != experience, and looking at it again I agree with your original statement with regards to the "!=". But I do believe that conveying experience requires having it.

By conveying, I don't mean conveying the idea of a possible experience, but conveying knowledge about a real experience that a real experiencer had. What is conveyed is not the entire experience which is impossible, what is conveyed is knowledge that is sensible to someone who has similar experiences they can associate it to.

If the report does not correspond to an underlying experience, then it's just a lie. Like if I say to someone "Thank you" after they do me a favor, they perceive that I am having the experience of gratitude. But if I am not really grateful, then my words haven't conveyed information about an actual experience, about an actual instance of an experience.

So I'd say the report + the report's correspondence to reality + the receiver's ability to understand the report based on their own experiences = conveyance.

I do not consider a false report that leads the receiver to imagine the existence of a non-existent experience to be "conveyance of an experience".

Conveyance requires a source and a destination. To have an experience conveyed to you means to gain a degree of understanding of another's experience which you yourself did not have. Yet you yourself have not actually experienced it, you have merely gained knowledge into some aspects of it's nature by comparing it to your own experiences.

If a reader perceives that they have been conveyed an experience that nobody has ever had, then they have made up an imaginary experience which does not correspond to anybody else's lived reality, which may or may not be possible to have. If an LLM conveys an actual human experience, it is only because somebody's actual experience has been anonymized and conveyed on to you.

I think in order to notice and take offense to those tropes, you already have to be prejudiced against them. And you probably also have the pretense that what you're reading was thought important enough by another person to write. So when you realize that this isn't the case you become disappointed.

But some people just don't care, and are just in it for novel rearrangements of the narrative structure. I'll give you that I don't notice this so much with literary content, but I have seen people being entertained by AI generated music and videos quite a bit, especially children and those who in general are uncritical of what they consume.

For example, the other day I was at a restaurant where they were playing some AI abomination of Frank Sinatra called "Take me to the Moon", and nobody really seemed to notice or care while I was becoming nauseous to my stomach. You have to already be biased to notice it, let alone to even be bothered by it.

I feel like writing has traditionally had two purposes, to communicate some internal feeling or idea of the writer, and to entertain. For the reader, even if their primary purpose was to be entertained, they would have no choice but to also engage with the internality of the writer. This latter point is what is changing.

I fully admit that we have been surpassed by the machine in the ability to entertain. And the biggest problem with that is that entertainment is the primary factor that drives the popularity and consequently the financial success of a book. If a writer's primary purpose is to entertain, then they should be very worried. But if their primary purpose is to convey something from within themselves, the LLM cannot replicate this. They may however lose that portion of their audience to whom the communication of profundity is merely collateral to being entertained.

I'm not a professional writer, but when I do write, I do so with the intention of expressing something that I feel, which before being thought out and written exists as something not linguistic. The language is a means for the expression of this deeper experience whose communication is the end. But an LLM on it's own is not able to convey internal experiences that it does not have. If it seems that way, it is only achieved by manipulating and rearranging the experiences of the authors that make up it's training data.

Is the problem really the economy when these types of places were more prevalent in a time of even less economic regulation than we have today? I don't think that these "third spaces" really ever existed as the intentional stimulators of social interaction that they are conceptualized as today. Rather, I think that they were established in order to complement already existing social structures.

These structures no longer exist, and my conjecture as to the cause of that, especially in the US, is cultural fragmentation. Almost half of this country believes that the other half of the country is evil, or at least hold profoundly evil beliefs. Why would someone want to spend time in a place where there is a 50% chance that the next person you run into is evil? Why would you want to take your children to such a place?

And if you want to establish a place where you can spend time with just the 50% percent of people who are good, it's not gonna be a public space. If it is, you can't prevent the evil people from coming, and once they do, all the good people will stop coming. Public third spaces existed in a time of greater cultural homogeneity, where it was more likely that the people in your general area held more or less the same beliefs as you do and much more importantly, had more or less the same standards of public behavior.

This is all to say, I believe these spaces are diminishing because there is not a real desire for them, even in the people who claim to desire them. There IS a desire for a place where you can gather with people who are either in your subculture or in one that is not antagonistic to it, and who behave in a way that you believe is appropriate. This is not possible in a public space of today. To apply the regulation and exclusion required, a majority with enough power to apply it legally needs to be established. And in the case where you have such a majority that agrees on standards of public behavior, you again have a sort of cultural homogeneity.

I think the least of your worries will be immigrants when an imperialistic nation with superior military power realizes that the annexation of your land is necessary for its survival.

I'm not sure how I feel about this quote. It seems to me like it only makes sense when talking about a tool or thing with scoped functionality that would be hindered by unnecessary accretions. In the state of "perfection" for something like this, there would be nothing left to add or remove. But even in this context, if it's unable to perform it's function due to insufficiency, perfection would be achieved by adding and not subtracting.

If one were to apply it to life in general, it seems even less fitting. Although we can never achieve perfection, I think most people would agree that a meaningful life is lived through growth and gain towards a particular ideal or goal. The more we grow, the closer we come to that unattainable perfection. Removing what's harmful or a hindrance is a part of this, but if all you do is take away and not add, you just end up with nothing.

Ultimately, I think it's lacking because while you can err both due to deficiency and excess, it only considers excess and denies deficiency. It serves more to assuage feelings of inadequacy in the face of unattainable perfection than to give an accurate representation of life. And even if you don't believe in perfection, this quote doesn't deny that it exists, it merely claims that it can be achieved solely by treating excess, while ignoring deficiency.

I'm sorry if this is all very pedantic.