AI Zen Master

[u/ewk]

Since it's so easy to drop a Zen text or even multiple Zen texts into an llm and ask questions that the llm will answer from the standpoint of the text?

* www.reddit.com/r/Zen/wiki/getstarted

Doesn't it make sense that there would be a lot less confusion and a lot more interesting conversations??

Plus, if you have an llm answer questions about the texts then who better to explain why Zazen Shinto-Buddhism and Alan Epstein Watts are not part of the tradition?

Serious question.

Where are all my AI Zen Masters at?

[u/origin_unknown]

If you ask chatgpt to translate the same thing 3 times, does it produce the same translation each time?

Llm is a non-deterministic black box. What I mean is that if you ask it the same exact question 3 times, you're going to see three different answers. They may or may not be similar, but they are not the same.

Beyond that, enforcing guard rails to try and get a deterministic answer is not reliable on a publicly available chat agent like chatgpt. It might hold context for a while, but not indefinitely, even within the same topic windows. I can vouch for that myself, trying to set up multiple devices in multiple ways on my network and leaning on chatgpt to keep track, it did so for maybe a couple of days then just started hallucinating answers.

I think any faith in such a device to ultimately guide anyone through zen texts may be misplaced.

And it's not AI. More like a jack in the box.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

And keep in mind we're not just using LLMs for translation, but we're also using them for searches across multiple languages and the building of the first Zen dictionary.

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

See, to me, this is beyond just accepting that exhaust from internal combustion machines causes cancer, and more like justifying cancer because the exhaust mobile has cup holders.

This is like a celebrity "environmentalist" with their own private jet.

You perceive benefit that is greater than the cost you're able to perceive, so to you it's justified. Perceive more. Find the cost. In admitting no expertise in such an endeavor, end when you can justify no more use, and then maybe you can see more clearly.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

That analogy doesn't work because of problems like:

1. Unregulated impacts on the environment are not a cost of technology. They are costs of lack of regulation regulated. Car exhaust is a regulation problem.

2. Access to technoogy is expensive. If the pricepoint is offset by government spending, market distortions change everything. If you have data centers that don't pay for their own water, for example.

I don't think you understand how coat works and this means that "valid" in your mind is a fixed characteristic of a product. If LLMs were not subsidized AND regulated, the cost would increase to the point that the three areas I have mentioned would all see dimished impact.

I also think if you studied economics for a year, you'd just be a happier person. The world would still suck, but you'd recognize that it is absolutely choice and not oppression.

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

I disagree. Rules don't keep people from starting fires that burn down the forest. Rules don't regulate Zippo to keep their lighters from starting forest fires.

Marlboro doesn't pay a litter tax because people flip their butts out.

It's not a matter of external authority.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

So far nobody agrees with you.

By so far I mean human history and by nobody I mean cultural attitudes toward law.

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

No,.so far, all you will admit is nobody agrees with me.

But if I made it all up, then you're arguing with a madman.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

I updated my comment while you were commenting.