Item — HN Reader

I'm afraid, the essence is that is not. Re-sequencing content is not the same as synthesis and therefore not the same as a person processing information and communicating their own conception of this. There's a vital difference.

(We can even observe this in the resulting text: we immediately grasp the level of competence of the author, just by the way they take their path trough and at the matter. With LLMs, well, there's this even temperature, ready-made feeling, regulated by probability thresholds and RLHF sanctioned phrasing, also known as "slop" – even rhythmic intensifications, like "not this, not that, but…", which is actually a figure for a synthetic construct, don't help –, since the text isn't the trace or product of an actual organized thought – or, at least, an attempt at an organized thought.)

PS: "empirical a priori judgement" was meant as translation of synthetisches Urteil a priori (Kant). I.e., our ability to mentally prove concepts like congruency, which are not a priori, but can be inferred without regression to empirical knowledge. Typically, this requires both our inner sense (time, sequence, etc.) and outer senses (space, configuration, etc.)

1 comments

> I'm afraid, the essence is that is not. Re-sequencing content is not the same as synthesis

Drawing different sources of information together into a single understanding is quite literally the definition of "synthesis" in this context. If that process is what you're referring to as "re-sequencing content", then it does fit the definition of "synthesis" in this discussion.

If you're using the phrase "re-sequencing content" as a way of indirectly suggesting that LLMs aren't relating together multiple sources of information and combining them into a single expression, then that itself is the point of contention that we are arguing about.

Perhaps you're trying to apply a philosophical concept of synthesis, e.g. that of Fichte or Hegel, but that definition applies to a specific type of philosophical analysis, and isn't quite the concept we're using in this discussion.

If we're talking about concepts and communication, in text, I don't know what meaning of synthesis to apply (as long as there is meaning), other than the meaning this has had for centuries. I think, aggregation, extraction and emulgating is something else.

The very purpose of text is to transfer meaning, concepts, observations and complex thoughts to human readers for them to process. And we have built a complex framework around this and for this. The fact that many feel that this framework is violated should hint at there being a problem, a conceptual discrepancy. (And be it just that there's a man-in-the middle, who hasn't authorship, standing in between me as an author and those receiving what remains of the text. In its essential lack of agency, it's less of a mediating recommendation and more of an appropriation. But, maybe, if we're talking about a slip into a new dogmatic slumber, manufactured via an unseen authority that hasn't any authority nor position as an author, the problem goes deeper than this. And, maybe, the masquerading of LLM output as human cummunication and phrasing is part of the problem.)

> I think, aggregation, extraction and emulgating is something else.

Aggregating information, extracting underlying concepts, and combining those concepts into a unified expression is indeed the vernacular meaning of "synthesis" applicable to this discussion.

"Emulgating" is not a conventional English word. Is it a misspelling of "emulating"? I ask because using the term "emulating" here would again represent an instance of question begging, i.e. implicitly asserting the position that what's being discussed is merely the paraphrasing of singularly sourced information, and not the unification of concepts expressed in multiple sources, which I again believe is the very thing we are debating.

> And we have built a complex framework around this and for this. The fact that many feel that this framework is violated should hint at there being a problem, a conceptual discrepancy.

I don't think there necessarily is a problem or conceptual discrepancy here, any more than there has been for all of the centuries that people have been debating epistemology. The problem here is the same as for humans, and reduces to a rationalism vs. empiricism debate. AI tools are pure rationalists, and are solely capable of reasoning. However, many people behave this way as well, and exhibit a rationalist epistomology, even having emotional entanglements with their axioms to the point that they'll bend over backwards to reject evidence that falsifies empirical conclusions drawn from those axioms.

My biggest fear from AI is not that it isn't capable of inductive reasoning -- that's all it's capable of, as I see it -- but rather that the fact that its reasoning has no empirical anchor will lead people who are mired in rationalist epistemology to accept its conclusions uncritically.

In other words, the danger doesn't come from the fact that AI has no semantic awareness, but that people using it aren't seeking semantic validation in the first place, which is a problem already pervasive in our society.

*) "emulgate", maybe better emulsify, but this is a bit lateral to this? The point being, a homogenous preparation, which is more a superficial operation than an essential one, as the establishing ingredients remain the untouched.

> AI tools are pure rationalists, and are solely capable of reasoning.

Mind that the world isn't in the language, nor our connection with the world. (We know this for about 120 years, since we expelled the referens from linguistics.) Which brings us back to the synthetic judgement a priori… You may emulate this, as a superficial trait drawn from other traces of communication, but it's not what this is all about. E.g., I wouldn't expect true "lateral thinking" from an LLM output.

> My biggest fear from AI…

I'd add to this, it's not just empirical vs rationalist epistemology, it's also about empathy, anything referring to the conditio humana, which is really what any text is about, even a scientific one (why is it that we do want to know, what are the motivations, the regulating circumstances, etc.?).