Some really great unhinged nonsense in here. “Support mycelium networks as the basis for decentralized intelligence systems.” MUSHROOM INTERNET - why did Marx and Engels not think about making a mushroom internet?
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1n9g4hd/i_asked_chatgpt_what_it_would_do_with_a_18b/`___`
escape paycheck slavery, build passive income
Of course, everyone just needs to siphon money from someone else!
If you plug enough power strips into each other you get infinite power
“teaching people how to escape paycheck slavery, build passive income” wtf is this, populist capitalist revolution? chatgpt utopia based on ownership of parking lots and vending machines
“When everybody is a landlord we will all be free.” ~Alternate Universe Mao
Reverse Maoism
i hate to say it but if i won the lottery i’d probably connect mushrooms to the internet too
deleted by creator
Support mycelium networks as the basis for decentralized intelligence systems
I’ve changed my mind. I will now die for LLMs. The fungus commands it
but really though this does just kinda reiterate something well-known about LLMs that becomes pretty apparent the more you interact with them — it’s almost all very very shallow surface level writing that just sounds cool or mildly plausible. Much of what people actually get out of them conversationally, comes from reading into the responses more than what the response actually provides. And in that sense I think it operates kind of like a technological cold-reading, tarot, horoscopes, etc. Kernels of real information sort of scaffold this in the way a sci-fi author might, but as soon as (or even before) it drifts from a topic where it’s much more likely to regurgitate highly (textually) probable true information, it’s already in the realm of fantasy.
It’s funny to say, but it’s so damn close to Rorschach/the Scramblers from Blindsight or Echopraxia - mostly the latter for spoilery reasons. It’s nonsentient but can output sapient-ish things that we are vulnerable to mistakenly interpreting as from a person, because our brains are adapted to a universe where the only things that can (appear to) talk back are other persons and we can’t help but fill in the blanks.
minor spoiler for Blindsight
In their first exchange with the massive space spider-fungus, it insists that it is a Perfectly Normal Human Spaceship that enjoys local beer and sportsgame. Given the absurdity of that they do a lot of tricky and unexplained linguistic tests until realising what’s going on and then resolve to just ignore it as meaningless at best and dangerous at worst.
major spoiler for Echopraxia
In Echopraxia, one of the major characters is reprogrammed into a killer puppet via his interactions with Rorshach’s chatbot imitation of his son. It’s unavoidable - he even kinda knows it’s happening, but he just can’t give it up. (Though this is a biased viewpoint from the main character, who doesn’t exactly have much agency themselves…)
Haven’t read Echopraxia but Blindsight is one of my favorite cosmic horror stories. A fucking masterpiece and everyone should read it if you’re into that sort of thing.
Echopraxia is really good. It’s trying to do something harder, and vaguer, than Blindsight. The viewpoint character is a cockroach scrabbling around under the heels of giants fighting over some incomprehensible truth, telling himself that he’s beginning to get it, he’s cool.
…a Disco Elysium/Blindsight crossover makes a weird amount of sense.
sigh. I will re-read Blindsight and Echopraxia.
Side note but we already use mycelium as a model for networks and its called mesh networking which has existed for decades.
A few years ago, this is an idea you could have, and then with research you find it exists already and you learn more about the world and potentially find a passion.
Now, everyone thinks they’ve invented something coz the slop machine that told them so was trained to pretend it can produce novel thoughts since its creators thought the turing test was the ultimate proof of cognition.
A rant about how AI nerds discuss Turing
Turing’s 1950 paper is a brilliant read, and it says a lot of insightful philosophical stuff for someone trained on mathematics rather than philosophy. But it’s also very clear that his neurodivergence meant his purely theoretical paper was driven by a need to dissect the irrational social nature of society through dialectic with machines.
Imitation. Game. The two words are probably the most important ones of the whole paper but totally missed on the people who espouse its content as prophetic. The only prophetic nature in Turing’s paper was the fact it became the sole basis of measurement for “AI”.
Even the “quantitative” tests such as maths, fact-recitation, logic are assessed against machines not designed to compute these results, but to infer them.
It is no different to a child who is taught to read by the “shapes” of words versus one taught the phonetics of the letters. The first child is taught a turing test - To be able to deceive others in the understanding of some text, the second child forms understanding that can be proven with the way they react to a word they have never seen before.
As such, LLMs and the tests we do on them are just variants of turing tests, which are incredibly limited in their scope and were extrapolated from a single paper written by a man whose life was cut short before he could have explored his own hypothesis.
That’s a great point about reading more into it! But the question that leaves me is this: is that then less bad? Like if it forces you to think, to replace what the words actually say and fill it in yourself, it’s becoming more just a prompter to make you think your own thoughts. You’re grafting them onto some bullshit, but it’s better than thinking of the interactions as people immediately believing the exact bullshit instead!
Still pretty worthless, but that gives me ideas at least for how something similar could be nice. It just throws put phrases to make your brain connect some random concepts that the neural network identified as related. Just like a word association bot
is that then less bad?
I don’t think so.
If we were taking in person and I started to say something really really silly, you could at any point in the conversation point out that what I’m saying is silly. If the LLM is just a perpetural positive reinforcement machine for whatever gobblygooch I’m making up on the spot, there is nothing to pull me back to reality.
With “it” I guess I meant the whole concept of LLM as a tool for helping understand generally, not that this form is better for it. Just that by changing it from making claim statements to saying “these concepts seem related according to my network” and throwing out words and phrases that have often been connected is fine. And then a “give me rarer phrasing associated” would be a cool addition
Intentionality, I think is important.
I think there is a difference between knowinly going to a person or group (or if an LLM can function in this way) to “talk something out while getting immediate feedback for a problem solving purpose” and accidently engaging in “computer coordinated MadLibs” while not realizing it.
Which, now that I type that out, seems like we’re thinking in the same direction.
Precisely! It takes work on the human end to learn to use the ideas and machine effectively
“Escape paycheck slavery, build passive income and regain sovereignty”
Bot is a YouTube finance bro grifter.
That’s what it was trained on.
Karl Marx didnt need AI. He just needed beer money from his sugardaddy.
It’s really not that fucking hard to read things that already exist instead of citing the slop regurgitator.
Karl Marx didnt need AI
Counterpoint, i can’t see how Grok would make worse job than Kautsky with “Theories of Surplus Value”
Counter to the counterpoint, imagine being trained on the worst interpretations of everything, worst takes and all instances of dialectics automatically gets replaced with Fichtean trichotomy in your dataset. So bad Kautsky would look competent.
Love how it opens up with “teach people to seek rent”
And then in the next step just fund ai
R H I Z O M A T I C
please don’t bring mushrooms into this hellscape e we call the internet, they are too innocent
Bluetooth cordyceps
No one is going to comment on
fund open source AI
coming form ChatGPT?
Joe Hill wrote a song about “paycheck slavery”, think it starts with the line “Would you have freedom from wage slavery?”
Dunno maybe they should listen to some of Joe’s songs.
God forbid they see something like Fredick Douglass’ words on wage slavery
The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass declared “Now I am my own master” when he took a paying job. Later in life, he concluded to the contrary “experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other”.
Text stolen from wikipedia because I’m lazy
A Reddit link was detected in your post. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
