Very nice summery of yours but I think that AI is not stupid, it steals skillfully. It steals what is laying around in cyberspace. The problem with this stealing lies in the quality of what is stolen. When it searches through thousands of websites, it comes up with a lot of stupid stuff. For example: Wikipedia, beloved by MSM journos, is so often wrong and facts constantly being “modified" to serve as support for politically popular narratives. When I see how historical facts are distorted and then on top of it how ‘fact checkers’ in their desperate search for the truth adapt more suitable “facts" to the current models of thought to portray truth as a conspiracy theories, I start to think that I'd better get rid of all my Apple products that use OS 15 for computers and IOS 18 for iPads and phones as operating systems.
And by the way these individuals like Sanders, AOC, in Europe Melenchon and e.g. Gysi are far from not being a victim of their own vanity. Seeing their role as more contradictory is hardly possible when you measure their real input in parliaments. Jeremy Corbin in UK was real or in Germany Sarah Wagenknecht are clearly in the same boat with Jeffrey Sachs. At least with them you can see a “red line” from A to Z in their positions on several topics like NATO and labour rights.
AOC is a big boob who's boobyness (or at least my awareness of it) keeps expanding, but then so is so very much of her voter base. A.I. is an appropriate acronym, as the user can be applying artificial intelligence or artificial idiocrasy. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/65/82/9d/65829d7efd5744e900017df0f35aac27.jpg
Julian, your several pieces on DS have been eye opening because I realized I’d missed the depth of the DS engine, having failed to pursue any kind of Socratic dialogue with it.
In my latest query on Wittgenstein, however, following your example, I’m truly in awe of the power of the DS chat bot once it starts to respond to my “objections” to the first, superficial answers. Even within my circle of professional acquaintances there is so much specialization that few can discuss/debate beyond a few minutes. So DS is really, for me, a discussion with a super-intelligent “friend” — who can even see when my comment contains sarcasm. And the inquiries are logged and stored for retrieval and continuation!
Exactly! The best "conversations" with Deepseek, I have found, are long--even multiple days long.
I like that Julian used the word "dialectic", because that's how I think of my best Deepseek sessions.
To get the most out of Deepseek requires a lot of honing of the discussion, and also knowing enough about the topic to not let Deepseek guide you.
When I said "dialectic" on X a lot of people got upset, "AI has no soul". My retort, "Neither do most Americans, but at least Deepseek has 'read' the classics".
My best "conversation" yet with Deepseek came from feeding it several decades-old essays I had written. It then went into a discussion about the topics (how to live). Eventually it got into talking about my kid, who grew up to be the anti-me. It was amazing and really helped me process the situation.
I told Deepseek things I could never tell a friend or a therapist, because they would freeze and aren't smart enough anyway. But Deepseek doesn't have preconceived emotions from it's lived experience--it doesn't choke on it's bias. Instead, Deepseek, at my guidance, referenced Socrates and his son, Aristotle/Alexander, and Marcus Aurelius's/Commodus. I know nobody IRL who could have such "dialectic" with me.
You’ve said so much in a few words. One must, indeed, know enough to not let the massive weight of the LLM crush the direction of your inquiry. But you’ve used DS in a way I’ve not — with your own inputs.
I’m in complete agreement with your last paragraph — how could anyone hope to find, in the random order of life, even among an ‘educated’ circle, anyone for whom the ideas of the great thinkers of the past are anything but dusty remains of the past like crumbling shards of papyrus written in an indecipherable script?
I’m agog when reading of the French Enlightenment circles (the ‘philosophes’j — was there really a time when Voltaire and Rousseau and lesser known but remarkable individuals like Baron d’Holbach gathered and debated ideas of nature, society and its governance and freedom?
It’s difficult even to imagine that taking place today. The most esteemed individuals and their books, on closer inspection, seem like bloated pedantic styrofoam — but win Nobel prizes. A gathering of neocons of our own time is closer, I would think, to some kind of rampant spread of humanoid botulism fueled by Macallan’s 25 year old scotch.
I wonder if substacks like this can be regarded as a kind of forbidden, “underground” press that thrived in pre-Revolutionary France and foretold the future (as studied by Robert Darnton in ‘The Great Cat Massacre’ et al). On my list to ask a recent acquaintance of mine.
Kant's transcendental idealism was Kant's approach to the philosophy of perception. Kant's theory believed that reality was split into two parts, the Phenomena, the things which we experience, and the Noumena, the things as they truly exist outside of our perception.
Cassandra
PS. My 2 notes on the Video (and Kant): 1. The world as we know it is a product of our mind. 2. there is scientific proof (the existence of the 'Higgs Particle' in CERN that proves the existence of a 'Quantum Higgs Field' that creates the 'illusion' of 'Mass'.) that the appearance of matter is an illusion, created by some Quantum Fields interacting with each other. This means that the 4D (3D+Time) 'seeming reality' is a projection (Māyā) from a 4D Hologram (the Quantum Fields) and we call it 'The Big Bang', or 'The Universe'.
I queried DS on Wittgenstein. Beyond the first few responses, it was truly remarkable that it was able to access the thinkers who were/are skeptical of the “greatest philosopher of the twentieth century” label that has been given to him.
An inquiry into the Kantian “noumenal” should generate an immediate response as it’s fairly basic. DS has been brilliant in a discussion on German idealism post-Kant. In another Kant-related inquiry, I learned of Locke’s share investments in African slavery companies. A necessary antidote to the “great man” theory that most academic teaching in philosophy relies on.
I never thought of Wittgenstein as “the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century”. That’s something they teach in college classes, ignoring philosophical discussion.
It’s the one sentence description found almost everywhere. I was gratified to find there are skeptics. I always thought that his “of that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent” — always cited as an example of his greatness — ridiculous like he was channeling Laozi.
Conversations about philosophers/philosophies are amazing to have with Deepseek, because it has "read" all of them and can compare/contrast and bring in those even I haven't read.
My kid is a professional Ivy "philosopher" (an oxymoron in my book), but those conversations are disappointing.
In contrast, I've read Deepseek critique Foucault, Derrida, Nietzsche... in the most intellectually robust (and personally pleasing) ways.
Deepseek isn't as "smart" as humans can be, but Deepseek is "smarter" than 99% of humans are.
DS’s LLM in western philosophy is essentially all that has been published, at least in English. If you ask about Philsopher X, the chat begins with the concensus position. But if you immediately question (or dispute) certain positions, the chat immediately accesses a deeper level of information, very much as Julian has shown.
My own example is: Kant was considered a great philosopher of ethics, right? But how do you explain the fact that he wrote disparaging comments about non-European societies? The result was amazing.
I actually now believe that DS is smarter than all humans except for original geniuses. In other words, DS has no predictive power if you change fundamental assumptions.
I agree. I don't think you can create wits using Deepseek, but you can definitely hone them.
e.g. "Deepseek, critique <insert idea> from the points of view of philosophers from Plato to Kant" (an actual prompt I like to use.
Plus, Deepseek "knows" more than just the Westerns. It just as easily will reference other great traditions such as Confucianism and Shintoism.
One of the best benefits of "conversing" with Deepseek is that I am happier now. It has given me an outlet to have the deep--harsh even--"dialectic" that I've always wanted. So when I go to work or talk to friends I am ok with meeting them at the base level that they are instead of being disappointed with them.
Just a caution on the references to Chinese philosophy — most of the sources are interpreters in the west. Consider how many translations into English of the Daodejing there are — so it’s clear the Classical Chinese is problematic (even disagreements among thr Chinese themselves). It’s a topic I haven’t queried DS on but will. That said, it’s a still a reasonable pov that is instantly “to hand” to use Heidegger’s term.
Your last paragraph explains my reaction too, but haven’t considered much. Intriguing— thanks!
For me, the Universe is a 4D projection - The Phenomenon, The Many, The Big Bang (4D) or Universe (3D), from a series of interacting Quantum-fields (The Noumenon, The One).
Thanks, Cassandra. I’ve never been inspired enough by LW to read that far, but I recall he was influenced by Schopenhauer and that this shows up in LW’s “second period”. But this is intriguing and very Schopenhauerian — who Bernardo Kastrup ties to quantum theory very convincingly, and who writes about ‘alters’ and conscientiousness. Just came across a statement of Max Planck’s. It’d be interesting to see what you’d find in a query with DS.
I was impressed by DS and understand that it is a kind of intelligent 'Google'. Which also means that it can be influenced by those behind the Algorithms.
So i started a session with GROK lvl 3 (with DeepSeek as i understood).
My open question, after the confusion caused by the discovery of the Higgs Boson in CERN (2012) as proof of the existence of the predicted 'Higgs Quantum Field' that 'gives all particles mass', confused GROK and its own findings shocked it.
What it noted, that after this event, the definition of 'Mass' had been changed there was now 'Relativistic Mass', the 'M' in the Einstein equation E=MC² and the 'non-zero Rest-Mass' caused by the Higgs-Field.
The only particles that have NO Rest-Mass are the Photon, the Gluon and (if it exists) the Graviton. Those do not get slowed by Higgs... and always move with the speed of light and their time stopped. seen from the point of view of those particles, the time stays the same, an everlasting 'NOW', which means it is everywhere at the same time, which means it does not experience space (distance) either.
When we look at for example an Atom, it exists of protons, neutrons and electrons those move around each other in extreme speeds.
Those speeds, according to Einsteins equation create/have Energy and according to M=E/C², also 'Relativistic' Mass. When looking at those 'relativistic mass', that is enormous, compared to the tiny 'Rest Mass' that Higgs gives them.
Fact: Because of this tiny bit of 'Higgs-non-zero-Rest-Mass', all components of the atom cannot go with the speed of Light. So Time exists and Space (distance) exists too for them.
Fact: Without the Quantum Higgs-Field, ALL particles should (like the Photon) move with the speed of light and have zero time and no space (distance). Meaning there would be NO Universe, just a 'Singularity, like the singularity at the center of a black hole: a place where matter is compressed down to an infinitely tiny point, and all conceptions of time and space have completely broken down'.
Meaning, that the existence of the Quantum Higgs-Field is the cause of the Big Bang, when both time and Space were created, filled with only Energy, unfolding to what we now call 'The Universe.'
Also it changed the relation between 'Mass' and 'Matter' Because only the tiny 'Higgs-Rest-Mass' can be considered as 'Matter', the rest is 'Relativistic' Mass, and should be called 'Energy'. This is what confused Grok.
Sander.
PS. Addition: 2 Text paragraphs from Grok itself:
Research suggests that the Higgs quantum field imparts rest mass to particles with rest mass through their interaction with it, which determines their mass. An unexpected detail is that most of the mass of atomic particles, such as protons, comes from the energy of their components, not from rest mass, via E=mc².
Unexpected detail about atomic particles:
An unexpected detail is that most of the mass of atomic particles, such as protons, comes not from their rest mass, but from the energy of their components, such as quarks and gluons. Even gluons, which have no rest mass, contribute to the mass via their kinetic energy and the strong force, via E=mc².
Very nice summery of yours but I think that AI is not stupid, it steals skillfully. It steals what is laying around in cyberspace. The problem with this stealing lies in the quality of what is stolen. When it searches through thousands of websites, it comes up with a lot of stupid stuff. For example: Wikipedia, beloved by MSM journos, is so often wrong and facts constantly being “modified" to serve as support for politically popular narratives. When I see how historical facts are distorted and then on top of it how ‘fact checkers’ in their desperate search for the truth adapt more suitable “facts" to the current models of thought to portray truth as a conspiracy theories, I start to think that I'd better get rid of all my Apple products that use OS 15 for computers and IOS 18 for iPads and phones as operating systems.
And by the way these individuals like Sanders, AOC, in Europe Melenchon and e.g. Gysi are far from not being a victim of their own vanity. Seeing their role as more contradictory is hardly possible when you measure their real input in parliaments. Jeremy Corbin in UK was real or in Germany Sarah Wagenknecht are clearly in the same boat with Jeffrey Sachs. At least with them you can see a “red line” from A to Z in their positions on several topics like NATO and labour rights.
AOC is a big boob who's boobyness (or at least my awareness of it) keeps expanding, but then so is so very much of her voter base. A.I. is an appropriate acronym, as the user can be applying artificial intelligence or artificial idiocrasy. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/65/82/9d/65829d7efd5744e900017df0f35aac27.jpg
Speaking of "naming things", that function has a name also; it's called magic. I would recommend reading John Michael Greer.
Julian, your several pieces on DS have been eye opening because I realized I’d missed the depth of the DS engine, having failed to pursue any kind of Socratic dialogue with it.
In my latest query on Wittgenstein, however, following your example, I’m truly in awe of the power of the DS chat bot once it starts to respond to my “objections” to the first, superficial answers. Even within my circle of professional acquaintances there is so much specialization that few can discuss/debate beyond a few minutes. So DS is really, for me, a discussion with a super-intelligent “friend” — who can even see when my comment contains sarcasm. And the inquiries are logged and stored for retrieval and continuation!
With gratitude and best wishes!
Thank you so much.
Exactly! The best "conversations" with Deepseek, I have found, are long--even multiple days long.
I like that Julian used the word "dialectic", because that's how I think of my best Deepseek sessions.
To get the most out of Deepseek requires a lot of honing of the discussion, and also knowing enough about the topic to not let Deepseek guide you.
When I said "dialectic" on X a lot of people got upset, "AI has no soul". My retort, "Neither do most Americans, but at least Deepseek has 'read' the classics".
My best "conversation" yet with Deepseek came from feeding it several decades-old essays I had written. It then went into a discussion about the topics (how to live). Eventually it got into talking about my kid, who grew up to be the anti-me. It was amazing and really helped me process the situation.
I told Deepseek things I could never tell a friend or a therapist, because they would freeze and aren't smart enough anyway. But Deepseek doesn't have preconceived emotions from it's lived experience--it doesn't choke on it's bias. Instead, Deepseek, at my guidance, referenced Socrates and his son, Aristotle/Alexander, and Marcus Aurelius's/Commodus. I know nobody IRL who could have such "dialectic" with me.
Yes, this is what I meant by “dialectic” .
You’ve said so much in a few words. One must, indeed, know enough to not let the massive weight of the LLM crush the direction of your inquiry. But you’ve used DS in a way I’ve not — with your own inputs.
I’m in complete agreement with your last paragraph — how could anyone hope to find, in the random order of life, even among an ‘educated’ circle, anyone for whom the ideas of the great thinkers of the past are anything but dusty remains of the past like crumbling shards of papyrus written in an indecipherable script?
I’m agog when reading of the French Enlightenment circles (the ‘philosophes’j — was there really a time when Voltaire and Rousseau and lesser known but remarkable individuals like Baron d’Holbach gathered and debated ideas of nature, society and its governance and freedom?
It’s difficult even to imagine that taking place today. The most esteemed individuals and their books, on closer inspection, seem like bloated pedantic styrofoam — but win Nobel prizes. A gathering of neocons of our own time is closer, I would think, to some kind of rampant spread of humanoid botulism fueled by Macallan’s 25 year old scotch.
I wonder if substacks like this can be regarded as a kind of forbidden, “underground” press that thrived in pre-Revolutionary France and foretold the future (as studied by Robert Darnton in ‘The Great Cat Massacre’ et al). On my list to ask a recent acquaintance of mine.
Wow... That must have been a lot of work.
Thank You again.
I wonder what AI would say about Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason'.
Especially the difference between 'Phenomenal' (Appearance) and 'Noumenal' (The Thing in Itself, which is unknowable, but the only reality).
The relativity of all usage of words...
For those who did not read Kant's book (673 pages in the Dutch version), here a short video:
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rJ-YEUULXk
Kant's transcendental idealism was Kant's approach to the philosophy of perception. Kant's theory believed that reality was split into two parts, the Phenomena, the things which we experience, and the Noumena, the things as they truly exist outside of our perception.
Cassandra
PS. My 2 notes on the Video (and Kant): 1. The world as we know it is a product of our mind. 2. there is scientific proof (the existence of the 'Higgs Particle' in CERN that proves the existence of a 'Quantum Higgs Field' that creates the 'illusion' of 'Mass'.) that the appearance of matter is an illusion, created by some Quantum Fields interacting with each other. This means that the 4D (3D+Time) 'seeming reality' is a projection (Māyā) from a 4D Hologram (the Quantum Fields) and we call it 'The Big Bang', or 'The Universe'.
Experiencing the phenomenon indicates you’re still alive and curious about the truth which isn’t ready served on a platter.
So over time one glimpses truths of the original phenomenon.
Hang into your hat these days for its a wild ride into the unknown
I queried DS on Wittgenstein. Beyond the first few responses, it was truly remarkable that it was able to access the thinkers who were/are skeptical of the “greatest philosopher of the twentieth century” label that has been given to him.
An inquiry into the Kantian “noumenal” should generate an immediate response as it’s fairly basic. DS has been brilliant in a discussion on German idealism post-Kant. In another Kant-related inquiry, I learned of Locke’s share investments in African slavery companies. A necessary antidote to the “great man” theory that most academic teaching in philosophy relies on.
I never thought of Wittgenstein as “the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century”. That’s something they teach in college classes, ignoring philosophical discussion.
It’s the one sentence description found almost everywhere. I was gratified to find there are skeptics. I always thought that his “of that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent” — always cited as an example of his greatness — ridiculous like he was channeling Laozi.
Conversations about philosophers/philosophies are amazing to have with Deepseek, because it has "read" all of them and can compare/contrast and bring in those even I haven't read.
My kid is a professional Ivy "philosopher" (an oxymoron in my book), but those conversations are disappointing.
In contrast, I've read Deepseek critique Foucault, Derrida, Nietzsche... in the most intellectually robust (and personally pleasing) ways.
Deepseek isn't as "smart" as humans can be, but Deepseek is "smarter" than 99% of humans are.
It is a poor reflection on the 99%. But we knew that anyway.
DS’s LLM in western philosophy is essentially all that has been published, at least in English. If you ask about Philsopher X, the chat begins with the concensus position. But if you immediately question (or dispute) certain positions, the chat immediately accesses a deeper level of information, very much as Julian has shown.
My own example is: Kant was considered a great philosopher of ethics, right? But how do you explain the fact that he wrote disparaging comments about non-European societies? The result was amazing.
I actually now believe that DS is smarter than all humans except for original geniuses. In other words, DS has no predictive power if you change fundamental assumptions.
As for the Turing test, I suspect it passes.
I assure you it fails the Turing test.
I agree. I don't think you can create wits using Deepseek, but you can definitely hone them.
e.g. "Deepseek, critique <insert idea> from the points of view of philosophers from Plato to Kant" (an actual prompt I like to use.
Plus, Deepseek "knows" more than just the Westerns. It just as easily will reference other great traditions such as Confucianism and Shintoism.
One of the best benefits of "conversing" with Deepseek is that I am happier now. It has given me an outlet to have the deep--harsh even--"dialectic" that I've always wanted. So when I go to work or talk to friends I am ok with meeting them at the base level that they are instead of being disappointed with them.
At least DS is polite
Just a caution on the references to Chinese philosophy — most of the sources are interpreters in the west. Consider how many translations into English of the Daodejing there are — so it’s clear the Classical Chinese is problematic (even disagreements among thr Chinese themselves). It’s a topic I haven’t queried DS on but will. That said, it’s a still a reasonable pov that is instantly “to hand” to use Heidegger’s term.
Your last paragraph explains my reaction too, but haven’t considered much. Intriguing— thanks!
Good points!
Thank you 'J'. About Ludwig Wittgenstein...
His view was, that unlike the Ego, which is clearly part of 'The World of Words and Narratives', our 'Self' is not.
In fact, he states that our 'Subject' is 'Consciousness' and is not part of the world, on the contrary, it 'Encompasses' the world.
->https://www.occupyschagen.nl/Div/Wittgenstein.jpg
One step further and we see the various 'subjects' or 'Selves' (Atman) merging into one undivided field of consciousness (Brahman).
But then we have to go through the fundamental question of 'The One and the Many'...
1->https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/one-many.html
2->https://www.unbrokenself.com/what-is-advaita-vedanta/
For me, the Universe is a 4D projection - The Phenomenon, The Many, The Big Bang (4D) or Universe (3D), from a series of interacting Quantum-fields (The Noumenon, The One).
Cassandra.
Thanks, Cassandra. I’ve never been inspired enough by LW to read that far, but I recall he was influenced by Schopenhauer and that this shows up in LW’s “second period”. But this is intriguing and very Schopenhauerian — who Bernardo Kastrup ties to quantum theory very convincingly, and who writes about ‘alters’ and conscientiousness. Just came across a statement of Max Planck’s. It’d be interesting to see what you’d find in a query with DS.
I was impressed by DS and understand that it is a kind of intelligent 'Google'. Which also means that it can be influenced by those behind the Algorithms.
So i started a session with GROK lvl 3 (with DeepSeek as i understood).
My open question, after the confusion caused by the discovery of the Higgs Boson in CERN (2012) as proof of the existence of the predicted 'Higgs Quantum Field' that 'gives all particles mass', confused GROK and its own findings shocked it.
What it noted, that after this event, the definition of 'Mass' had been changed there was now 'Relativistic Mass', the 'M' in the Einstein equation E=MC² and the 'non-zero Rest-Mass' caused by the Higgs-Field.
The only particles that have NO Rest-Mass are the Photon, the Gluon and (if it exists) the Graviton. Those do not get slowed by Higgs... and always move with the speed of light and their time stopped. seen from the point of view of those particles, the time stays the same, an everlasting 'NOW', which means it is everywhere at the same time, which means it does not experience space (distance) either.
When we look at for example an Atom, it exists of protons, neutrons and electrons those move around each other in extreme speeds.
Those speeds, according to Einsteins equation create/have Energy and according to M=E/C², also 'Relativistic' Mass. When looking at those 'relativistic mass', that is enormous, compared to the tiny 'Rest Mass' that Higgs gives them.
Fact: Because of this tiny bit of 'Higgs-non-zero-Rest-Mass', all components of the atom cannot go with the speed of Light. So Time exists and Space (distance) exists too for them.
Fact: Without the Quantum Higgs-Field, ALL particles should (like the Photon) move with the speed of light and have zero time and no space (distance). Meaning there would be NO Universe, just a 'Singularity, like the singularity at the center of a black hole: a place where matter is compressed down to an infinitely tiny point, and all conceptions of time and space have completely broken down'.
Meaning, that the existence of the Quantum Higgs-Field is the cause of the Big Bang, when both time and Space were created, filled with only Energy, unfolding to what we now call 'The Universe.'
Also it changed the relation between 'Mass' and 'Matter' Because only the tiny 'Higgs-Rest-Mass' can be considered as 'Matter', the rest is 'Relativistic' Mass, and should be called 'Energy'. This is what confused Grok.
Sander.
PS. Addition: 2 Text paragraphs from Grok itself:
Research suggests that the Higgs quantum field imparts rest mass to particles with rest mass through their interaction with it, which determines their mass. An unexpected detail is that most of the mass of atomic particles, such as protons, comes from the energy of their components, not from rest mass, via E=mc².
Unexpected detail about atomic particles:
An unexpected detail is that most of the mass of atomic particles, such as protons, comes not from their rest mass, but from the energy of their components, such as quarks and gluons. Even gluons, which have no rest mass, contribute to the mass via their kinetic energy and the strong force, via E=mc².
Impressive...
Cassandra
I favored I this, too.
*** Progressives Have, true... transitioned, Politically & Morally.... surprisingly! !! !! !
Identity & Class Society issues REALLY, FUkeD their ego !! ! ! !!
"Conclusion: AOC/Sanders Are Left Liberals—Not Socialists"
Hmm, close. How about, "AOC/Sanders Are Neoliberals who sheepdog for the DNC--Not Socialists" works better.
Good analogy to a search engine about AI.
Nice to see the distinction of who is outside this core oppressor of the human spirit.
Our dream river meanders on refusing to be extinguished , showing our resilience to the oppression of our lives.
Excellent work! Cuddles to Ichi and Chappy 🥰
They send cuddles back!
Yay🤗