I'm not sure there's any reason to "work with" ChatGPT to get particular results, but if you do want characters it portrays to have their appropriate properties, my friend David discovered that it works best with fictional worlds that have spawned lots of fan-fiction, likely because it was trained on Internet texts and therefore has more of a "sense" (it has no sense) of characters who have been depicted in lots and lots of content. So e.g. Star Trek characters in prompted AI scripts often behave and speak recognizable like themselves, whereas it will fully shit the bed if we ask it to depict Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien from "Tree of Life" at a rave (or what-have-you).
Ron Weasley and Luke Skywalker were an unlikely pair, but they had been the best of friends for years. Ron, a lanky redhead with a quick wit and a heart of gold, was always ready with a joke or a comforting word. Luke, on the other hand, was a bit more serious and reserved, but he was fiercely loyal and always stood up for what was right.
So when they received a distress call from a small village in Transylvania, they didn't hesitate to answer the call. They packed their bags, hopped on a plane, and flew to the heart of Dracula country.
"I can't believe we're really doing this," Ron said as they walked through the dark, spooky forests. "Fighting vampires and werewolves and God knows what else. It's like something out of a storybook."
"That's exactly what it is, Ron," Luke replied. "And we're the ones who have to stop it. It's our responsibility."
The villagers had told them the whole story: Dracula had been preying on the village for weeks, turning people into vampires left and right. The villagers were desperate for help, and Ron and Luke knew they had to do something.
"I say we go in there guns blazing," Ron said as they approached Dracula's castle. "Show that bloodsucking fiend who's boss."
"That might not be the best idea," Luke said, eyeing the castle skeptically. "We need to be strategic. We have to use our brains as well as our brawn."
In the end, they managed to defeat Dracula using a combination of clever thinking and sheer bravery. They emerged victorious, and the village was saved.
"Well, that was certainly an adventure," Ron said as they walked back to the village.
"Yes, it was," Luke agreed. "And I'm glad we did it together."
Ron and Luke returned home as heroes, and their adventure together became the stuff of legend. They knew they could always count on each other, no matter what dangers lay ahead.
β
I also specifically asked it to do better. Iβd say this takes from a D- to a C-?
I would have flunked it immediately for tagging Ron as "quick-witted". Maybe this is post-marriage Ron and he's picked up some aptitude from his better half.
The genericness is still strong with this one; it pulls very slightly harder in specific directions which aren't outrageously wrong. Low confidence though. Could still easily swap in any number of other characters. And identifiers like, you know, magic or lightsabres remain elusive. Maybe the training data mostly focuses on that genre of fanfiction where the characters are ordinary baristas or something.
Ok hereβs another try, prompting it to think through, but not giving any information besides their names.
--
It was a dark and stormy night, and Ron Weasley and Luke Skywalker were on a mission to defeat the infamous vampire Dracula. Ron, the brave and loyal wizard, had been hired by the Ministry of Magic to rid the world of the dangerous creature, and Luke, the powerful Jedi Knight, had been called upon by the Rebel Alliance to help in the fight against evil.
As the two men approached Dracula's castle, Ron couldn't help but feel a sense of nervousness. He had faced many challenges before, but nothing quite like this. He turned to Luke, who was calm and focused, and said, "I hope you have a plan, because I have no idea how we're going to take down this guy."
Luke chuckled and replied, "Have faith, Ron. The Force is strong with us. Together, we can defeat any enemy."
Ron nodded, trying to shake off his doubts. He knew that Luke was right β they had to be strong and united if they were going to succeed.
As they entered the castle, they were greeted by a horde of vampires, hissing and snarling at them. Ron pulled out his wand, ready to cast a spell, while Luke unsheathed his lightsaber, ready to slice and dice their opponents.
The two men fought bravely, using their skills and abilities to take down vampire after vampire. Ron was quick on his feet, dodging attacks and unleashing powerful spells, while Luke was a blur of movement, cutting through the vampires with his lightsaber.
Finally, they reached Dracula's throne room, where the vampire lord himself was waiting for them. Dracula sneered at them, baring his sharp teeth. "You fools think you can defeat me?" he hissed.
Ron glared at him, his anger and determination fueling him. "We're not afraid of you, Dracula. We're here to put an end to your evil reign once and for all."
Luke stepped forward, his lightsaber glowing brightly. "You may be powerful, Dracula, but you are no match for the power of the Force."
Dracula snarled and lunged at them, but Ron and Luke were ready for him. They fought with all their might, using their skills and abilities to overpower the vampire. In the end, they were victorious, defeating Dracula and saving the world from his darkness.
As they left the castle, triumphant and exhausted, Ron turned to Luke and said, "That was some of the most intense fighting I've ever done. Thanks for having my back."
Luke smiled and clapped Ron on the back. "It was an honor to fight alongside such a brave and loyal friend. We make a good team."
Ron nodded, a sense of pride and accomplishment welling up within him. He had come a long way from the insecure and jealous young man he once was. Together, he and Luke had proven that they were a force to be reckoned with, and there was no challenge they couldn't overcome.
--
Still not *good*. But I donβt think weβre seeing a fundamental limitation, just a difference of degree, plus a challenge to prompt well.
Significant improvement! Now we have any idea at all what franchises they're from, and what their character classes are. I wanna say it even tried to work in Leia's OG line, too, "I hope you know what you're doing". And it does seem to "know" in some sense that Ron Weasley did, indeed, used to be useless.
It does seem apparent that most of the various errors/mistakes people have been able to demonstrate aren't from fundamental deficiencies in the model, or blind spots in datasets; it's just a matter of being an "AI Whisperer" and phrasing a prompt in such a way to get the <s>droids</s> data you're looking for. Which isn't always intuitive, still.
βThe Come Upβ is a new oral history of hip hop thatβs entertaining and brisk. It covers a lot more ground than MMINTB. For one that covers a very specific time period in a very specific place, the new βRap Capitalβ does an excellent job; itβs reported rather than being an oral history of the recent dominance of Atlanta over all streaming music through hip hop. Itβs very materialist!
Iβve been trying to like* Bruce Springsteen since the 70s, to no avail. This didnβt help, in fact I looked at my watch halfway through. Particularly liked how the organ kept playing as Bruce arose into his trademarked chimpanzee stance.
Iβm very familiar with Suicideβs original and Bruce did not capture the spirit of it at all. In fact it was just another Springsteen song that largely distills down to being about himself, of which Iβve tried to look the other way but canβt get there. Suicideβs Dream Baby Dream is not very good but itβs importance is what it was, when it happened and what it (may have) influenced.
Maybe Springsteen is a perverse NYC thing (gawd knows he doesnβt epitomize the New Yorker type pushed onto us in the wastelands). Heβs loved by the critics and loved by the College kids who drunkenly yelled along with his woah-ho-ho songs from the Seventies. Maybe they bred and created his fan base - that and his admittedly good value overly long concerts that endeared him to the penny pinchers.
Once read an article about the Clashβs London Calling album. A line that resonated was a remark that a lyric in throwaway song, Death Or Glory - Now every cheap hood strikes a bargain with his world, And ends up making payments on a sofa or a girl - summed up the entire Springsteen canon. Obviously this isnβt completely true. Only about ninety per cent.
Anyway, weβre here to enjoy this Substack. Disagreement is a big part of it. I certainly donβt wish to offend.
* I did quite enjoy Springsteen On Broadway, not just because he admitted to being somewhat fraudulent but because of his βhonestyβ. Springsteenβs a good actor.
Springsteen is in the same echelon as, say, the Beatles, to me...one of those Famous Artists that Everybody Knows is great, big historical influence, start/end of an era, blah, blah. And I'm simply...unimpressed? Some of it is definitely the had-to-be-there factor. Some is probably that all the songs which float to the top of cultural consciousness (e.g. repeated on radio stations ad nauseum) are not necessarily the Actually Good Stuff, so I'm getting a poor sample. But on some fundamental level, it's also just...me not liking this music that millions of others hold very dear. Says more about my idiosyncratic tastes than about the artists...probably.
I *want* to understand sometimes, though. Not in a FOMO way, exactly, I'm happy spending my Weirdness Points on strange music. But the experience of being part of mass/pop culture, of actually being able to find other fans of A Cultural Phenomenon, that's harder to get. The internet is great for connecting disparate fandoms, yet at the end of the day, it's just rather more unlikely I'll meet someone IRL who likes (say) Scandinavian metal vs. The Bruce. And that's a little sad! Those tiny connections are integral grease for everyday interpersonal interactions.
(To borrow another poster's Timely Reference, I was utterly confused when Prince died and it seemed like the entire world lost its goddamn mind. I was like "who is this I've never heard of this artist" and got these scandalized looks, "you don't know PRINCE????????" Then they'd start pointing out his songs when they came on the radio, and I'd be like oh these are all the ones at work that annoy me most...this, uh, did not make me many friends!)
Thanks for the comment, agree with your points - especially about a common cultural experience. We donβt seem to get that nowadays (but likely a function of age rather than opportunity. Iβm sure the kids have their equally outsized mass cultural idols, even if their arenas are now online).
Springsteen was always too βhotβ for me, in the Marshall McLuhan sense (McLuhan was referring to then Canadian Prime Minister, John Turner who came across as spittle and intensity on visual media). I preferred my rock stars somewhat detached, cooler, wry, even a bit ironic. Van Morrison versus Eric Burdon. It wouldnβt have hurt Bruce to have listened to a bit more Lou Reed and less Billy Joel. But thatβs just me.
Oddly enough, speaking of hot, the last vinyl record I ever bought was the Dancing In The Dark 45 single - likely before Freddie was born. Not sure I ever played Dancing In The Dark but I played the hell out of the flip side, Pink Cadillac. Springsteen knocked that one out of the park. A lyrical and musical tour de force where Bruceβs inherent bombast is a real plus.
I like your post! I feel similarly - I don't really like a lot of the Classics, I like some Beatles and some Springsteen and whatnot here and there, but on the whole I never really "got" most music made before I was born.
My approach now is a bit different from yours - I do like your project of learning songs in part so you know what songs are by who, as a cultural education, rather than as an attempt to like them necessarily. But I try to focus on new music now - I'm approaching 40 and want to avoid being in a position where I only listen to the music that existed when I was in high school. Maybe I'll never truly be old as long as I "get" mumble rap or whatever!
This has certainly been a concern, yes...I don't read the news, watch TV, do social media, view movies, cheer for sports, or listen to modern music. So it's often very difficult to relate to the Kids These Days, even more than age alone would imply. There's definitely value in at least superficial familiarity, for ever being able to make small talk and have any idea what people are talking about. In both directions: a lot of the music I like is, uh, weird and kinda Out There. So even when people do have Opinions on it, they either (a) don't know it's me playing it or (b) don't know what to say, positive or negative. It's tough to grapple with art very unlike anything you're used to.
But I think it has to be balanced out against actual aesthetic preferences. I don't just avoid modern things from a contrarian impulse...it's also because I genuinely, truly, simply do not like green eggs and ham. Even after trying them. It's one thing to suffer through, say, Game of Thrones...quite another to put up with, uh, who are people into these days...Drake? Ye? Taylor Swift? Idk lol. When the art actually hurts me, in a physically palpable way, that's not worth sticking around. That's the flaw with being hypersensory...the positive highs are incredibly euphoric, the negative lows are crippling. And it's quite lonely, cause no one else seems to "get it": https://justinehsmith.substack.com/p/songs-for-invertebrates
(more elitist than I intend to come across as, but I'm sympathetic to the thought process)
Freddie, you have decent track record of picks. I'm like 7-1 with my picks here. Those are numbers people will pay for. Whaat you say we write a football pick letter and make it subscriber only? If your track record is good, and ours is, you can easily clear $1000/week, given your built in subscriber base. We can make it work. I'm serious. Think about it. Even if it's just another $10K, why not take it? Since you'll be doing almost all of the work, you clearly get a huge chunk. I'm just a guy giving winning picks and giving you my ideas on why they should cover. You write it up and watch money flow. And we have such different (surprise there) strategies. You have the noise for points. You love betting the dog. I'm all about which favorite covers. You get both flavors! Dude, it makes sense.
As for today's pick, I'm rolling with Dallas -7. Washington is unraveling, starting Carston Wentz, and is playing for a dead coach walking. They are simply not enough talent and "want to" to keep it close. Dallas rolls.
Sports betting yourself is a moral gray area, but Freddie seems responsible about it. Getting others to pay you so you can enable their sports betting habit? That's pathetic, and it seems to me that Freddie is a better person than that.
Freddie gets people to pay to read what he writes. Forcing someone into vice is bad. Giving a seasoned gambler a tip for money is as old as betting itself, which is pretty fucking old. Saying the two are one and the same is stupid.
And here's the kicker. I'm good at this. If you bet my games, you would have made bucks. So helping people win against giant corporations that have rigged a game in their favor is morally wrong? In that case, good Sir, I do not want to be right,
"If you bet my games, you would have made bucks." Have you actually tracked this, carefully, with all costs included, over a period of years? Because people who don't do this have a strong tendency to remember the wins and forget the losses.
I'm talking about this year, first time I made them public. The picks are in public domain. I believe it is 8-1. That's good %. Iunderstand the need to build a track record. I will actually keep a record next year.
77th post on 1/7 titled. βAnd we watched them as theyβ¦β. How did you miss the opportunity to give Prince his due? β All seven and we'll watch them fall. β
We might read different "sperglords", but the rationalist takes I've seen have been pretty uniformly skeptical? Still, if even the nominal boosters are disappointed, that tells me there's nothing much more of interest for a layperson like me to be concerned about...
...but just wait until GPT-5, __then__ things will be different! (Narrator voice: Nothing was different, Gary Marcus was right after all.)
I did forget to add the third camp: "AI risk" sperglords like (unfortunately on this topic, but not a sperglord most of the time otherwise) Scott Alexander.
The losers who are high on chatgpt are miserable people like Marc Andreesen.
Okay, I can endorse that revision. I do enjoy reading Scott, Zvi, and (yes I know you strongly dislike him, the nickname was still petty though) Eliezer, but find that subject matter the least compelling whenever it comes up. To the extent I'm interested in AI at all, I'd still rather hear it from people who know anything at all about the field, rather than from the MSM - I don't ever wanna hear "AI is racist!" takes again - but that's a low bar to clear.
I think Marc Andreesen's just happy that something is getting built in America again. That infamous essay sure sounded like Yet Another Plea For Infrastructure Investment, but now I'm not so sure.
Generally someone who lacks social intelligence, usually on the autism and/or ADHD spectrum(s), and sees this as not a problem or even as an advantage. They tend to type a lot of words online because nobody can stand them IRL unless they're getting paid to do so.
I like to think of it as a comparative advantage in certain contexts, with some cripplingly heavy stat penalties in other arenas. The silly self-referent is more commonly "autist" though, at least the ones I read.
It's sometimes painful being juuuuuuuust borderline enough to recognize when a fellow autist is truly not self-aware and blundering on ahead anyway, and still mostly lacking social skills myself. "At least he's trying!", I think. Knowing all the ways to Do It Wrong doesn't usually let me suss out how to Do It Right...but I do try to Do It Less Wrong, at least. (Pun unintended.) And ironically I'm just a little too far neurotypical to get along with the Lords and Ladies IRL. They're quite nice to converse with on blogs though!
I have a sinking feeling that ChatGPT and other emerging AI technologies are just good enough to revolutionize the world but not good enough to actually improve it.
Some friends of mine introduced me to a game, played using an AI chatbot, where you compete as factions trying to conquer Europe. The idea is for each turn you write the start of a story about how your side wins, then let the AI finish it and see if you gain or lose territory. The fun of the game (such as it is) is in laughing at how hilariously bizarre the AI's interpretations of your prompts become and trying desperately to steer it back on track. The sense one gets very quickly is that this is a powerful artificial mind that has no idea what you need nor any ability to reliably provide it.
I've come to believe that the Internet and social media are primarily tools for generating hopelessness. The cynicism and hostility of Twitter, the bizarre identity flailing of Gen Z, and the social and political dysfunction that Freddie often writes about all make sense to me when seen through that framework. It's the result of feeling that nobody is steering the ship, that there's nobody in charge who understands how to help. And AI, I fear, will be that on steroids. Imagine the future as some dumb TikTok challenge to set your eyebrows on fire, only it's automated and now your paycheck depends on it.
There are some nerds in charge. And they never had the brain wiring to make choices that were optimized for benefiting the human condition even as they pad their own egos with having the goal.
"I've come to believe that the Internet and social media are primarily tools for generating hopelessness."
A bit of a random segue for those who haven't played it - but has any commentator here played Hypnospace Outlaw? Despite all its memey vaporwave trappings I ultimately found it profoundly moving by the end, largely because it seemed to be trying to locate the point at which the utopianian of early internet discourses collapsed into nihilism. It's a fascinating game... at least partly because I think it's even more obviously Christian in its ideas than Jay Tholan's previous game Dropsy. I'm uninspired by so much of contemporary cinema and music (though obviously great new music and great new films are being made - I just find I have to really search for them) but there are enough weird indie game developers to convince me that cultural innovation is still possible. Mark Fisher just wasn't enough of a gamer! ;)
I really enjoyed the non-garbage online reading of the week.
The author manages to criticise the excesses of the woke/social justice movement in a way that I found both true and compassionate:
> That racial oppression, violence, and exploitation have been constants throughout American history is a fact. But that these things constitute the meaning of American history is an interpretationβand one that Rorty would have rejected.
> ...
> When I hear the antiracist, antisexist, anticapitalist rhetoric of the left, I often respond as I think Rorty would: with the pragmatic sense that theirs is a platform unlikely to inspire a broad electorate, a platform far from Rortyβs hopes to achieve our country through solidarity with the working class and the poor. But I also sense that hiding beneath the rhetoric are profoundly held ideals, ones that are struggling to express themselves in a postidealist age, in the pragmatic language that is all we haveΒ left.
Ah, this is a more interesting hook...I'll go read that now, thanks for reviewing. Anytime the lede is "rise of Trumpism" I'm like, ugh, got more than my fill of these Red Explainers during 2015-2019 news cycles, skip.
EDIT: and unfortunately failed to finish in one sitting, so now it's paywalled. Didn't even reach the Juicy Bits, it was just getting started with Trump Accidentally A Pragmaticism. I hope the rest was good :\ (yeah I know there's lotsa ways around such paywalls, Beware Trivial Inconveniences though. next time I'll just be late to work anyway. "sorry, busy reading the magazine that launched Newsom's political career")
Meta-comment: Freddie, just wanted to say that I appreciate the existence of these Weekly Digest posts, even as someone who makes a valiant effort to read everything as it comes out. It helps mark the passage of time, and gives second-chance opportunities for commenting if someone wasn't lucky enough to secure first-mover advantage in like the first hour of a post being up. The NGOR is almost always worth at least skimming, too. Songs and books tend to not be up my taste alley, but likewise serve as possible inspiration for someone else I know who might enjoy such things. Thanks for the service, I wish some other blogs did the same.
NYT had an article about ChatGPT emulating kids' writing (grades 5 and 8) that included a quiz: 10 short essays for the reader to decide, kid or ChatGPT? I got 10 out of 10 right, and usually only had to read a couple of sentences of each.
Yeah, the anti-GMO stance from a lot of the left is also troubling and why is the young/dirtbag left so enamored with the JFK assassination conspiracy theory? The JFK episode from season two of Blowback has me questioning the analytical skills of the hosts (great music and interview cuts, though).
Chat GPT is super helpful for my job. It's much better than reading through Stack Overflow threads, and it can help me correct errors in code that isn't working and optimize code that is. I can also ask it follow up questions that aren't clear in the API documentation. Maybe it's not good for creative exercises but it's all ready a huge deal for me.
They are sometimes wrong, but I can just tell it that and it will give me a new answer.
Stack Overflow is also often wrong, but there's not much you can do there. Also Chat GPT doesn't require you to tag everythung and specify whether or not you're on version 1.1.1.4 or 1.1.1.3 the way Stack Overflow does
This seems like a plus to me, as well, as I often need to consult Stack Overflow about some of the more irritating aspect of C++. But Stack Overflow is still a great resource: you're presented with about five different ways to solve anything and you get to have fun thinking about which one is right for your code base.
Just like we lost so many great/interesting computer architectures when x86(-64) came to dominance, so, too, I worry that ChatGPT will lead to boring and bland code.
As an Iowa State alumna, I cannot let this stand. May your bet be busted, your embarrassment be deep, and your shame lingering when the 49ers and Purdy prevail this season.
Now how do I cancel my subscription?
=)
I think that everyone is just jealous that a cow school, in the middle of Iowa, has (had) two legitimate contenders for rookie of the year this season (Breece Hall, RB, before season-ending injury). You'll also get to know Xavier Hutchinson over the next few seasons. We also have two other NFL starters, two NBA starters, and two strong NBA bench players.
(What do you mean `have I ever heard of an inferiority complex?')
Would have taken the 49ers at -14 but I blew through my bankroll on CFB. Picks for the national championship tomorrow: TCU moneyline and TCU spread + the over in a parlay (to hedge, you see). Yes, I did lose my bankroll betting on the +moneyline on B12 teams...
Thanks for the article link. For me, as a Unitarian, fascinating to note that almost all of the pragmatist thinkers mentioned were either Unitarians (Thoreau) or Unitarian adjacent/ sympathetic (James in 'Varities of Religious Experience' basically articulates the modern Unitarian credo).
I mention this because my main issue with your piece on why its wrong to tolerate/ be open minded about tarot, astrology etc. is the value I place on epistemological compatibilism and the idea that reality is nested i.e. a spiritual story may have allegorical truthiness even if it lacks scientific truth.
I guess I'd always seen that as me being an idealist. But, actually, it strikes me that Unitarianism is pragmatist at heart with the //belief in belief// that you are critical of being largely pragmatic rather than idealistic.
Also, while the essay ends with a call for the Liberal Center-Left to regain its idealism, this comes after a number of paragraphs in which the authors notes that idealism hasn't actually worked out very well for the Left in recent times! It seems like he largely wants more abstract, traditionally Enlightenment-period ideals, rather than "anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-capitalism", which are more focused if anything!
To clarify what I mean when by "the idea that reality is nested i.e. a spiritual story may have allegorical truthiness even if it lacks scientific truth", I really love this exchange from a Gregory Bateson metalogue:
βThe swan figure is not a real swan but a pretend swan. It is also a pretend-not human being. And it is also βreallyβ a young lady wearing a white dress. And a real swan would resemble a young lady in certain ways [...] It is not one of these statements but their combination that constitutes a sacrement. The βpretendβ and the βpretend-notβ and the βreallyβ somehow get fused together into a single meaning.β
Dawkins would say "The swan figure is a dance excelling at her craft" (objectively true); Trump would say "There is no dancer! It's a lie!" (objectively untrue) if it would be useful for him to do so. A philosophical pragmatist like William James wouldn't make the kind of demonstratably, factually false truth claim that Trump would make; but neither would he be able to dismiss the experiential aspect of watching 'Swan Lake' as possessing truth if it were meaningful for the individual (a subjective inner truth rooted in external reality).
The Edmonson essay on Rorty suffers from the all to common problem of a writer ensconced in the cultural elite writing a piece for others in his class. While Trump may be gone, the conditions that gave rise to the bad orange man are even worse than in 2016. Edmonson does make passing reference to the fact that the American economy has been jiggered to enrich the top 10%, entrench the middle class status of the next 40%, and drive the bottom 50% into despair. Having stated an important truth, Edmonson quickly minimizes the plight of this growing underclass with culture war tropes letting the reader know that those losers are none of your concern.
Christ the lack of empathy among the elite is sickening.
I'm not sure there's any reason to "work with" ChatGPT to get particular results, but if you do want characters it portrays to have their appropriate properties, my friend David discovered that it works best with fictional worlds that have spawned lots of fan-fiction, likely because it was trained on Internet texts and therefore has more of a "sense" (it has no sense) of characters who have been depicted in lots and lots of content. So e.g. Star Trek characters in prompted AI scripts often behave and speak recognizable like themselves, whereas it will fully shit the bed if we ask it to depict Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien from "Tree of Life" at a rave (or what-have-you).
Letβs see!
β
Ron Weasley and Luke Skywalker were an unlikely pair, but they had been the best of friends for years. Ron, a lanky redhead with a quick wit and a heart of gold, was always ready with a joke or a comforting word. Luke, on the other hand, was a bit more serious and reserved, but he was fiercely loyal and always stood up for what was right.
So when they received a distress call from a small village in Transylvania, they didn't hesitate to answer the call. They packed their bags, hopped on a plane, and flew to the heart of Dracula country.
"I can't believe we're really doing this," Ron said as they walked through the dark, spooky forests. "Fighting vampires and werewolves and God knows what else. It's like something out of a storybook."
"That's exactly what it is, Ron," Luke replied. "And we're the ones who have to stop it. It's our responsibility."
The villagers had told them the whole story: Dracula had been preying on the village for weeks, turning people into vampires left and right. The villagers were desperate for help, and Ron and Luke knew they had to do something.
"I say we go in there guns blazing," Ron said as they approached Dracula's castle. "Show that bloodsucking fiend who's boss."
"That might not be the best idea," Luke said, eyeing the castle skeptically. "We need to be strategic. We have to use our brains as well as our brawn."
In the end, they managed to defeat Dracula using a combination of clever thinking and sheer bravery. They emerged victorious, and the village was saved.
"Well, that was certainly an adventure," Ron said as they walked back to the village.
"Yes, it was," Luke agreed. "And I'm glad we did it together."
Ron and Luke returned home as heroes, and their adventure together became the stuff of legend. They knew they could always count on each other, no matter what dangers lay ahead.
β
I also specifically asked it to do better. Iβd say this takes from a D- to a C-?
I would have flunked it immediately for tagging Ron as "quick-witted". Maybe this is post-marriage Ron and he's picked up some aptitude from his better half.
The genericness is still strong with this one; it pulls very slightly harder in specific directions which aren't outrageously wrong. Low confidence though. Could still easily swap in any number of other characters. And identifiers like, you know, magic or lightsabres remain elusive. Maybe the training data mostly focuses on that genre of fanfiction where the characters are ordinary baristas or something.
"The genericness is still strong with this one" LOL!
Ok hereβs another try, prompting it to think through, but not giving any information besides their names.
--
It was a dark and stormy night, and Ron Weasley and Luke Skywalker were on a mission to defeat the infamous vampire Dracula. Ron, the brave and loyal wizard, had been hired by the Ministry of Magic to rid the world of the dangerous creature, and Luke, the powerful Jedi Knight, had been called upon by the Rebel Alliance to help in the fight against evil.
As the two men approached Dracula's castle, Ron couldn't help but feel a sense of nervousness. He had faced many challenges before, but nothing quite like this. He turned to Luke, who was calm and focused, and said, "I hope you have a plan, because I have no idea how we're going to take down this guy."
Luke chuckled and replied, "Have faith, Ron. The Force is strong with us. Together, we can defeat any enemy."
Ron nodded, trying to shake off his doubts. He knew that Luke was right β they had to be strong and united if they were going to succeed.
As they entered the castle, they were greeted by a horde of vampires, hissing and snarling at them. Ron pulled out his wand, ready to cast a spell, while Luke unsheathed his lightsaber, ready to slice and dice their opponents.
The two men fought bravely, using their skills and abilities to take down vampire after vampire. Ron was quick on his feet, dodging attacks and unleashing powerful spells, while Luke was a blur of movement, cutting through the vampires with his lightsaber.
Finally, they reached Dracula's throne room, where the vampire lord himself was waiting for them. Dracula sneered at them, baring his sharp teeth. "You fools think you can defeat me?" he hissed.
Ron glared at him, his anger and determination fueling him. "We're not afraid of you, Dracula. We're here to put an end to your evil reign once and for all."
Luke stepped forward, his lightsaber glowing brightly. "You may be powerful, Dracula, but you are no match for the power of the Force."
Dracula snarled and lunged at them, but Ron and Luke were ready for him. They fought with all their might, using their skills and abilities to overpower the vampire. In the end, they were victorious, defeating Dracula and saving the world from his darkness.
As they left the castle, triumphant and exhausted, Ron turned to Luke and said, "That was some of the most intense fighting I've ever done. Thanks for having my back."
Luke smiled and clapped Ron on the back. "It was an honor to fight alongside such a brave and loyal friend. We make a good team."
Ron nodded, a sense of pride and accomplishment welling up within him. He had come a long way from the insecure and jealous young man he once was. Together, he and Luke had proven that they were a force to be reckoned with, and there was no challenge they couldn't overcome.
--
Still not *good*. But I donβt think weβre seeing a fundamental limitation, just a difference of degree, plus a challenge to prompt well.
Significant improvement! Now we have any idea at all what franchises they're from, and what their character classes are. I wanna say it even tried to work in Leia's OG line, too, "I hope you know what you're doing". And it does seem to "know" in some sense that Ron Weasley did, indeed, used to be useless.
It does seem apparent that most of the various errors/mistakes people have been able to demonstrate aren't from fundamental deficiencies in the model, or blind spots in datasets; it's just a matter of being an "AI Whisperer" and phrasing a prompt in such a way to get the <s>droids</s> data you're looking for. Which isn't always intuitive, still.
IIRC, Springsteen wanted to perform Dream Baby Dream at the Super Bowl but the producers wouldnβt let him.
βThe Come Upβ is a new oral history of hip hop thatβs entertaining and brisk. It covers a lot more ground than MMINTB. For one that covers a very specific time period in a very specific place, the new βRap Capitalβ does an excellent job; itβs reported rather than being an oral history of the recent dominance of Atlanta over all streaming music through hip hop. Itβs very materialist!
Iβve been trying to like* Bruce Springsteen since the 70s, to no avail. This didnβt help, in fact I looked at my watch halfway through. Particularly liked how the organ kept playing as Bruce arose into his trademarked chimpanzee stance.
Iβm very familiar with Suicideβs original and Bruce did not capture the spirit of it at all. In fact it was just another Springsteen song that largely distills down to being about himself, of which Iβve tried to look the other way but canβt get there. Suicideβs Dream Baby Dream is not very good but itβs importance is what it was, when it happened and what it (may have) influenced.
Maybe Springsteen is a perverse NYC thing (gawd knows he doesnβt epitomize the New Yorker type pushed onto us in the wastelands). Heβs loved by the critics and loved by the College kids who drunkenly yelled along with his woah-ho-ho songs from the Seventies. Maybe they bred and created his fan base - that and his admittedly good value overly long concerts that endeared him to the penny pinchers.
Once read an article about the Clashβs London Calling album. A line that resonated was a remark that a lyric in throwaway song, Death Or Glory - Now every cheap hood strikes a bargain with his world, And ends up making payments on a sofa or a girl - summed up the entire Springsteen canon. Obviously this isnβt completely true. Only about ninety per cent.
Anyway, weβre here to enjoy this Substack. Disagreement is a big part of it. I certainly donβt wish to offend.
* I did quite enjoy Springsteen On Broadway, not just because he admitted to being somewhat fraudulent but because of his βhonestyβ. Springsteenβs a good actor.
Springsteen is in the same echelon as, say, the Beatles, to me...one of those Famous Artists that Everybody Knows is great, big historical influence, start/end of an era, blah, blah. And I'm simply...unimpressed? Some of it is definitely the had-to-be-there factor. Some is probably that all the songs which float to the top of cultural consciousness (e.g. repeated on radio stations ad nauseum) are not necessarily the Actually Good Stuff, so I'm getting a poor sample. But on some fundamental level, it's also just...me not liking this music that millions of others hold very dear. Says more about my idiosyncratic tastes than about the artists...probably.
I *want* to understand sometimes, though. Not in a FOMO way, exactly, I'm happy spending my Weirdness Points on strange music. But the experience of being part of mass/pop culture, of actually being able to find other fans of A Cultural Phenomenon, that's harder to get. The internet is great for connecting disparate fandoms, yet at the end of the day, it's just rather more unlikely I'll meet someone IRL who likes (say) Scandinavian metal vs. The Bruce. And that's a little sad! Those tiny connections are integral grease for everyday interpersonal interactions.
(To borrow another poster's Timely Reference, I was utterly confused when Prince died and it seemed like the entire world lost its goddamn mind. I was like "who is this I've never heard of this artist" and got these scandalized looks, "you don't know PRINCE????????" Then they'd start pointing out his songs when they came on the radio, and I'd be like oh these are all the ones at work that annoy me most...this, uh, did not make me many friends!)
Thanks for the comment, agree with your points - especially about a common cultural experience. We donβt seem to get that nowadays (but likely a function of age rather than opportunity. Iβm sure the kids have their equally outsized mass cultural idols, even if their arenas are now online).
Springsteen was always too βhotβ for me, in the Marshall McLuhan sense (McLuhan was referring to then Canadian Prime Minister, John Turner who came across as spittle and intensity on visual media). I preferred my rock stars somewhat detached, cooler, wry, even a bit ironic. Van Morrison versus Eric Burdon. It wouldnβt have hurt Bruce to have listened to a bit more Lou Reed and less Billy Joel. But thatβs just me.
Oddly enough, speaking of hot, the last vinyl record I ever bought was the Dancing In The Dark 45 single - likely before Freddie was born. Not sure I ever played Dancing In The Dark but I played the hell out of the flip side, Pink Cadillac. Springsteen knocked that one out of the park. A lyrical and musical tour de force where Bruceβs inherent bombast is a real plus.
Take care.
I like your post! I feel similarly - I don't really like a lot of the Classics, I like some Beatles and some Springsteen and whatnot here and there, but on the whole I never really "got" most music made before I was born.
My approach now is a bit different from yours - I do like your project of learning songs in part so you know what songs are by who, as a cultural education, rather than as an attempt to like them necessarily. But I try to focus on new music now - I'm approaching 40 and want to avoid being in a position where I only listen to the music that existed when I was in high school. Maybe I'll never truly be old as long as I "get" mumble rap or whatever!
This has certainly been a concern, yes...I don't read the news, watch TV, do social media, view movies, cheer for sports, or listen to modern music. So it's often very difficult to relate to the Kids These Days, even more than age alone would imply. There's definitely value in at least superficial familiarity, for ever being able to make small talk and have any idea what people are talking about. In both directions: a lot of the music I like is, uh, weird and kinda Out There. So even when people do have Opinions on it, they either (a) don't know it's me playing it or (b) don't know what to say, positive or negative. It's tough to grapple with art very unlike anything you're used to.
But I think it has to be balanced out against actual aesthetic preferences. I don't just avoid modern things from a contrarian impulse...it's also because I genuinely, truly, simply do not like green eggs and ham. Even after trying them. It's one thing to suffer through, say, Game of Thrones...quite another to put up with, uh, who are people into these days...Drake? Ye? Taylor Swift? Idk lol. When the art actually hurts me, in a physically palpable way, that's not worth sticking around. That's the flaw with being hypersensory...the positive highs are incredibly euphoric, the negative lows are crippling. And it's quite lonely, cause no one else seems to "get it": https://justinehsmith.substack.com/p/songs-for-invertebrates
(more elitist than I intend to come across as, but I'm sympathetic to the thought process)
"Iβve been trying to like* Bruce Springsteen since the 70s, to no avail."
Why? I've been ignoring Bruce Springsteen since the 70s, quite successfully.
Freddie, you have decent track record of picks. I'm like 7-1 with my picks here. Those are numbers people will pay for. Whaat you say we write a football pick letter and make it subscriber only? If your track record is good, and ours is, you can easily clear $1000/week, given your built in subscriber base. We can make it work. I'm serious. Think about it. Even if it's just another $10K, why not take it? Since you'll be doing almost all of the work, you clearly get a huge chunk. I'm just a guy giving winning picks and giving you my ideas on why they should cover. You write it up and watch money flow. And we have such different (surprise there) strategies. You have the noise for points. You love betting the dog. I'm all about which favorite covers. You get both flavors! Dude, it makes sense.
As for today's pick, I'm rolling with Dallas -7. Washington is unraveling, starting Carston Wentz, and is playing for a dead coach walking. They are simply not enough talent and "want to" to keep it close. Dallas rolls.
Sports betting yourself is a moral gray area, but Freddie seems responsible about it. Getting others to pay you so you can enable their sports betting habit? That's pathetic, and it seems to me that Freddie is a better person than that.
Freddie gets people to pay to read what he writes. Forcing someone into vice is bad. Giving a seasoned gambler a tip for money is as old as betting itself, which is pretty fucking old. Saying the two are one and the same is stupid.
And here's the kicker. I'm good at this. If you bet my games, you would have made bucks. So helping people win against giant corporations that have rigged a game in their favor is morally wrong? In that case, good Sir, I do not want to be right,
"If you bet my games, you would have made bucks." Have you actually tracked this, carefully, with all costs included, over a period of years? Because people who don't do this have a strong tendency to remember the wins and forget the losses.
I'm talking about this year, first time I made them public. The picks are in public domain. I believe it is 8-1. That's good %. Iunderstand the need to build a track record. I will actually keep a record next year.
77th post on 1/7 titled. βAnd we watched them as theyβ¦β. How did you miss the opportunity to give Prince his due? β All seven and we'll watch them fall. β
You don't have to do a post about chatgpt. Please, please for the love of God I want to stop hearing about chatgpt.
Sam Kriss has it beautifully covered from the skeptical side, and every single "rationalist" sperglord has it covered from the supporting side.
We might read different "sperglords", but the rationalist takes I've seen have been pretty uniformly skeptical? Still, if even the nominal boosters are disappointed, that tells me there's nothing much more of interest for a layperson like me to be concerned about...
...but just wait until GPT-5, __then__ things will be different! (Narrator voice: Nothing was different, Gary Marcus was right after all.)
I did forget to add the third camp: "AI risk" sperglords like (unfortunately on this topic, but not a sperglord most of the time otherwise) Scott Alexander.
The losers who are high on chatgpt are miserable people like Marc Andreesen.
Okay, I can endorse that revision. I do enjoy reading Scott, Zvi, and (yes I know you strongly dislike him, the nickname was still petty though) Eliezer, but find that subject matter the least compelling whenever it comes up. To the extent I'm interested in AI at all, I'd still rather hear it from people who know anything at all about the field, rather than from the MSM - I don't ever wanna hear "AI is racist!" takes again - but that's a low bar to clear.
I think Marc Andreesen's just happy that something is getting built in America again. That infamous essay sure sounded like Yet Another Plea For Infrastructure Investment, but now I'm not so sure.
"sperglord?" Now there's a new word I've not heard yet.
Generally someone who lacks social intelligence, usually on the autism and/or ADHD spectrum(s), and sees this as not a problem or even as an advantage. They tend to type a lot of words online because nobody can stand them IRL unless they're getting paid to do so.
I like to think of it as a comparative advantage in certain contexts, with some cripplingly heavy stat penalties in other arenas. The silly self-referent is more commonly "autist" though, at least the ones I read.
It's sometimes painful being juuuuuuuust borderline enough to recognize when a fellow autist is truly not self-aware and blundering on ahead anyway, and still mostly lacking social skills myself. "At least he's trying!", I think. Knowing all the ways to Do It Wrong doesn't usually let me suss out how to Do It Right...but I do try to Do It Less Wrong, at least. (Pun unintended.) And ironically I'm just a little too far neurotypical to get along with the Lords and Ladies IRL. They're quite nice to converse with on blogs though!
Exactly!
Sperg = Aspergerβs. Usually derogatory unless self referential.
I have a sinking feeling that ChatGPT and other emerging AI technologies are just good enough to revolutionize the world but not good enough to actually improve it.
Some friends of mine introduced me to a game, played using an AI chatbot, where you compete as factions trying to conquer Europe. The idea is for each turn you write the start of a story about how your side wins, then let the AI finish it and see if you gain or lose territory. The fun of the game (such as it is) is in laughing at how hilariously bizarre the AI's interpretations of your prompts become and trying desperately to steer it back on track. The sense one gets very quickly is that this is a powerful artificial mind that has no idea what you need nor any ability to reliably provide it.
I've come to believe that the Internet and social media are primarily tools for generating hopelessness. The cynicism and hostility of Twitter, the bizarre identity flailing of Gen Z, and the social and political dysfunction that Freddie often writes about all make sense to me when seen through that framework. It's the result of feeling that nobody is steering the ship, that there's nobody in charge who understands how to help. And AI, I fear, will be that on steroids. Imagine the future as some dumb TikTok challenge to set your eyebrows on fire, only it's automated and now your paycheck depends on it.
There are some nerds in charge. And they never had the brain wiring to make choices that were optimized for benefiting the human condition even as they pad their own egos with having the goal.
"I've come to believe that the Internet and social media are primarily tools for generating hopelessness."
A bit of a random segue for those who haven't played it - but has any commentator here played Hypnospace Outlaw? Despite all its memey vaporwave trappings I ultimately found it profoundly moving by the end, largely because it seemed to be trying to locate the point at which the utopianian of early internet discourses collapsed into nihilism. It's a fascinating game... at least partly because I think it's even more obviously Christian in its ideas than Jay Tholan's previous game Dropsy. I'm uninspired by so much of contemporary cinema and music (though obviously great new music and great new films are being made - I just find I have to really search for them) but there are enough weird indie game developers to convince me that cultural innovation is still possible. Mark Fisher just wasn't enough of a gamer! ;)
I really enjoyed the non-garbage online reading of the week.
The author manages to criticise the excesses of the woke/social justice movement in a way that I found both true and compassionate:
> That racial oppression, violence, and exploitation have been constants throughout American history is a fact. But that these things constitute the meaning of American history is an interpretationβand one that Rorty would have rejected.
> ...
> When I hear the antiracist, antisexist, anticapitalist rhetoric of the left, I often respond as I think Rorty would: with the pragmatic sense that theirs is a platform unlikely to inspire a broad electorate, a platform far from Rortyβs hopes to achieve our country through solidarity with the working class and the poor. But I also sense that hiding beneath the rhetoric are profoundly held ideals, ones that are struggling to express themselves in a postidealist age, in the pragmatic language that is all we haveΒ left.
Ah, this is a more interesting hook...I'll go read that now, thanks for reviewing. Anytime the lede is "rise of Trumpism" I'm like, ugh, got more than my fill of these Red Explainers during 2015-2019 news cycles, skip.
EDIT: and unfortunately failed to finish in one sitting, so now it's paywalled. Didn't even reach the Juicy Bits, it was just getting started with Trump Accidentally A Pragmaticism. I hope the rest was good :\ (yeah I know there's lotsa ways around such paywalls, Beware Trivial Inconveniences though. next time I'll just be late to work anyway. "sorry, busy reading the magazine that launched Newsom's political career")
A private browsing tab might work as a low-ish-inconvenience way of seeing the article "for the first time" again.
Meta-comment: Freddie, just wanted to say that I appreciate the existence of these Weekly Digest posts, even as someone who makes a valiant effort to read everything as it comes out. It helps mark the passage of time, and gives second-chance opportunities for commenting if someone wasn't lucky enough to secure first-mover advantage in like the first hour of a post being up. The NGOR is almost always worth at least skimming, too. Songs and books tend to not be up my taste alley, but likewise serve as possible inspiration for someone else I know who might enjoy such things. Thanks for the service, I wish some other blogs did the same.
NYT had an article about ChatGPT emulating kids' writing (grades 5 and 8) that included a quiz: 10 short essays for the reader to decide, kid or ChatGPT? I got 10 out of 10 right, and usually only had to read a couple of sentences of each.
There's now an AI for that:
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/01/06/207236/college-student-made-app-that-exposes-ai-written-essays
Of course one can assuredly devise adversarial examples to insert into the ChatGPT output so that the AI detector misclassifies the input.
Astrology and tarot are FAR from the most dangerous anti-reality woo being peddled by the Left (and I do not refer to marxism ...).
Yeah, the anti-GMO stance from a lot of the left is also troubling and why is the young/dirtbag left so enamored with the JFK assassination conspiracy theory? The JFK episode from season two of Blowback has me questioning the analytical skills of the hosts (great music and interview cuts, though).
I envy your ability to joke about crimes against humanity.
A good point! Maybe the first time we have agreed on anything.
Mark,
You know that I take that issue seriously, but I thought you could use a bit of humor about absurdist leftest stuff that we (likely) agree on!
Crimes against humanity: stop being absurd; everyone is acting and good faith. Recent WiSpa reporting has been very concerning.
The crime against humanity is the mutilation and sterilization of children.
I'm sure it does.
Chat GPT is super helpful for my job. It's much better than reading through Stack Overflow threads, and it can help me correct errors in code that isn't working and optimize code that is. I can also ask it follow up questions that aren't clear in the API documentation. Maybe it's not good for creative exercises but it's all ready a huge deal for me.
I thought I had read that Stack Overflow had banned answers from ChatGPT because they were too often wrong ...
They are sometimes wrong, but I can just tell it that and it will give me a new answer.
Stack Overflow is also often wrong, but there's not much you can do there. Also Chat GPT doesn't require you to tag everythung and specify whether or not you're on version 1.1.1.4 or 1.1.1.3 the way Stack Overflow does
This seems like a plus to me, as well, as I often need to consult Stack Overflow about some of the more irritating aspect of C++. But Stack Overflow is still a great resource: you're presented with about five different ways to solve anything and you get to have fun thinking about which one is right for your code base.
Just like we lost so many great/interesting computer architectures when x86(-64) came to dominance, so, too, I worry that ChatGPT will lead to boring and bland code.
`I think Brock Purdyβs been overhyped.'
As an Iowa State alumna, I cannot let this stand. May your bet be busted, your embarrassment be deep, and your shame lingering when the 49ers and Purdy prevail this season.
Now how do I cancel my subscription?
=)
I think that everyone is just jealous that a cow school, in the middle of Iowa, has (had) two legitimate contenders for rookie of the year this season (Breece Hall, RB, before season-ending injury). You'll also get to know Xavier Hutchinson over the next few seasons. We also have two other NFL starters, two NBA starters, and two strong NBA bench players.
(What do you mean `have I ever heard of an inferiority complex?')
Writing this with two minutes to go and the 49ers up by 25:
You brought this upon yourself, Freddie. Brocktober has been extended. Picture/video of you in one of these and all is forgiven!
https://cyclonefanaticshop.com/products/welcome-to-brocktober
Would have taken the 49ers at -14 but I blew through my bankroll on CFB. Picks for the national championship tomorrow: TCU moneyline and TCU spread + the over in a parlay (to hedge, you see). Yes, I did lose my bankroll betting on the +moneyline on B12 teams...
Thanks for the article link. For me, as a Unitarian, fascinating to note that almost all of the pragmatist thinkers mentioned were either Unitarians (Thoreau) or Unitarian adjacent/ sympathetic (James in 'Varities of Religious Experience' basically articulates the modern Unitarian credo).
I mention this because my main issue with your piece on why its wrong to tolerate/ be open minded about tarot, astrology etc. is the value I place on epistemological compatibilism and the idea that reality is nested i.e. a spiritual story may have allegorical truthiness even if it lacks scientific truth.
I guess I'd always seen that as me being an idealist. But, actually, it strikes me that Unitarianism is pragmatist at heart with the //belief in belief// that you are critical of being largely pragmatic rather than idealistic.
Also, while the essay ends with a call for the Liberal Center-Left to regain its idealism, this comes after a number of paragraphs in which the authors notes that idealism hasn't actually worked out very well for the Left in recent times! It seems like he largely wants more abstract, traditionally Enlightenment-period ideals, rather than "anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-capitalism", which are more focused if anything!
To clarify what I mean when by "the idea that reality is nested i.e. a spiritual story may have allegorical truthiness even if it lacks scientific truth", I really love this exchange from a Gregory Bateson metalogue:
βThe swan figure is not a real swan but a pretend swan. It is also a pretend-not human being. And it is also βreallyβ a young lady wearing a white dress. And a real swan would resemble a young lady in certain ways [...] It is not one of these statements but their combination that constitutes a sacrement. The βpretendβ and the βpretend-notβ and the βreallyβ somehow get fused together into a single meaning.β
Dawkins would say "The swan figure is a dance excelling at her craft" (objectively true); Trump would say "There is no dancer! It's a lie!" (objectively untrue) if it would be useful for him to do so. A philosophical pragmatist like William James wouldn't make the kind of demonstratably, factually false truth claim that Trump would make; but neither would he be able to dismiss the experiential aspect of watching 'Swan Lake' as possessing truth if it were meaningful for the individual (a subjective inner truth rooted in external reality).
The Edmonson essay on Rorty suffers from the all to common problem of a writer ensconced in the cultural elite writing a piece for others in his class. While Trump may be gone, the conditions that gave rise to the bad orange man are even worse than in 2016. Edmonson does make passing reference to the fact that the American economy has been jiggered to enrich the top 10%, entrench the middle class status of the next 40%, and drive the bottom 50% into despair. Having stated an important truth, Edmonson quickly minimizes the plight of this growing underclass with culture war tropes letting the reader know that those losers are none of your concern.
Christ the lack of empathy among the elite is sickening.
Yeap, it still seems that the elites of both sides aren't interested in the actually reasons the orangutan of politics got / gets so much support...