|
|
|
|
|
by foxglacier
34 days ago
|
|
> for communication to hold any meaning there must be persons at either end of it working towards a common understanding of truth. I'm really struggling to understand that. Are you defining the meaning of the word "communication"? Does "either" mean "both" or "at least one"? Does reading a blog post count as communication? It it just a fancy way of saying "words are only useful when they convey meaning"? How does any of that relate to AI? AI can also learn from communication. Do you exclude AI because you hold the controversial belief that it's not to be capable of understanding or perhaps not to be capable of working towards any goal? And how about humans who intentionally write nonsense? I also don't see how the story of that library is relevant. This text is not seemingly random, so it's more like walking through an actual library. |
|
LLMs at their root are next-word predictors. If there's any communicative value in what they produce, it is due only to the data they were trained on and the intentions of the prompt-director and publisher. I have no problem in saying that I would rather interact with the words from the source than with the machine-generated resultant text.