I wonder! I do think that that the systematic rewriting realized by computation complicates the nature of writing in ways that radically deepen the problematic. But in fact, the development of literary culture more generally already deepened the problem, because, as we know now, "frozen" books come alive in the proliferation of secondary literature, literary interpretation, derivative works, translations, collage, etc. In my view, none of this solves the dangers of writing Plato recounted, but they make it more complicated and are obviously essential to the way our thinking and world civilization has developed.
Regarding LLMs specifically, my view is that the current state of LLM-based AI is leading us more towards '"write" our thoughts "in water"', because
* what we write to LLMs does not catalyze a transformation in understanding of them as systems, nor drive them to evolve in a sustainable way towards truth,
* and their outputs are the result of potent patterns in the turbulence of humanity's discourse, rather than an understanding or systematization that could "teach the truth adequately to others"
While I think their potency cannot be questioned, their sustainability and correctness certainly can be. IMO, AI in the vein of theorem provers and semantic webs are much more in line with a text that can actually speak back with integrity and genuine responsiveness, "teaching truth adequately". But I also guess
* the LLM profusion will likely catalyze some important developments and advances in those other approaches (and some use of LLMs will persist even after advances on a difference basis take over) and
* probabilistic methods are here to stay and will likely be more integrated into symbolic systems and
Comments
I wonder! I do think that that the systematic rewriting realized by computation complicates the nature of writing in ways that radically deepen the problematic. But in fact, the development of literary culture more generally already deepened the problem, because, as we know now, "frozen" books come alive in the proliferation of secondary literature, literary interpretation, derivative works, translations, collage, etc. In my view, none of this solves the dangers of writing Plato recounted, but they make it more complicated and are obviously essential to the way our thinking and world civilization has developed.
Regarding LLMs specifically, my view is that the current state of LLM-based AI is leading us more towards '"write" our thoughts "in water"', because
* what we write to LLMs does not catalyze a transformation in understanding of them as systems, nor drive them to evolve in a sustainable way towards truth,
* and their outputs are the result of potent patterns in the turbulence of humanity's discourse, rather than an understanding or systematization that could "teach the truth adequately to others"
While I think their potency cannot be questioned, their sustainability and correctness certainly can be. IMO, AI in the vein of theorem provers and semantic webs are much more in line with a text that can actually speak back with integrity and genuine responsiveness, "teaching truth adequately". But I also guess
* the LLM profusion will likely catalyze some important developments and advances in those other approaches (and some use of LLMs will persist even after advances on a difference basis take over) and
* probabilistic methods are here to stay and will likely be more integrated into symbolic systems and
* we are at real risk of totally loosing the plot, or perhaps reenacting the plot of [Echo and Narcissus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_and_Narcissus#Story), and seeing the warning of utter thoughtless wrought by irresponsible writing (as claimed in https://hedgehogreview.com/web-features/thr/posts/platos-war...)