Again, I find it very difficult to get past your own personal "language game"s.
> Game over.
Is a perfect example. What "game" is "over"?
Chomsky's philosophical linguistics have long been derided and stripped for parts, and he was friends with Epstein and his cohorts so he can fuck right on off to disgrace and obscurity, but his goals within linguistics, as I understand them, were to identify why humanity has its faculty of language.
Wittgenstein was uninterested in answering the same question, and large language models are about as far from an answer to that question as one can get.
So, again, I am unsure what has been settled to the point of decrying "Game over".
Does this game only have two "teams"? One possible "outcome"?
Who's on what side of the "game"?
What have they said that shows their allegiance to one idea, and what have they said in opposition to the other?
What about large language models either support or contradict, respectively, said ideas?
As a huge fan of the ideas and writings of Wittgenstein I find it hard to believe that there are contemporary 'philosophers' who disagree with his ideas, namely that words take on meaning through context, but there are certainly trolls and conservatives in every field.
You seem to be relying too heavily on your own "language games". For instance, flip flopping between using "LLM technology" and "AI" to refer to what appears to be the same thing in your argument. I find it all quite incomprehensible.
> If you'd like to hear my opinion, I happen to think that LLM technology is the most important, arguably the only thing, to have happened in philosophy since Wittgenstein;
So, assume cognitive bias and a penchant for hyperbole.
> LLM technology is the most important, arguably the only thing, to have happened in philosophy
Why would "LLM technology" be important to philosophy?
> arguably the only thing, to have happened in philosophy
Did "LLM technology" "happen in philosophy"? What does it mean to "happen in philosophy"?
> indeed, Wittgenstein presents the only viable framework for comprehending AI in all of humanities.
What could this even mean?
Linguistics would appear at least one other of the applicable humanities to large language models.
Wittgenstein was famously critical of Turing's claim that a machine can think to the extent he claimed it caused Turing to create misunderstandings even in his mathematics.
Wittgenstein also disliked Cantor. and even the concept of 'sets'.
I am struggling to see how this all adds up to being the "only viable framework for comprehending AI".
> If it so happens that AI can help illuminate these things, like all good tools in philosophy of language do, it also means that we're in luck, and there's hope for better institutions.
This is a wild ride.
So, "AI" exploits weaknesses in institutions, but this is different from "destroying institutions", and its a good thing because we can improve the institutions by fixing the exploitable areas; which is also a wholly speculative outcome with many counterexamples in real life.
Reads like: "Sure, I broke your window and robbed your store, but you should be thanking me and encouraging me to break more windows and rob more people because I illuminated that glass is susceptible to breaking when a rock is thrown at it. Oh, your shit? I'm keeping it. You're welcome."
It seems you have abandoned your thesis in order to retain your belief that concerns about imagegen tech "are worthless".
Defining "concerns about AI" broadly as "is it art?" while obstinately denying the possibility for real concerns about imagegen tech: theft of intellectual property by the wealthy, environmental, economic, expressive, and on and on.
> I don't claim others misunderstand art.
> gp: I'd suggest people learn about ...
Is a passive aggressive way to say "you misunderstand this due to your ignorance".
> I also know there are a many copies of Fountain... which again, demonstrates the concept of thingness
> gp: Fucking Duchamp’s readymades should make any concern about AI worthless.
If anything this "demonstrates the thingness in consumerism".
My point was you are ex post facto conflating your opinion of the items in the gift shop with the named artist's own expression.
Wild that you claim others misunderstand art via an ill conceived attribution to "thing-ness", but make all of your arguments on the grounds of said "thing-ness".
Duchamp's R Mutt is an abstract commentary.
The actual vehicle of this commentary, the upside down urinal, is wholly arbitrary.
> This technique allowed him to mass-produce images, echoing the consumer culture he sought to critique and celebrate.
Critique, yes. Celebrate, wat?
I tend to categorize Warhol as an artist that if you hate their work you should love it because the point is to coerce you to hating it to lead you to the realization that the arc of factory mass production bends toward lowering quality.
I highly doubt Warhol used his chosen soup brand because he felt it was the pinnacle of soup and represented how even mass produced quantities can have excellence in quality.
More likely he was saying this piece is to art as this brand's product is to soup.
> Game over.
Is a perfect example. What "game" is "over"?
Chomsky's philosophical linguistics have long been derided and stripped for parts, and he was friends with Epstein and his cohorts so he can fuck right on off to disgrace and obscurity, but his goals within linguistics, as I understand them, were to identify why humanity has its faculty of language.
Wittgenstein was uninterested in answering the same question, and large language models are about as far from an answer to that question as one can get.
So, again, I am unsure what has been settled to the point of decrying "Game over".
Does this game only have two "teams"? One possible "outcome"?
Who's on what side of the "game"?
What have they said that shows their allegiance to one idea, and what have they said in opposition to the other?
What about large language models either support or contradict, respectively, said ideas?
As a huge fan of the ideas and writings of Wittgenstein I find it hard to believe that there are contemporary 'philosophers' who disagree with his ideas, namely that words take on meaning through context, but there are certainly trolls and conservatives in every field.