Preestablished Disharmony

abashedly dishonest primer

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

It is proposed that this started long before LLMs, and that some artifacts in the history of thought are watermarks and sigils of clandestine orders. The titivillus within

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

Suppose institutions start "watermarking" their research by embedding small errors repeatedly throughout their textual material, effectively embedding mistakes in LLMs. This allows them to identify when students, competitors or contributors are relying on LLMs

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

The future of AI is human alignment (non-local) vs elite alignment (local). Doomers are often afraid of non-local non-alignment, but as long as there is human conflict even ultra-hostile AI will be "aligned" with someone; humans have not yet solved the "human alignment problem"

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

I might be wrong about all this.

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

Some themes came up in a recent (unfortunate) argument which I expect to say more about in the future:

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

Some advantages: it is inclusive of a wide range of historically remote phenomena that have nevertheless tended to be labelled philosophy.

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

@GarethRPearce @katiedimartin Look I didn't mean to antagonize you or Katie,I've read some of her blogs and I found them genuinely interesting. I really do think that there is an important discussion to be had here about what "philosophy" actually refers to, and the risks in accepting a naive conception of it

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

@GarethRPearce @katiedimartin For example, some people might not think that someone who reads Husserl constantly is a philosopher, someone else might propose that the identification of "the Absolute Infinite" with God is not a philosophical claim. I would tend to disagree

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

@GarethRPearce @katiedimartin Increasingly narrow conceptions of phil. are cultivated by the "professionalization" of the field.But I can think of a couple of reasons we might want to accept a slightly more inclusive conception of philosophy (apart from the obvious-that a reductive conception is ahistorical)

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

@GarethRPearce @katiedimartin But as you've rightly gleaned, my view of "philosophy" is broad enough to include a lot of things you would probably object to

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

@GarethRPearce @katiedimartin Small list of people involved in birth of set theory who did some of their research or studies in philosophy: Leibniz, Bolzano, Cantor, Russell, Frege. Not really sure why someone with “philosophy of math” in bio sees need to object to this. kind of a liar’s paradox

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

@GarethRPearce @katiedimartin (2) i get that years of microspecialization might have you guys fantasizing about an escape from philosophy, where anxiety-inducing questions of foundational legitimacy cannot haunt you, but we don't live in that world

[Preestablished Disharmony @unsteadyplenum]

@GarethRPearce @katiedimartin (1) Platonism does not rest in the mere assumption of the existence of mathematical objects. Forms mentioned by Plato include comparatives and norms. A failure to conceptualize axioms in Platonic terms might lead someone to think they have stepped outside of a Platonic framework