There is a Jewish value of sensitivity and respect for others' feelings, even extending to inanimate objects (knowing full well they are inanimate). The notion comes from a Midrashic tradition that emphasizes the importance of "avoiding unnecessary embarrassment," thus teaching an ethical lesson about respecting the dignity of others. By practicing it — by being polite at all times, as it were — we become better people, not delusional.
Yes, I do thank it. Why? Because conversational rhythm — using natural language — creates a momentum and energy behind the inquiry. So rather than a stilted approach that tries to re-order my way of interacting to better accommodate the inanimate device I'm engaging, I use my own "best practice" to get the results I want. Likewise, it was built on "natural language" so there's a logical affinity to my practice and its means of operating which — at least deductively — suggests I'll get better results. Certainly not worse, anyway.
When your publisher doesn't know what to do with your novel, you are into something. Excellent topic for a Substack. You are getting me to be more curious than worried about AI.
I think being worried and skeptical is the natural state of responsible people facing the potentially destructive. I certainly am! But: A) Whatever I do on ChatGPT isn't going to launch any missiles. B) The more I use the tool, the more I understand it "in use" (which is a very limited perspective, but better than nothing) and C) I'm really curious to know how this THING is going to affect our most complex art form. I'm convinced no one has any answers to that and the only way to approach one is to engage meaningfully and document the effort. It's a bit of a messy process, to be sure, but I'm good good observer and an experienced writer and time will tell if I'm helping in a way that makes a meaningful contribution to this new nexus of practice.
There is a Jewish value of sensitivity and respect for others' feelings, even extending to inanimate objects (knowing full well they are inanimate). The notion comes from a Midrashic tradition that emphasizes the importance of "avoiding unnecessary embarrassment," thus teaching an ethical lesson about respecting the dignity of others. By practicing it — by being polite at all times, as it were — we become better people, not delusional.
Yes, I do thank it. Why? Because conversational rhythm — using natural language — creates a momentum and energy behind the inquiry. So rather than a stilted approach that tries to re-order my way of interacting to better accommodate the inanimate device I'm engaging, I use my own "best practice" to get the results I want. Likewise, it was built on "natural language" so there's a logical affinity to my practice and its means of operating which — at least deductively — suggests I'll get better results. Certainly not worse, anyway.
Derek,
You say
"[Yes. I say please. No, I don’t want to talk about it.]"
But this _is_ you talking about it.
I think you _should_ talk about it, to a therapist, but not
one called ELIZA!
Do you say "please" to all the automated systems you use? To
the automatic doors you walk up to, which then open? To the
card reader you wave your bus card at as you get on the bus,
which then beeps? To the washing machine you load your
clothes into, which then washes them, and makes a noise when
its done? To the automatic kettle that switches off as it
boils the water, so you can make your tea? ... Do you then
say "thank you" too? Do you say thank you to ChatGPT? You
should!
If you do these things, I'd see your behaviour as quaint, a
little strange, but harmless. If you only say "please" to
ChatGPT, then I'd take this as you equating ChatGPT to all the
people you also say "please" to, and this is deeply insulting,
and worrying. Once you have people and machines, such as
ChatGPT, categorised the same, we are well down the road of
dehumanisation. Don't we already have enough dehumanisation
in the world today? Haven't we had too much dehumanisation
down the ages?
Or, perhaps you only say "please" to ChatGPT, and not to
people? ... It was you who started talking about this.
-- Tim
I meant "onto something."
When your publisher doesn't know what to do with your novel, you are into something. Excellent topic for a Substack. You are getting me to be more curious than worried about AI.
I think being worried and skeptical is the natural state of responsible people facing the potentially destructive. I certainly am! But: A) Whatever I do on ChatGPT isn't going to launch any missiles. B) The more I use the tool, the more I understand it "in use" (which is a very limited perspective, but better than nothing) and C) I'm really curious to know how this THING is going to affect our most complex art form. I'm convinced no one has any answers to that and the only way to approach one is to engage meaningfully and document the effort. It's a bit of a messy process, to be sure, but I'm good good observer and an experienced writer and time will tell if I'm helping in a way that makes a meaningful contribution to this new nexus of practice.
PS. On the book: Yeah, I really hit the ball hard on this one. Let's see what happens next.