Show newer

, as their name suggests, are bound to the domain of , and are not able to from other types of interaction, such as (physical) or show . They have no except for answering user prompts to the best of their (large and static) .

There is no point in debating if they have or not until they are given the capability to ask (generate their own prompts) that may mean they can show "" about other aspects of the topic at hand that is clearly aimed to update their current knowledge, which may thereupon shed some light on their "".

>In this paper, we introduce generative agents - computational software agents that simulate believable human behavior.
Generative agents wake up, cook breakfast, and head to work; artists paint, while authors write; they form opinions, notice each other, and initiate conversations; they remember and reflect on days past as they plan the next day.

Except for the fact that all those activities should been in parentesis (they don't really "cook breakfast", "paint" or "write") an interesting study of based solely on .

Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior

arxiv.org/pdf/2304.03442v1.pdf

>Behaviour science, evolutionary developmental and the field of all seek to understand the scaling of biological : what enables individual cells to integrate their activities to result in the of a novel, higher-level intelligence with large-scale and*competencies that belong to it and not to its parts*?

**The scaling of goals from cellular to anatomical : an , experiment and analysis**

royalsocietypublishing.org/doi

>"The American elite thought that Asians, when they became middle-class, would then be like them, and are disappointed when they are not."

noemamag.com/refreshing-wester

This is actually not true. Asian is very similar to the American or any other of the global world 1% elites.

All regardless of its origin: , or has these two things in common:
1⃣ They want to preserve the elitist position for themselves and their families, and
2⃣ They really don't care about anything else.

Just discovered there is an interesting etymological link between the words and by which a ***system*** may be defined as "*having the same stance*" or "*standing together*"

***Stance***
>"comes from the Italian "*stanza*" which means stopping place (*like a room within the house*). Your stance is something that's not likely to change. You have stopped there, your decision is made. You're done."

vocabulary.com/dictionary/stan

Origin:
>***stā-***, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to stand, set down, make or be firm," with derivatives meaning "place or thing that is standing."

e.g. Afghanistan - the place of the Afghani peoples, and in

>Greek ***histēmi*** "put, place, cause to stand; weigh,"

etymonline.com/word/stance

***System***

>Greek ***systema*** "organized whole, a whole compounded of parts," from stem of *synistanai* "to place together, organize, form in order," from syn- "together" (see syn-) + root of histanai "cause to stand," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm."

etymonline.com/word/system

The of is in the process where is generated when:
>"our rhythmic are violated, (*and*) our brains behave in a different manner because of our inherent (*innate*) internal sense of rhythm."

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the

is

>“If you’re not having a good time, you’re really not learning”
Really what kids need to learn, they told us, are the “***6 C’s***”: , , , , , and . Play and the arts, based on their research, build the 6 C’s

nautil.us/to-supercharge-learn

The main difference between "man-made" machines and other simple physical () and , living is in the way they are "produced".

Machines are from the by an process similar to of placing layer upon layer of "things" and connecting them to "inform" a unified single structure.

Organisms, on the other side, are single unified and integrated entities from the moment of their inception, and all their "components" from the out in parallel and at the same time in a closed circular process.

Show thread

Another one in a series of Noema articles promoting the return to ancient civilizations as a recipe for a brighter (more democratic?) future. If they were so great I wonder why they all fell for Western . This one at least correctly identifies as means of .

> began with the idea that the “*civilized*” had to confront the “*barbaric*.” ***Men of vision*** set out to find meaning in life beyond their own borders. They ranged from prophets and teachers who inspired those with wealth and power to spread their message to everyone. ***Their vision could help a powerful state shape a borderless worldview and define the values of a new civilization***.

noemamag.com/modernizing-ancie

Show thread

In this propaganda article "" is used as a synonym for . Chinese ethnicity is not necessary as long as you

>"use the inherited resources, such as Confucian classics, to fashion your practices and thoughts" ...

To what end? Confront and "civilize" the barbaric liberals?

noemamag.com/a-non-liberal-fou

Identity does not care about your personal and .

>", which derives often from civilizational and cultural factors, remains opposed to . Bruno (Maçães) says “States might have a territory and a people, but their center of gravity lies in the way of life embodied in the state."

noemamag.com/civilization-stat

A rare short and clearheaded analysis of the **real** risks associated with the use of tools in contrast and response to the general overwhelming "doomsday" hype such as that presented in the recent *6 months moratorium* letter.

aisnakeoil.substack.com/p/a-mi

I wonder if those two are concerned at all with what happened with the last emperors and czars they are trying to emulate. 😀

noemamag.com/reviving-the-real

>"As Chang proclaimed: “Globalization is almost dead. Free trade is almost dead. And a lot of people still wish they would come back, but I really don’t think they will be back for a while.” "

With the world becoming more and more of a "global village" where people, capital, and ideas move freely and instantaneously there is no turning back on .

People are just becoming more aware of the fact that it is not very clever to have all of your eggs put in one basket, particularly if that basket is far away from your immediate reach.

What is happening now is not , it is .

noemamag.com/the-cost-of-deglo

I think Maturana may have "jumped the gun" here by succumbing to the cybernetic vs. type of thinking and using a gun (a mere passive or ) as a metaphor for an active, living .

In my mind, the notion of ***external control*** so pervasive in does not fit well with the notions of and .

Unlike a (living) system, the gun has no other but to react to the trigger, except, as Maturana notes, in case of malfunction (which is not equivalent to choice).

Show thread

If by some chance gets in a position with the power to "wipe out" humanity, it will be not because of its superior intelligence but because of humanity itself.

The truth is that intelligence neither craves power nor it is a precondition to raise into a position of power. Quite the opposite.

Some wise words from John Dewey about the difference between and written back in 1934.

newrepublic.com/article/100340

Humberto Romesin on ***structural determinism***
*Our Genome Does Not Determine Us*
Presentation made at the Remaining Human Forum
Vancouver, B.C., May 22, 2001
asc-cybernetics.org/2001/RH-Ma

1943 - The year when it all started:
, ,
From: *Brains, Machines, and Mathematics*
by: *Michael A. Arbib*

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.