The style of ChatGPT or Claude or others are just default engineered styles
that provide efficient responses. Noticing it is identifiable is like
noticing that a document was written using stock LaTeX.
Incidentally, I’ve noticed Claude is prone to going down rabbit holes when
debugging code. It’s not a terrible approach to software development, or for
that matter housecleaning. If something, anything, is out of order, put it in
order. While the context of the whole conversation is there and it is easy to
get back on track, I find I must nudge it to pop the stack with questions like
“Do you think fixing this bug could be relevant to the larger goal?” So long
as conversation lengths are constrained, it would make customers happier if
they tried harder to infer the user’s goal and go off on tangents.
Marcus
*From:*Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Barry MacKichan
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2025 7:50 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] May you live in interesting times
So we need an LLM to determine if the Turing test has been passed? I detect
recursion, or as it is commonly called, a rabbit hole.
* Barry
On 22 Jan 2025, at 20:27, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I was addressing the mistaken claim that using a LLM create content is easy
to detect. It would require some thoughtful setup work and testing, but that
could be more fun and educational than writing the content directly.
*From:*Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on behalf
of glen <geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>>
*Date:* Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 5:06 PM
*To:* friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] May you live in interesting times
I bet it can't simulate Marcus. Because most of Marcus' posts are one liners,
often with some ironic twist that I'm sure is there, but evades me. I guess if you
have enough one liners to provide examples, then restrict the response to only a
few tokens, that might work. But you'd prolly also have to get it to iterate a
couple of times... Generate a wordy 0th response, feed that back in to generate a
less wordy 1st response, etc. ... maybe for 3-5 iterates. Then post the last one
of only 5 words ... and maybe followed by a random picture from the internet or a
link to an Atlantic article. >8^D
I think Gillian would also be difficult to simulate. It would be pretty cool to
classify everyone according to how well they could be simulated. Of course, there's a
disconnect between the validator and the referent. Just because everyone other than P
agrees that person (P) is well-simulated doesn't mean the simulator fully expresses any
deeper or interpolated meaning P steganographically hid in the carrier message. What's
that line by the Butthole Surfers? "Ya never know just how you look through other
people's eyes."
On 1/22/25 12:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Easy to avoid this problem.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 1:04 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] May you live in interesting times
>
> two things:
>
> 1) isn't it interesting that human beings, with only a short exposure to
LLM generated text can instantly spot 'suspicious' and 'likely-LLM-sourced'
writing. Not just glen, but all of my university professor friends can spot and
know with certainty that LLM generated test answers or papers are exactly that.
The only problem they have is the bureaucratic procedures required to hold a
student accountable and the fact that Deans, determined to retain students, almost
always give student's the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me that ChatGPT, Grok,
Claude, et. al. are failing the Turing test in a most obvious manner.
>
> 2) Free Speech. Why is all the focus on the speaker? Exactly what
difference does it make what the preacher says, even if using a megaphone, if no
one is on the corner listening? True, if I am an office worker at my desk, with no
option to work from home, and the megaphone results in my being, more or less,
compelled to listen; there is an issue. Solution is to take away the megaphone,
nothing more. My right to speak is protected; there is not right to compel others
to listen to me.
>
> in the case of X, I would argue that there is no compulsion to listen, so no issues
of free speech. I am less certain about Facebook or Tik Tok, mostly because they have become
such "attractive nuisances" that there is some degree of compulsion. But the
solution is not control of the speech per se, it is holding the platforms to the same legal
liability as a person who puts in a pool and someone drowns. The homeowner is liable for
building the attractive nuisance; even if the homeowner put up a fence and even if the
person trespassed.
>
> davew
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025, at 2:26 PM, glen wrote:
>
> > I hope I'm wrong. But that text reads like it was generated by an LLM.
>
> > My point was that artifacts like Section 230 are NOT about free speech
>
> > in any way, fashion, or form. Free speech is an individual right that
>
> > is meaningless in the context of platform moderation. Using "section
>
> > 230" and "free speech" in the same context is non sequitur.
>
> >
>
> > Another analogy is to the public square (not the "town square"). You
>
> > can be trespassed from public spaces, even though they're public.
>
> > While this typically happens from "disorderly behavior", it could also
>
> > happen from "free speech". Elno Musk's vision for X is simply to
>
> > manipulate the zeitgeist to his benefit, no more, no less. Any
>
> > pretense he's doing this for some *public* good is so obviously false,
>
> > I can't believe you (or even Grok) might believe it.
>
> >
>
> > Of course, the libertarian principle is that if there exists a Good,
>
> > the best path to it is through the diversity of visions and pursuits
>
> > ... collective "action" through individuality. Bizarre paths of
>
> > failure do tiny bits of damage and fall away while pursuits and
>
> > visions with merit succeed or gain a (cult) following. But even here,
>
> > Elno doesn't fit. He's got too much money, "controls" too much stuff.
>
> > He's no longer an individual. He's an institution. And, in the same
>
> > way that corporations shouldn't have free speech, Elno should have NO
>
> > individual rights because he's not an individual.
>
> >
>
> > On 1/22/25 12:04 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>
> >> There are multiple dimensions to the issue of free speech, especially
when it comes to the transition from individual expression to distribution by platforms
like X:
>
> >>
>
> >> Responsibility for Content Distribution:
>
> >> You raise a valid question regarding who is responsible when a
platform distributes content: the individual who created the content or the platform
that disseminates it? The answer isn't straightforward due to legal and ethical
complexities. If the speech in question violates laws, such as defamation, the
responsibility might legally fall on the individual speaker. However, platforms can also
be held accountable, especially under laws like Section 230 in the U.S., which currently
grants them immunity from being treated as the publisher or speaker of user-generated
content under certain conditions. This legal shield is often debated, particularly in
contexts where platforms are seen to amplify or moderate content in ways that influence
public discourse.
>
> >>
>
> >> The Megaphone Analogy:
>
> >> Your analogy of a street preacher with a megaphone is insightful. It
highlights that while the content (the message about God) originates from the
individual, the distribution (the megaphone) can amplify its reach and impact. Here, one
might argue that the responsibility for any harm caused could be shared between the
content creator and the tool's provider or user, depending on how the distribution is
managed. This analogy underscores that free speech isn't just about what is said but
also how it's broadcasted.
>
> >>
>
> >> Comparing Distribution of Rights:
>
> >> Your comparison to the ownership and use of handguns versus drones
with missiles further illustrates the point about distribution. Just as there are
restrictions on certain weapons due to their potential for harm, the distribution of
speech through powerful platforms might necessitate similar considerations. The key
difference here lies in the scale and potential impact of distribution. While a
handgun's harm is immediate and localized, a drone's capability could affect a broader
area or population, akin to how widespread distribution via social media can influence
societal norms or politics.
>
> >>
>
> >> The Role of External Pressures:
>
> >> Another layer to consider is the influence of external forces, like government
or "deep state" actors, on media companies. The example of the Hunter Biden laptop story
suggests a scenario where free speech could be curtailed not by the platforms themselves but by
external coercion. Elon Musk's vision for X seems to promise resistance to such pressures, aiming
to uphold free speech by not succumbing to external dictates on what content should or shouldn't
be shared.
>
> >>
>
> >> In essence, while the core principle of free speech focuses on the
individual's right to express themselves, the reality of modern communication involves
platforms that significantly alter the reach and impact of that speech. The promotion of
free speech from individual to distributor involves navigating these new dimensions of
responsibility, ethics, and law. The question isn't just whether free speech should be
promoted but how it should be managed in an age where distribution can exponentially
increase its effects, both positive and negative.
>
> >>
>
> >> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 20:35, glen <geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com
<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:geprope...@gmail.com
<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:geprope...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> I'm confused by this promotion of "free speech" from the individual to a platform.
When X (or this mailing list) *distributes* my text, who is ultimately responsible for that distribution? Me? Or
X/redfish.com <http://redfish.com <http://redfish.com <http://redfish.com>>>?
>
> >>
>
> >> The distribution of some content is not what I'd call "free
speech". Maybe we could make an analogy to a megaphone. Let's say some street preacher is
shouting about God (content) through a megaphone (distribution). And let's say your hearing is
damaged by that megaphone (distribution). Efficient cause suggests it's the preacher's fault - or
maybe your fault for standing so close. Material/proximal cause suggests it's the megaphone's
fault (or the manufacturer of the megaphone). But regardless of where any one person lands in
answering that question, everyone should admit that the content is not the same as the
distribution.
>
> >>
>
> >> A similar argument can be made about the difference between, say,
a handgun and a drone carrying a hellfire missile. Should my neighbor Randy be allowed
to own (and/or carry into the sandwich shop) a handgun? Sure, it's right there in the
Bill of Rights. But should Randy be flying hellfire-laden drones around in Seattle
airspace? No, probably not. What's different about those questions? My answer is
*distribution*, distribution of the threat (flying around) and distribution of the
damage (missile vs. lead slug).
>
> >>
>
> >> Why is the promotion of free speech from individual to
distribut[or|ion] any different from that of other rights?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> On 1/21/25 10:27 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>
> >> >
>
> >> > Regarding free speech, I acknowledge its drawbacks, but what
are the alternatives? During the Biden administration, there were allegations of pressure
on media to promote a certain narrative, notably around the Hunter Biden laptop story where
51 former intelligence officials wrongly suggested it might be Russian disinformation to
influence the 2020 election outcome. This incident illustrates the dangers of having
moderators decide what is true if those moderators are not guaranteed to be objective and
neutral.
>
> >> >
>
> >> > The debate on free speech versus moderated content is complex.
While there are clear pros and cons, I believe that Elon Musk's approach to free speech on
the X platform (formerly Twitter) is preferable to a system where moderation is evidently
biased, as it was before Musk's acquisition of the platform. However, the effectiveness of
his free speech policies is still a topic of debate among users, with some arguing that the
platform's moderation has become less about curating content for truthfulness and more
about enabling a broader, sometimes unchecked, range of opinions.
>
--
