Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Initiative 4

Re: Terry TaoPCAST Working Group on Generative AI Invites Public Input

My Comment

I think a lot of people who’ve been working all along on AI, intelligent systems, and computational extensions of human capacities in general are a little distressed to see the field cornered and re‑branded in the short‑sighted, market‑driven way we currently see.

The more fundamental problem I see here is the failure to grasp the nature of the task at hand, and this I attribute not to a program but to its developers.

Journalism, Research, and Scholarship are not matters of generating probable responses to prompts or other stimuli.  What matters is producing evidentiary and logical supports for statements.  That is the task requirement the developers of recent LLM‑Bots are failing to grasp.

There is nothing new about that failure.  There is a long history of attempts to account for intelligence and indeed the workings of scientific inquiry based on the principles of associationism, behaviorism, connectionism, and theories of that order.  But the relationship of empirical evidence, logical inference, and scientific information is more complex and intricate than is dreamt of in those reductive philosophies.


cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Inquiry Driven SystemsMathstodonLaws of FormOntolog Forum

This entry was posted in Anthem, Initiative, Inquiry and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Initiative 4

  1. Pingback: Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Pingback: The Failure Of AI Developers To Grasp The True Nature Of The Task At Hand - AI Summary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.