Fascinating. I really resonated with Liu’s point that true translation is fundamentally an act of interpretation, not just a one-to-one correspondence. As someone who teaches CS, it makes me think about the inherent limits of current AI models. Can they ever grasp that depth? I'm open to being surprised.
It’s not really AI positive so much as it is AI realist: people are using these platform this way, and so they should get privilege to do so safely from the government. Whether it’s a good idea to do so is another matter: a lot of people are skeptical of therapists and priests, too.
Fascinating. I really resonated with Liu’s point that true translation is fundamentally an act of interpretation, not just a one-to-one correspondence. As someone who teaches CS, it makes me think about the inherent limits of current AI models. Can they ever grasp that depth? I'm open to being surprised.
I didn't expect to read such an AI-positive post today. Food for thought.
It’s not really AI positive so much as it is AI realist: people are using these platform this way, and so they should get privilege to do so safely from the government. Whether it’s a good idea to do so is another matter: a lot of people are skeptical of therapists and priests, too.
To me, the fact that LLMs work so well means that language, as tool to consistently represent reality, is actually better than we originally thought.