Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 39, No. 6.
        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org


    [1]    From: Gabriel Egan <mail@gabrielegan.com>
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 39.4: repetition vs intelligence? (24)

    [2]    From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 39.4: repetition vs intelligence? (34)


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2025-05-08 07:52:11+00:00
        From: Gabriel Egan <mail@gabrielegan.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 39.4: repetition vs intelligence?

Willard asks:

 > . . . to what extent, in what ways, do the strategies of
 > the so-called Large Language Models produce results that
 > only echo back to us current linguistic behaviour (parole),
 > in effect saying nothing new, however useful, however news
 > to the questioner?

I should say that the extent to, and ways in, which they
do this is about the same as the extent to, and ways in,
which people do.

 > . . . being truly creative, is exceedingly rare. But
 > isn't that exactly what we want of intelligence

If we set the bar for intelligence that high, most
of our fellow human beings -- and I think the likes
of me too -- fall below the threshold. That is a
politically dangerous way to define intelligence.
Even Ayn Rand set the bar lower than that.

Regards

Gabriel

--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2025-05-08 13:08:27+00:00
        From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 39.4: repetition vs intelligence?

I think the mistake is in the use of the term "intelligence": that creates
the illusion that we're talking about the same thing when we discuss human
and machine intelligence when we are not. I also think you already hit on
the main point regarding creativity and the development of new knowledge:
what is "new" is dependent upon the levels of ignorance of the observer.
The next step in this direction is I think the recognition that the machine
itself has no concept of creativity or the new, which requires a kind of
self-consciousness about one's own activities as well as context that the
machine does not and can never have.

Jim R

On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 3:38 AM Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:

>
> We could say, as a friend of mine did, that saying something new in my
> sense, i.e. being truly creative, is exceedingly rare. But isn't that
> exactly what we want of intelligence? What would the artificial kind
> have to do to qualify? Or do we have examples, are they being noticed
> and investigated?
>
> Best,
> WM
> --
>
> --
Dr. James Rovira <http://www.jamesrovira.com/>

   - *David Bowie and Romanticism
   <https://jamesrovira.com/2022/09/02/david-bowie-and-romanticism/>*,
   Palgrave Macmillan, 2022
   - *Women in Rock, Women in Romanticism
   <https://www.routledge.com/Women-in-Rock-Women-in-Romanticism-The-Emancipation-of-Female-Will/Rovira/p/book/9781032069845>*,
   Routledge, 2023


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php