With all of the negativity around large language models these days, it is like trying to tip-toe through a minefield to bring them up at all.
Therefore I am going take a fresh approach, and just start making my observations in the raw, devoid of chatbot commentary, and anticipate the human responses that I might receive from having shared them.
Right now instead of mowing the lawn, I am hot on the trail of solving the world’s problems. I anticipate this news will be well received by those at a distance from my yard.
I am really keen on the idea that our collective conversations are what make the world go around, and am an evangelist of a faith that believes in the survival value to be found in realms of abstraction, sort of a mathematics to be applied toward an understanding of human values and human behavior.
I had an idea, and was wondering whether it was insight, or something else. I am curious what my readers might have to say about it:
Can you construe the following into an integrated and valid system of references?
If we consider "a philosophy" to consist of a hierarchy of values, and that one may move toward the root or away from the root in a hierarchy. Given a philosophy A and a philosophy B, and tokenizations for each, and a conversation between them with phases that include argumentation from both, then the motions toward the root or away from the root in the argumentation will shift the dialectical deltas between the arguments and their agreement. The skillful shifting in the proper direction so as to decrease the delta is the path to follow for argumentation to lead to agreement.
Yes. Hard to avoid the temporal drama. I'm in the same place, sort of. Trying to play, in the best way I can, the part I have cast myself in. Sometimes, though, I feel this is a mis-take. That it is not leading to the denouement I've been hoping for. I wonder if I can rewrite the script. Create a new character which, of course, would have to grow out of the old one as there are no plot erasers and the curtain has been up for a while now. Perhaps this is as it must be. The Director has given us the freedom to mess around; trusting our creative abilities; knowing the eventual outcomes will be pleasant to behold.
Can you make more generalizations about language and conflict? As an example of what I'm driving at take the current conflict in the Middle East. I see this as a game with at least seven participants. Most of these parties are not forthcoming about their motives or their actions. How is conversation useful in this case where self interest seems to be the dominant theme? What is the framework that might be successful in resolving this conflict?