| |
| ▲ | eks391 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | His examples work fine but you aren't accepting them because they don't confine to your paradox. Every writing must be comprehensible to at least the author, regardless of whether it has commercial value or not. If I hit the keyboard a few times, I've created writing, but it doesn't mean anything. It is just gibberish and without meaning, so there is nothing to try to comprehend. So if there is something to be comprehended, then at minimum the author should know it. Therefore what you keep claiming is the only refute of your argument of "an [...] incomprehensible [...] writing" is actually a paradox, and cannot be disproved itself. However "humans comprehending things" is not a paradox, which means that your specific request to beat your paradox is not actually related at all. His examples disproving the non-paradox version of your challenge (writing incomprehensible to folks other than the original authors) are sufficient to disprove your statement, as he gave examples of both people not comprehending human made and 'God' made writing (the universe/gravity) | | |
| ▲ | chongli 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's because his examples are obvious and not at all interesting, since we've already seen them. His original claim amounts to creating an AI that takes its place above humans as some kind of electronic God, delivering edicts to humanity that we cannot comprehend, but which somehow have value to us. It's unskeptical, pseudo-religious nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | rowanG077 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't see that at all. Nowhere did this person evoke placing AI above people or even remotely evoke religious imagery. You imagined that yourself, and that creeps me out. | | |
| ▲ | chongli 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s right here: The age of humans comprehending things is coming to an end [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49312914 | | |
| ▲ | rowanG077 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That does not place AI above humans and neither does it evoke anything religious. Look at it this way. AI has destroyed humanity at chess for decades now. That doesn't mean we have placed AI above humans in the general sense. You have basically totally fabricated what you thought the other person was saying. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | a2ff6eeb0 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you give me an example single piece of writing that the author didn't claim they understood? I don't think that any utterly incomprehensible writing exists. If you want examples where nobody but the author understands it, examples are a dime a dozen. | | |
| ▲ | chongli 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you concede the point then. The age of humans comprehending things is not coming to an end. And therein lies the rub. When it comes to intellectual labour: Understanding == Value If a mathematician produces something incomprehensible then it has no value. It's meaningless. Indistinguishable from random noise. An AI which produces incomprehensible text is producing no value. We didn't need to spend trillions of dollars on LLMs to figure that out. Markov chains can do that job perfectly well. | | |
| ▲ | a2ff6eeb0 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You may have missed the present tense. I didn't say it's over, but that it will be. Please pay attention and don't make straw men. Again, do you believe that there are documents, of any value, that humans don't understand? Maybe an LLM could help you notice what I was saying, since it's clearly beyond at least one human's comprehension! | | |
| ▲ | chongli 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Again, do you believe that there are documents, of any value, that humans don't understand? There is no value in an undeciphered document until understanding is achieved, just as a lode of gold ore in some asteroid orbiting a distant star has no value until we can fly there and extract it. If an LLM can help us understanding something then it was not incomprehensible, by definition. | | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | calf 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | But this is just arguing over word tenses. You think "cannot", they think "could". Somewhere between there is the actual crux of disagreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
