This seems like a weird way to check if something's AI? a) Like presumably AIs are much more likely to make mistakes of a certain form if there are more such mistakes in the training data (or similar ones) b) to figure out whether something's written by AI you want to figure out if AI can independently generate it rather than heavily be tricked to make a specific mistake.
I'd previously read the story myself about a decade ago and it stuck in my mind because I quite enjoyed the autosurgery scene so all I was checking was whether it was a mistake AI commonly makes.
If you're wondering about the apparently unusual depth of checking logprobs across different versions, I have a pre-existing applet for that which was built for checking some categories of press releases in my industry.
I reasoned that, based on the error falsely attributing a Chiang story as based on different thermodynamics, any thinking chain for generating a list of Chiang stories predicated on different physics (carried out by an autoregressive model obviously, since no deductions of this kind can be made for the output of diffusion llms) that could make the given error would have suggested a story where thermodynamics was different and then guessed that Exhalation fits its own criteria.
On the basis of that, the priming simulates the same scenario, since there is no feasible way to recreate the author's method of writing an article with unknown essay-writing prompts and a set of unknown proportions of AI to human-generation for different elements of content and editing.
It's really cool that you ask 10 people their favorite chiang story, and chances are, you'd get 11 answers. And he didn't even write that many more than 10 stories!
Really tells you both how talented he is, and how different stories just speak to different people.
OMG I'm so glad this review might have an impact! Please do check out Story of Your Life and then read the other stories!
Without giving too many spoilers away, the short story's plot is simultaneously extremely similar to and extremely different from the movie. YMMV on which one you prefer, fans are divided.
In my experience people who read the short story first prefer the story, and people who watch the movie first prefer the movie. But you might be different! Just read it first and report back what you feel!
As someone who believes knowledge of one's own future is plainly impossible even under determinism (similar reasoning as the halting problem), I actually found myself kind of annoyed by Story of Your Life. It's a good story based on a nonsensical premise, but it's an essential premise, which to me undermines the whole thing. That being said, I'm a curmudgeon who dislikes essentially every single time travel story that has ever been written, for basically the same reason.
I mean, I'm a bit biased towards Denis Villeneuve. The man is literally the modern embodiment of Stanley Kubrick and everything he stood for. His films contain everything that's lacking in modern cinema - decent plots, good writing, slower pacing, artful framing and composition of shots, a dedication to hard sci-fi, respect for source material, very careful attention to lighting and sound design, miniatures so thoughtfully combined with CGI you don't even notice them because it all blends together so seamlessly, as special effects should... I could go on forever. I worship the ground he walks on.
With that said, trying to compare the two would be like trying to compare apples and oranges. Films and prose are two separate mediums. Some things which work well in one don't work in the other. It's like the difference between 2001 the film vs. 2001 the book - perhaps my favorite example since they were simultaneously written and directed as counterparts to each other (as opposed to one being based on the other, as is usually the case).
I think Arrival was quite good, but has some blemishes that Chiang's story doesn't.
To name a few: the movie is way more sentimental -- I subscribe to the notion that "less is more" when trying to stir emotion, and I think Villeneuve overdid it -- and also has your standard "big movie" thriller/suspense/action moments that are completely unnecessary and are only there to make the movie commercially viable. I understand why they are there, but they are still blemishes.
To be fair, some things only work in the movie and are bits of genius, like when Louise suddenly asks why she's getting all these mental images of an unknown girl -- only then the viewer understands she's not remembering something from the past. It's a surprising moment and, to my recollection, it's only in the movie. Even if I misremember and it was in the story, the visual element works better.
Yeah, they are both beautiful works in their own right, and as such “which is better” comes down to such minor differences of opinion I think it’s silly to try to rank them against each other. They are both devastatingly effective works of art in their respective mediums, and both Chiang and Villeneuve are geniuses.
Chiang’s exploration of ideas epitomizes the ideal to which I hold science fiction (as opposed to science fantasy, which I also enjoy as a guilty pleasure).
> simultaneously extremely similar to and extremely different
yeah, I don't understand the change tbh.
It's said Eric Heisserer spent years and years on the screenplay so I'm assuming he couldn't sell the original version. But it's a bit like making fight club and removing the big reveal. It ends up feeling the same, but not having the same impact and meaning almost the opposite.
Re #1 It's been several years since I read up on that area of philosophy. I'll need to reread some stuff to decide whether I think the definition I used is a fine enough simplification for sci-fi readers (and, well, myself) vs whether it missed enough nuances that it's essentially misleading.
(Some academic philosophers follow me on substack so maybe they'll also end up correcting me at some point!)
Re #2 ah I don't think of it as "sneaking in". It's more like "this is a view I have, this is a view many of my readers likely also have, given that this is a widely debated topic (as you say) and I'm not going to change anybody's minds on the object level I'm just going to mention it and move on."
I understand you cannot write as if walking on egg shells; you have your position and maybe your readers do as well. But this is far from a settled matter, and Chiang's position (which was describing earlier rather than current LLMs, but I still think it arguably holds today) is arguably correct, or valid. I probably agree with Chiang more than I agree with you, which is why I find it odd to call it a blind or weak spot as if the matter was settled. Maybe "while I admire Chiang, I fundamentally disagree on some topics, such as LLMs" would have felt less jarring.
(Not saying you must write like this, and it's impossible to write in a way nobody will object to. I'm just explaining why I -- and presumably the person you're responding to -- found it jarring).
I agree. And this together with the obvious misunderstanding of Exhalation re: thermodynamics led me to put down the article.
I don't think the article was written by an LLM, but I'm convinced it was LLM-enabled. Which is a pity, because the author seems to have some interesting things to say. But that's the problem with leaning on an LLM: you lose your own voice, and good writing is centred around voice.
I thought the author was talking about Chiang's famous statement about LLMs being "lossy compression", and was ready to admit LLMs progress so fast this may not be the full picture.
However, this is not the author's actual criticism! TFA's states:
> I won't belabor obvious points like his nonfictional views on current-generation LLMs being surprisingly shallow [footnote]
Regardless of whether you agree or not with Ted Chiang, his article isn't about "current-generation LLMs"... it's about unchecked capitalism and the fears of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs (at the risk of misrepresenting Chiang, he's saying it's ironic that Silicon Valley's worst fears resemble a sort of unchecked, rampant capitalism).
You don't need to agree with Chiang to realize he's article is sort of neutral on AI/LLM, and is actually a criticism of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs! TFA's author cannot critique his views on capitalism as "shallow" just because he disagrees with them, or misrepresent them as being about state-of-the-art AI/tech when they are actually about capitalism.
How could the article's author (and Scott Alexander) completely miss this?
As far as I know, compatibilism takes no position on whether the universe is deterministic. It is, rather, an antithesis to the thesis that determinism is logically incompatible with free will (or, from a more deflationary perspective, it offers an explanation for how we could feel we have 'classical' free will even in a deterministic universe.)
Well, feel free to send my review to anybody cool living in SF or East Bay, especially people new to the area! Maybe they'd read the review and think they'd vibe well with me :)
Thank you for the valuable and constructive comment!
I just didn't feel like discussing the satire angle was very interesting! In the article:
> In Omphalos, Young Earth Creationism is empirically true2. Astronomers can only see light from stars 6,000 light-years away. Fossilized trees have centers with no rings. The first God-created humans lack belly buttons. The scientists in that story keep discovering multiple independent lines of evidence that converge on creationism: because in that universe, they're simply correct.
I think this section makes it very clear that in one sense, it's a clear satire of religion, or at least Creationism (implied: we do not see this, so it's implausible we're in a YE Creationist world). I didn't think it was worth spelling it out. Also overall I thought anti-religious satire in fiction is fairly common (I remember reading Candide in high school, and Pullman around the same time or a little earlier) and far from what makes Chiang special.
Agree with your thoughts on Exhalation. I hope they make it out, but also completely understand why Chiang ended the story where he did.
TBH I'm glad you left it out! It's an uncomfortable aspect to his stories. His narration hovers above the action with such perfect grace... The satirical element, or its implication, somehow mars that perfection. It is probably better left unsaid by critics and admirers, and left to the individual reader. In truth I shouldn't have mentioned it.
> Unlike monists, I think our epistemic tools matter far more than our frameworks for thinking about them. Monists correctly see that rigor yields better results, but mistakenly believe all knowledge derives from a "One True Way," whether it's the scientific method, pure reason, or Bayesian probability. But many ways of knowing don't fit rigid frameworks. Like a foolish knight reshaping his trustworthy sword to fit his new scabbard, monists contort tools of knowing to fit singular frameworks.
> Frameworks are only C-Tier, and that includes this one! The value isn't in the framework itself, but in how it forces you to consciously evaluate your tools. The tier list is a tool for calibrating other tools, and should be discarded if it stops being useful.
> The real work of knowledge creation is done by tools themselves: literacy, mathematical modeling, direct observation, mimicry. No framework is especially valuable compared to humanity's individual epistemic tools. A good framework fits around our tools rather than forcing tools to conform to it.
The Rising Premium of Life, Or: How We Learned to Start Worrying and Fear Everything.
In this article, I argue that “our premium for life” – that is, our willingness to keep living, and our willingness to pay to avoid incremental chances of dying – has gone up over time. I argue that this cannot be explained by wealth alone. I trace three main factors that might result in this change: wealth effects, safety-risk feedback loops, and secularization, and argue that this shift has had profound implications for how we organize society.
"But I don't think I've ever spent time to learn a particular word - it's almost always enough to hear it in context once, and maybe get a chance to actually use it yourself once or twice, and you'll probably remember it for life."
I'd strongly bet against this. If it were true, SAT and similar vocabulary tests would be trivial to anybody who has taken high school English, and I think it is not the case that most people perceive the SAT to be trivial.
