For Your Review: Another Juju Manifesto
A low-intensity pulse of the internet (the segment of it that I’m plugged in to, at least) seems to be one of existential dread. I think we can stem the rush of angst by remembering the following:
An inherent property of “networks” is that they are functions that can have boundless potential, yet are often unreliable and unpredictable in frustrating ways, depending on degree of the observer’s emotional stake in the network.
In November 2019, I wrote “for your review: a juju manifesto”. As riddled with contrivances as it is, I consider it some of my finest work. I will not justify why. What I will do, however, is quote a relevant paragraph:
In Aladdin, a young boy with a pure heart discovers a lamp that he rubs to get a finite number of wishes. He then uses those wishes to acquire for himself a young princess and a lot of wealth. The first iteration of Aladdin - given that I was but a wee toddler - was fun, but the second one, starring Will Smith, made me think.
The design of a genie is paradoxical: he is an almighty, immortal, powerful cosmic entity, but he is a slave, subject to the whims of a human with an unwashed arse. In a specific scene, the Genie comments on this by yelling:
“PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER. ITTY BITTY LIVING SPACE”.
Further down the exploration, I mused:
The more you explore the paradox of the Genie, the more you realize how curious his situation is. Here are the ones I can come up with, off the top of my head:
The Genie can do literally anything, but you have to frame your request properly (with no room for misunderstanding), or you will get something you did not bargain for. One is reminded of the joke of the fella who finds the lamp, and for his wishes asks for a ‘huge ride to pick up babes, and for my dick to reach my knees’, and so he becomes a dwarf who is a school bus driver.
The genie’s powers are only limited by your imagination. You’re either toying with matches or an atomic bomb, depending on how creative you are.
A genie is unopinionated. He’ll carry out the wishes of a benevolent player as well as that of a sinister one.
And further along still:
Why are these paradoxical? Because you have (what is possibly) the most powerful agent in the universe and they’re throttled by mundane, specifically human attributes.
I wasn’t talking about artificial intelligence as it is known today. Nevertheless, the underlying metaphor carries to some degree:
The “genie” in this project is a powerful entity who can accomplish theoretically anything, but subject to your contextual framing. To get the genie to work for you, you must weigh probabilities to nail your intent.
Despite your framing, the genie will make a judgment call that seems to explore the loophole in your request.
“Sir, I want a dick that reaches my knees”
“Done”
“Wait — you just made me a dwarf!”
“Yeah, but your dick reaches your knees”
“Are you stupid? How could you possibly get that outcome from *this* request”
I am fascinated by the framing of genies as either benevolent idiots or malicious demons. They are just entities.
And they’re better than you in ways that matter.
They can synthesize information faster than you. Yet, you fret about the quality of the information. They must be dumb. They rationalize their choices. You say they are retrofitting a justification. They make clear errors due to context bombardment. We say this technology does not work.
My friend, I worry that it is you who does not work.
Strip down your ego. If you’re using LLMs for work, do not think like a researcher defining rigorous boundaries for the elusive concept of “consciousness”, “qualia'“ or “intelligence”. Don’t let the downstream rigor feed into your desperation to feel superior to a machine.
Don’t be seduced by the anthropocentric view.
Understand how you work, and how you don’t. Understand how the genie works, and how it doesn’t. Find the middle ground.
I cannot say much for now because I have not begun to experiment, but I wrote this to capture the fleeting essence of what I’m attempting to test.