Agree. LLM looks more like a complex semiotic system, and meaning is attributed to the output by humans during interaction; all intelligence is human, since we interpret the output, but LLM operates only at the level of pure symbols, logical-probabilistic output, which however has nothing to do with meaning.
Tho have meaning is to have interaction (with the world), cannot be a closed game of signs.
Oh yes and probably the authors themselves have a related form on neuro-atypical-divergence know as neuro-tragically-compulsive-analisys disorder, related to a quite common social-accademic-pressure about being in control and classificate all things they do not have in control and that they do not clearly can relate with, causing a pathology, relatively benign, consisting in create pseudo-scientific-terms to apply to all those things, and disseminate it at large for their inner-related causal-impulse of saving all the world, and their social-satisfied ego.
seriously (just a little): the world, the life, is way more various then all their philosopy.. live and let live is a good starting point for anything..
[Following note]: If the author's satire is (as it may seem, and perhaps even understandable) in practice it perfectly overlaps with truly serious "studies" (including his own?) that are the true object of various reflections and some counter-satire, a bit mimetic, a bit casual. It is the true "author" behind the author, the excuse for another reflection: on something as mysterious as the human mind, countless theories can be invented, current therapies, schools, and fortunes can be built upon it, which may perhaps interest and even help someone (really?). But none seems to go beyond that, on something (diversity, strangeness, pain, and joy, and even madness) that in ancient times were the sign of the divine, of everything that goes beyond comprehension.
Today, everything seems to be resolved by applying a "cure" to a more or less tailor-made "pathology," but this is a very narrow horizon within which we lock ourselves away from life and the mind, and it is easily abused and degraded in its socio-industrial theorizing and applications.
Therefore, in my opinion, particularly regarding "preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity" (avoiding laughing, because maybe someone is genuinely worried), I believe that we need to put the spotlight on other things, such as society, culture, education, and inner growth, and the "pathologies" will be reduced to the minimum real number, on which to then elaborate a deeper reflection.
After reading this several times, I've tried to identify if your satire is trying to meet the author's satire somewhere over the Atlantic, or if it's aimed at some kind of self-reference or in-joke that I'm just not parsing.
It demonstrates the author's point from back in the 1990s so well, but also makes its own biting social commentary on how often authoritative-sounding language gets weaponized by a majority to dismiss and mock that which they fail to understand.
Impressive level of historical continuity. The dryness nearly threw me.
maybe you are right, quite sure is all 3 things at the same time :) about something that, by my point of view, is -very- easy to understand, but, i know, ymmv.
I feel that in this kind of matter, demonstrations (an others things) are in the eye of beholder, and a language that has a specific weight much greater than what it seeks to represent, set afloat in the sea of life, runs the risk of capsizing and sinking (feel free to laugh here).
it's inevitable and i'm (partially) resigned to the implications it has on whole (modern) life, but anyone who wants to continue to pathologize vivisect and classify human experience is free to do so, but (for me) regarding life, true knowledge comes first over (presumed) academicism
Although in recent times humanity has often wrongly placed and considered itself separate from nature, and in practice, with disastrous results, acts as such, since its origins, humanity has lived in continuity with nature, as do other species, and its activities have reflected this condition, in which practice, knowledge, learning, and the arts were all part of a whole that contributed to life. In this sense, life possessed the quality of art, just as nature still possesses this artistic quality, a non-duality between form and meaning, between necessity and possibility, in an original, artistic, fundamental state.
"All art is, in the end, adoration" J.Campbell. (quoting by memory), essentially art and humanity are one in those times, no one invented the other.
In more recent times things are changed, life and art are on different path, but still in reinessance times people received education bot in liberal arts and in scientific (by the times) matters. Art and science still talks under the surface.
what is -coding-? only typing down some code? the hard part is always the design part, reading doc, reading other code, understanding the sum of the parts, making choices, until the code to write is (quite) -obvious-.
Probably is a question of terms: there is two things: -design- and -coding- (but could be anything as: building, drilling, turning, traveling..) so to make things without a good design is the regal way to problems, many times is a problem left by others, and in a world more and more complex and fast-changing can only be more and more worst. Hard to say what part is really the hardest, but starting with a bad design is no good.
And now probably LLM will solve some problems, but for sure these tech will create more and more new ones.
to someone hobby programming using LLM seems like running a marathon using a bicycle, you cross the finish, but at the end is not the same as running only by your only forces.
Others look only at the results, so LLM are only a tool (actually without a clearly instruction manual i suspect).
But programming (and so many others works) is not only about making, but learning and developping skills. When an LLM is not available? i think differences will be evident.
And roughly speaking: to check the result of LLM you have to be more capable than the bot, otherwise, who is the boss? And to develop those skills, you have to do it yourself.
I enjoy programming as a hobby and have done it for many years. I also enjoy building stuff with LLMs. Why is one pure and sanctioned and the other one is bad? Why do I need other people to decide this for me?
reply