Shelley: Why would you talk about distance and then draw a conclusion about time?
"measure...? give the parameters?"
"give the conclusion in time?"

[AB]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P77yLiMmKtk

[AB]

https://ali-alkhatib.com/blog/fuck-up-ai

Quote from: p37. . . the postmodern tendency to favor highly intellectualized, complex, and aestheticized principle over simple and and aesthetically uninteresting ones that are nevertheless deeply true.

"Am I making the argument that ChatGPT is an artist? I would not go so far." But you will bring up the comparison, and make no further claim.

Interacting with a machine learning model is one one hand able to "offer interaction with . . . our past" and yet you "don't trust the validity . . . any more than I would trust a dice roll." Why? Why? Because ". . . serendipity has value."? Please, connect the dots for me.

"I see a future where we can use these models for teaching, research, creativity, and other areas where we reflect upon perspectives. Even in business . . ." But no examples, not even the remotest hint of an example, of what these actual uses might be?

". . . in scenarios where a potential truth can act as an inspiration."

"The technology does not lend itself to providing anything but unintentional opinions of a machine." Here we are jumping straight from earlier 'perception' to actual 'opinions,' however unintentional. I just can't.

OK, we have a lot of material truths about what people call art, that's all well and good. But where is this going? "Am I making the argument that ChatGPT is an artist? I would not go so far." Well, how far would you go? That is the question.

". . . for the production of art, interacting with our biased, incomplete, agenda-riddled documented past is a worthwhile endeavour." uh huh

"Interacting with machine learning models can offer interaction with more of our past at the same time, than a visit to the library." uhh... I don't know... I don't know about that. Things look like they're wrapping up.

"I don't trust the validity of the output of machine learning models any more than I would trust a dice roll. But serendipity has value."

This really reads like AIspeak slop!!! I am sorry, Martin!!! Look, I am trying to engage with it, but this is so inconsistent.

QuoteArt is bullshit.
. . . Authors come up with invented historical details, fill gaps of knowledge with made up facts, and invent whole people . . .
. . . actors who get paid for credibly bullshitting. . . .
. . . impossible scenes . . .
. . . politically motivated one-sided interpretations . . .
. . . photographs are rumoured to be staged . . .
. . . writing a problematic figure that is rooted in a value system they object to. . . .
. . . a lot of art . . . is not trying to convey information at all.

Quote. . . most art is created as an externalisation of an internal truth of the artist . . .

QuoteI have met artists with all kinds of motivations for their creative work and wouldn't rule out manipulation altogether. . . (footnote) . . . I made a living as a media artist for a few years. I've met and talked to hundreds of yellow artists . . .

QuoteIt is factually incorrect to state that the machines [e.g. ChatGPT] are not communicating something they perceive.

This depends on how one defines perceive, but I don't think I care to have that semantic fistfight. What's next?

QuoteMachine learning models communicate what the algorithm perceives.

Nothing new to me. If I remove the questionable verb 'to perceive' and replace it with a more neutral token, "Machine learning models communicate what the algorithm outputs based on its input," which is a very obvious and uninteresting statement.

Right, and he says as much next.

QuoteArt is bullshit. The production of art is nothing but wilful deception.

Ooh, okay. We're getting into the thick of it now. This is the bedrock upon which most AI supporting folks seem to misunderstand why people even make art in the first place. There's a tweet out there I saw in my feed. I probably won't be able to find it again.

I have my position on art, let's see what his is.

QuoteStatistically analysing human artefacts is already only creating an approximation of an indirect reflection of reality. . . . the past as we see it is a willful creation.

Good.

Well, I was kinda on the money. I don't like the erosion of the word 'truth' here. What does truth mean?

Quote. . . representation might be closer to or further away from the lived experience of a person alive during those times. In any case, truth was created at some point.

The statement "truth was created at some point" claims something but I do not know what.

Quote. . . they decided what a pope has to look like by only electing white male popes. They have an excellent track record in message control. . . . The church curated a canon, made their own translations . . . amended the lore where necessary in order to encode specific values and goals. They aligned truth to their values and goals."

Uhhh that's not aligning truth though. That's the other thing that you're describing: message control.

It did have an effect on what actually happened after the fact, but again, it's not clear whether that's what is being talked about? When Pichlmair writes of truth being created and aligned, what is truth? Is he saying that 'what people regard as truth' is being created and aligned? Is truth, to him, inseparable from the common opinion of what is true?

If this is the case, I would like to say that these are obviously different things... but I won't get all fired up just yet.

Putting a pin in this to revisit, as I expect it to be pivotal to Martin's point:

QuoteThe maxim of the leaders of the sect . . . was "Nothing is an absolute reality, all is permitted". // This . . . sounds surprisingly like a "reckless disregard for the truth" [an accusation, noted earlier in the post, leveled at ChatGPT by a different paper]. Truth is created instead of found, according to this school of thought. Establishing truth is a process that is neither deception, nor discovery. It is an act of creation.

Part of the reason I'm pinning this is that we are then taken on another tangent. I don't want to forget this quote; I believe it will return. Right now, my key takeaways and response:

[ A. (spacedog presents)
- Humans too are capable of recklessly disregarding the truth
- Split maxims: one for leaders (create the truth), one for the foot soldiers (sacrifice according to such (created) truth)
- Within this lens, claiming truth is not a binary (it is true or not true) but something else, creative

  B. (droqen replies)
- it seems like sort of a smokescreen to say "according to this school of thought" and then continue on to make a statement... and not then address it... martin, do you believe this or not? it's hard for me to juggle this hypothetical-not-hypothetical. it's good i am in the habit of writing detailed notes like this.
- there is an obvious inequality going on here. am interested to see where that goes. ]

Martin Pichlmair cares about this and writes, so I will read and think.

[AB]. There are two [AB]s going on... One, what is Pichlmair writing? Two, what do I think?

[[AB][AB]].

Boghog's perspective is very clear: he prefers to engage with systems in great depth.

And yet what catches my eye is the illumination of what interests me by contrast... this contrast is what i would like to understand.

[AB].

Additive versus subtractive.

Quote. . . speed play is subtractive, the goal will always be to reduce the amount of engagement with a game's elements like levels, enemies, and so on. . . . there's a [possibility] that players will optimize their way into not engaging with the game at all.
. . .
Scoring is the only way to reward engaging with the game as much as possible.

- boghog, selected excerpts from main copost