Plasma Ring

I am actually an extremely witchy person who believes in shit like tarot cards and crystals and computers having souls, but on some level I am choosing to relate personally to a spiritual interpretation of the world because I think it's cool and vibrant and comforting. It immediately loses that all-important dimension when you try to rationalize it or mix it up with the known world. I am more inclined to take you seriously if you tell me you literally think the Blue Fairy has turned ChatGPT into a real boy than I am if you believe a piece of software can grow a brain simply by exposing it to what you think is a human-like learning process. They are both the same thing, but one is trying to have "a wizard did it" without wizards.

Really good article on AI chatbots and psychics: https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/llmentalist/

I especially like the parts about "smart" people potentially becoming even bigger evangelists when they do get fooled by it, because boy howdy does that ring true

blown away by this. even calling it a fantastic metaphor feels like selling it short. it clicks perfectly with a persistent nagging feeling i've had about how the output is generic but confident and how that must be important somehow

I was having a conversation with a very intelligent person who could be described as "AI critical," and the source of his pessimism about the role of generative models in the future was based in his belief that they're spontaneously displaying unexplained behavior.

My experience with using ChatGPT is very much in line with the description of them as fancy autocomplete. The errors it makes are not just getting facts wrong or coming back with weird nonsense; it's stuff like asking a follow-up question and the bot dropping the context entirely.

me: what's the word for the smallest unit of Roman troops
bot: a contubernium was composed of eight dudes blah etc.
me: what's the next highest number
bot: the next highest number depends on the first number in a sequence of numbers. For example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is a sequence of numbers. I will need more information to answer your question accurately.

For me, this--not hallucinations or gaps in the training data--is what kills the illusion. It appears to be part of an ongoing conversation, but it's clearly not. This is not a lapse anything that can meaningfully be described as "intelligent" or "aware" or "responsive" makes. It is often very convincing in how well it seems to follow along! But you can quickly break that by, say, asking it to explain how it came to a previous incorrect conclusion. It will frequently defend a completely different answer, because there is no real continuity from one message it prints to the next, and it doesn't remember what it said.

This means that unless it's programmed to have different capabilities, models like Stable Diffusion and Midjourney will never "learn" to get so good at art that they can create novel interpretations of abstract concepts the way a human artist would. Me saying this was where the other guy came into the conversation to warn me that I was wrong. "Whatever you think AI can't do right now," he said, "it will be able to do within ten years."

This is an alarming statement from someone with his background (which I am omitting the specifics of). I clarified: I absolutely think they can be refined to the point where they don't include any anatomical errors in something complex like a horse. But I don't think it's possible for them to ever get to a point where you say "horseflower" and the model goes through the same process a human artist would to develop those two things into a unified concept, because they can't understand "horse" and "flower" as symbols/ideas or combine them in a creative way.

The other guy does think they'll be able to do that, because they're improving so quickly already. And I couldn't understand why someone who is not inclined to hope they'll improve to that level and who has a solid background in how technology works would take it for granted that they aren't already at or near their upper limit.

After reading this, I'm even more sure that it's the same thing that got very smart people who should have known better into blockchain/NFT/web3 stuff: if you accept the premise that the technology is here to stay and has a tremendous future--either because you're invested in it or because everyone else seems to believe it--and you don't know how it'll get there from here, it's very easy to speculate on how it'll happen in a way that sounds plausible to you. But if you don't really know how it works, and you're smart and self-aware enough to know that you don't know how it works, that gap becomes a space where anything could happen. And because you are a rational person who doesn't believe in horseshit, you are of course not implying that God will perform a miracle or aliens will arrive or magic will happen or that the machine will spontaneously develop a soul--except that "progress will continue exponentially until it thinks for itself" is exactly the same thing in this context.

honestly hard to describe the experience of this painting. the physicality. the light. it's truly incredible

runner-up: The Starry Night, Van Gogh
I saw this piece when I visited MoMA in New York. I did not know they had it in their collection, so when I turned the corner and came face-to-face with it I legitimately started crying. Like, it's a famous painting for a reason, we all know this. But...

other thoughts
There's definitely music that also qualifies, but I'd have to think a lot more before naming any given piece!

Because it portrays working-class people in a favorable light:

Despite the effort Caillebotte put into the painting, it was rejected by France's most prestigious art exhibition, the Salon, in 1875. The depiction of working-class people in their trade, not fully clothed, shocked the jurors and was deemed a "vulgar subject matter". ¹

That makes it an extremely good painting.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_raboteurs_de_parquet