Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 148.
        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org




        Date: 2021-07-17 13:01:46+00:00
        From: Mark Wolff <wolff.mark.b@gmail.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.146: informed sci-fi on AI & a philosophical art

Along the lines of what Bill Benzon describes, I recommend this short story
by Scott Alexander:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/

This is an extreme form of oppositional AI designed to provoke conflict.
Being contrarian is the easy part: by what means will oppositional AI
eventually produce some form of persuasion?

mw

On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 1:36 AM Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:

>                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 146.
>         Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
>                                 Hosted by DH-Cologne
>                        www.dhhumanist.org
>                 Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
>
>
>     [1]    From: Jez Cope <j.cope@erambler.co.uk>
>            Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.136: informed sci-fi on AI? (54)
>
>     [2]    From: Bill Benzon <wlbenzon@gmail.com>
>            Subject: NEW SAVANNA: Let’s think of GPT-3’s prose output as a
> form of bullshit, where “bullshit” is a term of philosophical art. (13)
>
>
[...]
> --[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         Date: 2021-07-16 10:56:13+00:00
>         From: Bill Benzon <wlbenzon@gmail.com>
>         Subject: NEW SAVANNA: Let’s think of GPT-3’s prose output as a
> form of bullshit, where “bullshit” is a term of philosophical art.
>
> Here’a a post I wrote a week ago that, I think, clarifies what engines like
> GPT-3 are able to do. Note that I do not mean “bullshit” as a term of
> opprobrium. I mean it as a term of philosophical art, where, in terms
> advanced
> by Harry G. Frankfurt in a well-known essay from 2009 (which I’ve never
> read),
> it designates a kind of language concocted without regard to truth.
> Bullshit
> must be coherent, and sound plausible, but its truth is irrelevant to the
> speaker’s purpose.
>
> https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2021/07/lets-think-of-gpt-3s-prose-output-
> as.html
> <https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2021/07/lets-think-of-gpt-3s-prose-output-
as.html>
>
> Bill Benzon
> wlbenzon@gmail.com



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php