zogwarg
The irony of crediting Moldbug with a potent explanation for bad poetry is rather amusing. It’s almost a shame that Scott here cops out with a “The margins are too small for my proof”, although maybe it is secret mercy.
Not sure about the people who “are or think they are intelligent” being more susceptible to the con.
It feels like something one wishes to be true for karmic/poetic reasons rather than something that actually IS true.
I think good marks for the LLM con are more generally doubtful of the value of human intelligence/labour/education and/or tech positivist rather than true believers in their own intelligence.
Is my brain rotten, or does p(doom) sound even sillier when used by a “mainstream” voice?
Don’t forget the:
- Vile dose of racist ranting.
- Simultanously complaining about the elite, but then saying it’s only because it’s been watered down by the plebs.
- Vile understanding of “poetry” as status marker.
- Not going back further in time than 19th century, and extremely suspiciously marking the “height” of peotry between 1920a to mid-1960s, not at all coinciding with the civil rights act.
Thank you for reminding me how vile Moldbug is ? ^^
He said the TTCT is protected proprietary material, so ChatGPT couldn’t “cheat” by accessing information about the test on the internet or in a public database.
Of course no proprietary data at all could ever permeate through the sampling of LLM creators, well known for scrupulously following all licensing terms, and thoroughly checking that scrapped data might not be accidentally licensed.
-_____________________________________________________________________________-
The premise that a standardized test could truly measure originality or creative thinking seems dubious to me in the first place. Just because a response is common amongst humans does not suggest to me that it is uncreative or even unoriginal (strictly speaking as long as you come up with it independently it is still both).
That being said I am curious as how a Text Based Machine could have completed these portions of the test:
- Verbal tasks using verbal stimuli
- Verbal tasks using nonverbal stimuli (eg: visual input, if being extremely generous, they might have access to the “multi-modal” version of stochastic parrot 4, but this is not actually described as such in any source I could find)
- Non-verbal tasks (eg: completely visual input and output)
Until I see the methodology, I am not even sure I buy the result as advertised.
Un peu loin, au Japon.
The Future is yesterday! Come for the Mirai!Regressive mores, stay for the Advanced dysentery!
What absurd version of an “idealised” past requires any form of technology to achieve? Could anything be meant beyond thought control and/or eugenics?
Honestly this reads a lot like someone having a “Mystical psychosis”, not sure why anyone would torture their brain attempting to write a full OS in Forth.
