Current AI discourse doesn't talk about human meaning-making — subjective decisions about value that AI systems can't make, which are nonetheless crucial for building and using AI systems.
can you redo the exercise but this time ask AI to make these judgment calls? i find that AI can definitely decide and definitely make judgment calls, but perhaps it is rather sophomoric and appears to lack taste. but perhaps another AI would disagree.
mmm interesting. if what you mean is redo by rewriting the prompt so that all the intermediate interactions become unnecessary (including the manual rewrite), then my current view is that writing a precise and accurate prompt that generates the exact output with the meaning you want in a single prompt-response cycle is itself a act of meaning-making combined with sophisticated tool use.
so this is even more semantics, but are AI systems making judgment calls themselves in producing outputs, or are the "choices" of outputs driven by structures emplaced by meaning-making humans when they decide the underlying architecture, training dataset, UX, and output filtering protocols for the AI system?
perhaps not the same meaning making. if i say "summarize and use your judgment as to what is important", what i did was explain to the AI what is meant by summarizing, not what i (personally) see as meaning - the AI supplies what it thinks is important (and you can even ask it to explain).
anyway, i would always use interactive prompting. but what i am suggesting here is that you do the experiment where you ask the AI to supply its own meaning making and see what it gives.
my 2c is that Type 1 is a qualitative distinction — things that are "good" in a particular way are not also "bad" in that particular way. in the category of "good" things, some will be better than others but none will be bad. (Type 2 is also a qualitative distinction ... i think)
can you redo the exercise but this time ask AI to make these judgment calls? i find that AI can definitely decide and definitely make judgment calls, but perhaps it is rather sophomoric and appears to lack taste. but perhaps another AI would disagree.
mmm interesting. if what you mean is redo by rewriting the prompt so that all the intermediate interactions become unnecessary (including the manual rewrite), then my current view is that writing a precise and accurate prompt that generates the exact output with the meaning you want in a single prompt-response cycle is itself a act of meaning-making combined with sophisticated tool use.
so this is even more semantics, but are AI systems making judgment calls themselves in producing outputs, or are the "choices" of outputs driven by structures emplaced by meaning-making humans when they decide the underlying architecture, training dataset, UX, and output filtering protocols for the AI system?
perhaps not the same meaning making. if i say "summarize and use your judgment as to what is important", what i did was explain to the AI what is meant by summarizing, not what i (personally) see as meaning - the AI supplies what it thinks is important (and you can even ask it to explain).
anyway, i would always use interactive prompting. but what i am suggesting here is that you do the experiment where you ask the AI to supply its own meaning making and see what it gives.
I'm don't quite understand the difference between Type 1 and Type 3. Doesn't Type 1 imply an ordering - rather than a classification?
I'm thinking that meaning-making between two items is less a binary - "good" vs "bad", more a "better" vs "good".
my 2c is that Type 1 is a qualitative distinction — things that are "good" in a particular way are not also "bad" in that particular way. in the category of "good" things, some will be better than others but none will be bad. (Type 2 is also a qualitative distinction ... i think)