It’s perfect
This phrasing shows the true reason why technology taking over might not be as big of an issue as people think. although technology may be able to make stories, they will not have the passion and personality of one made by a real person.
The creative possibilities are exciting and terrifying.
I feel that the constant evolution of these strides in technology for writing are so scary because they have become miles ahead of what they ever where before more recently, which makes how accurate they become in the future to be more unexpectable.
But what is writing this? Who is writing this? In a sense, Coleridge wrote it. He articulated thepathways of its manufacture. I suppose that I could be the author insofar as I selected thepassage and pressed the button. Or, thinking broadly, the author of this passage is the entirecorpus of human language processed through GPT-3.
this is an example of how people are able to create entire writings with a small amount of effort and in such little time, and how it is such a recent phenomenon.
Friendliness will not be the typical reaction, I fear. The first reaction to this technology will bedismissal—that the technology isn’t really doing anything much at all, that it isn’t writing, thatit’s just a toy
This is definitely due to the fact that people feel uncomfortable with the advancement of technology sometimes due to the idea of its advancement eventually overtaking human's usefulness in jobs like writers or artists that could be replaced by them with these specific further advancements.
Already, what GPT-3 shows is that literary style is an algorithm, a complex series ofinstructions. The reason a passage from Kafka or Coleridge or Englander doesn’t look likemath is because the mind isn’t capable of holding a hundred and seventy-five billionparameters at the same time.
This comparison shows why traditionally technology has been used for different things due to math and other more technology associated things being associated with it due to them being more solvable with technology and are harder to comprehend at a higher level as a human.
There are really sophisticated toolsfor visual artists—whether it’s Photoshop or a 3‑D tool, there’s all these things that you canapply. People who are using 3‑D models aren’t using clay. They’re not using the tools of thepast. They’re using really advanced tools that automate a lot of the processes. But writinghas been stuck in the past. We’re not using paper and pen, but we’re not much better offthan that.
Amit Gupta is describing how even though we have had such great strides in other areas of technology like going from clay to 3d printing we still lack that innovation in writing because writing on pen and paper is not much different than doing it on computer.
As soon as Gregor was alone, he began to feel ill. Turning around was an effort. Evenbreathing was an effort. A thin stream of blood trickled from his flank down his fuzzybelly. He wanted to crawl away from it, but there was no place to go. He lay still on thespot where he had come to rest just in order to get his breath back and to stop thebleeding. “I’m in a bad way,” said Gregor. It had never occurred to him before that hecould really become ill. He had seen sick animals—a dove once in a while, which hadfallen out of the nestling into the gutter and could not fly any more, or the weak infantsof the woman next door who had to be picked up with the tongs and thrown into thedustbin, or the bugs his father used to bring to him when he was still a young boy andwhich he had liked so much
This is showcasing the belief that many of us share in that we are not prepared for bad things to happen to us. We see others experience bad things and may feel sorrow towards their situation, but we don't really know what it's like until it happens to us, and it is a truly shocking thing to happen when it does.
Where it used to be possible to silence all opposition to technical projects byappealing to progress, today communities mobilize to make their wishes known, for ex-ample, in opposition to nuclear power plants in their neighborhood. In a rather differentway the computer has involved us in technology so intimately that our activities havebegun to shape its development.
This is a showing that efficiency is something that can impede on the idea of progression, in the long run becoming less efficient.
This approach tothe world determines a technological way of life. Obviously human control would havelittle significance if every way of life based on technology realized the same values.
technology has been something that is greatly intertwined with how our philosophy is and this writing shows very well how intertwined it is.
Substantive theory makes no such assumption aboutthe needs technology serves and is critical rather than optimistic. In this context theautonomy of technology is threatening and malevolent. Once unleashed technology be-comes more and more imperialistic, taking over one domain of social life after another
This theory has helped technology be able to grow and allowed its evolution to where it is now and is still able to grow.
The neutralitythesis does attribute a value to technology but it is a merely formal value, efficiency,which can serve any number of different conceptions of the good life. A substantivevalue on the contrary involves a commitment to a specific conception of the good life.
The neutrality thesis is something that is still used in today's philosophy due to it being something that would be considered ahead of it's time to us.
o say that technology is autonomous is not of course to say that it makes it-self. Human beings are still involved, but the question is, do they actually have the free-dom to decide how technology will develop?
this is something that shows that humans are one of the most influential things along with the environment they are in.
But for what ends? The goals of our society can no longer be specified in a knowledge ofsome sort, a techne or an episteme, as they were for the Greeks. They remain purelysubjective arbitrary choices and no essences guide us.
They talk about how although a good bit of things are similar with ours' and philosophies, but there are still many things different.
Thus strange though itmay seem, the underlying structure of Greek ontology survived the defeat of its princi-ples.
Greek's principles have been something that have partially stood the test of time.
This difference between the relation of essence to physis and poiesis is important for anunderstanding of Greek philosophy and in fact the whole philosophical tradition pre-cisely because philosophers have tried so hard to surpass it.
The way that the Greek's philosophy has continued to last through out our history.
Today Japan faces the same problems as other mod-ern societies but potentially with more distance from modernity given its history as anon-Western country.
This shows that many modern societies as a whole experience very similar things.
Science and technology share the same kind of rational thinking based on empirical ob-servation and knowledge of natural causality,
The idea most scientists having empirical observations for their research helps them obtain more factual information.