This is the summary of a conversation with Gemini, incorporating my fundamental definitions, my experienced critique of the practice, and my forward-looking approach to using LLMs.
important point the many miss is that the boundary being an emergent property. in the need for control, people set boundaries inevitably become illusions.
Thanks for a timely reminder. Some heretical questions:
1 The first principle: ‘model defined by utility’: should it perhaps be slightly expanded — to acknowledge that ‘utility’ includes not just ‘understanding’ but desired guidance in making ‘plans for changes to the reality the model is representing? I suspect this might lead to a few additions to the following aspects and principles?
2 The ‘Causal Field’ is a useful concept. Is the term ‘cause’ too ‘backward-looking’ (e.g. tempting people to focus on ‘root causes’ (which I feel is problem in itself) and neglecting the ‘consequences’ of system interventions or lack of them)? Yes, of course, consequences are ‘caused’ — but the focus is slighly different — and important?
3 In a planning discourse, isn’t the purpose of generating shared understanding that supports decisions concerned with ‘opening’ the ‘black boxes’ of reasoning and attributed meaning of participants’ contributions and arguments? Which brings us to the LLMs: for all their amazing ability, Aren’t the LLM’s the ultimate Blach Boxes but with un-openable lids due to their very size? Are we too willing to trust their machinery let alone the data they hav gobbled up?
important point the many miss is that the boundary being an emergent property. in the need for control, people set boundaries inevitably become illusions.
That's why I prefer to allow the boundary to reveal itself organically.
Thanks for a timely reminder. Some heretical questions:
1 The first principle: ‘model defined by utility’: should it perhaps be slightly expanded — to acknowledge that ‘utility’ includes not just ‘understanding’ but desired guidance in making ‘plans for changes to the reality the model is representing? I suspect this might lead to a few additions to the following aspects and principles?
2 The ‘Causal Field’ is a useful concept. Is the term ‘cause’ too ‘backward-looking’ (e.g. tempting people to focus on ‘root causes’ (which I feel is problem in itself) and neglecting the ‘consequences’ of system interventions or lack of them)? Yes, of course, consequences are ‘caused’ — but the focus is slighly different — and important?
3 In a planning discourse, isn’t the purpose of generating shared understanding that supports decisions concerned with ‘opening’ the ‘black boxes’ of reasoning and attributed meaning of participants’ contributions and arguments? Which brings us to the LLMs: for all their amazing ability, Aren’t the LLM’s the ultimate Blach Boxes but with un-openable lids due to their very size? Are we too willing to trust their machinery let alone the data they hav gobbled up?
Great thoughts.
Just grab the post and drop it into the llm of choice and ask away as they're far smarter than me.
Let me know what you arrive at. I'd love to know.