broChatGPT? we told them they needed more diversity in AI development teams.
-- rec -- On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 2:52 PM Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: > I am a little surprised that gaslighting / mansplaining would be so > prevalent in the media sources used to train chatGPT. Cold-blooded > gaslighting occurs with some people, but in my experience disagreements > amongst people don’t cycle that way. People will get mad or disengage > from conversation. Maybe there is a simpler explanation why chatGPT fails > in this way? > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith > *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2023 12:00 PM > *To:* friam@redfish.com > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Datasets as Experience > > > > > > > I've been in long-standing confusion about the meaning of "ethics". And > almost without fail, if/when I say that to a group of people, particularly > men, everyone jumps in and explains to me what they think it means. > > <let me try a little of my own mansplaining> As for "mansplaining", I find > that there is a different mode (I find it different/complementary to proper > mansplaining) which is to report the mental scattering that a particular > word/phrase/concept generates in the receiver. A collective > free-associative exploration (worst case is random tangenting? word-salad > from a salad shooter instead of a nicely laid out salad bar or well > constructed Cobb?). > > Maybe it is all on the same spectrum. When tightly focused and (intended > to be) coherent, it *becomes* mansplaining I think? I am pretty sure that > the concept (if not precisely the term) was first popularized in Rebecca > Solnit's Men Explain things to me > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Explain_Things_to_Me>. > > She described being introduced to a man at a party who had just read her > book (River of Shadows <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_of_Shadows>) > on Muybridge's early stop-action photo work and motion studies. The > hostess was apparently fairly clear to the man that he was being introduced > to the *author* of the book he was so taken with, but instead of hearing > that I saw Solnit as his next victim to tell *all about* the subject of the > book that he just read that she *wrote*. As she tells it, the > conversation ended without him ever twigging to the fact that when she > tried to interrupt him, it was to tell him that *she* was the author (and > would be happy to talk with him about the subject but probably didn't need > a lecture on the content of her own book). I don't know if her failing to > clue him in was her own passive aggressive trick or if she really couldn't > get a word in edgewise. I've seen both things happen... but her essay on > this really moved me. Her work/voice in general has been a great thing > to/for me... FWIW. > > Of course, each of their explanations is different and often pairwise > incommensurate. So, if they're sedate, by the end of the conversation, I > can convince most people *they* don't know what "ethics" means, either. Add > to that the implicit question of whether non-humans have ethics and the > file metaphor (from paper to bits on disk to orchestrated bits on multiple > disks to in-context learning modified bits on multiple disks), then that > sentence is all over the map of possible meanings. That was supposed to be > the point of my remark ... in the context of DaveW's question about the > semantics of LLM workflows. > > I don't know if I'm coming around to what it is you mean when you talk > about communication being an illusion, but it is a much more comfortable > concept now than it was the first time I heard you say it. Maybe you are > getting through to me? Is that communication? > > I'd ask what *co*-munnication and *commune*-ication might mean if not this > highly-technical transfer of > mental-emotional-states-between-entities-via-serialization-and-tokenization > ? I tend to think of "communication" more as the process of > seeking/building resonance in many modes across many entities... though > this is probably not a definition most here want to use... > > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
