His way with words and way to highlight to absurdity of situations is first class.
My favorite is the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. It's a critique of the classification used by the Institute of Bibliography which he considered nonsensical. He claims to have found the list in an ancient Chinese encyclopaedia:
It's such a wonderful thing to be reminded of how silly it is to take language seriously. IMO it's prickles and goo[1] all the way down - and the prickles help us share meaning and exchange information, but there is no project of exactitude to be completed.
The hubris it takes to maintain the view that we can just keep figuring things out if we are rational enough is also sometimes overwhelming to me. It's not that we can't understand things better through analysis, just that it sometimes seems foolish to me to try to get all of it through system-2 type behavior. We will always miss something crucial[2].
An algorithm written in a well specified language with precise semantics might have bugs. A "logical" argument made with natural language is orders of magnitude less precise
What I've always wondered, though, is whether that lack of precision is what allows for meaning to arise in the first place. In the gap between language and - this - .
Ficciones is full of mockings of intellectualism. I Particularly like the critique on the critical philosophical work of Menard's Quixote. Where Menard, the subject of the story, carefully writes parts of a novel that is word-for-word a copy of Cervante's Quixote, but shaped by Menard's intellectual efforts, one is to draw the opposite appreciations than from the one written by Cervantes.
His stories are such a strange read. The plot, the characters, the mentions, all feel almost secondary to the feeling they evoke.
I remember a PostSecret from many years ago that was a picture of the title plate of Ficciones, and the "secret" was somebody saying they wished that they could have just one night in front of a fire with a bottle of malt whiskey and the person who introduced them to that work. I had never read Borges before, but I liked that sort of a feeling a book could create, so I trudged to the bookshop and found a copy, and then settled into a corner of a cosy pub (I live in England), not far from a fire and a golden retriever, with a pint of ale and settled in.
Changed my life, when it comes to literature.
The feelings you get from that work are hard to describe, but unique and engaging and marvellous. But when you step back and look at it from a critical reading, it's all a bit odd and silly and mocking.
There is no writer I want in my pocket more than Borges though, particularly when it's dark and cold outside and the fire is burning, and a friend who also appreciates him is nearby to discuss.
Menard's Quixote is also one of my favorites. I feel it illustrates almost in a mean way the futility and arrogance of analyzing a work through its author's life and intention. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if this kind of literary analysis was still popular in Borges' time and place, but in France up to the early 20th century, an influential critic called Sainte-Beuve was claiming with great success that any work could be entirely (and scientifically) analyzed and elucidated by interviewing the author's friends, partners, by sniffing out their secret habits and what not -- and I assume Borges must've been aware of it, having been educated in early 20th century French-speaking Switzerland. If I had another life I'd probably do another PhD thesis on Borges vs Sainte-Beuve.
Fun fact: Marcel Proust was so mad at Sainte-Beuve that it got him out of his writer's block; In Search of Lost Time is an anti-Sainte-Beuve essay that got out of hand.
The most avid members of the Cartographers Guilds had even proposed a Map of the Empire several times larger than the Empire itself to depict microscopic details that would otherwise be invisible. Such proposals were considered the peak of academic excess after the Study of Cartography fell out of favor.
I do sometimes wonder if we will get "detailed enough" vector embeddings in LLMs to bring the grain of resolution down below human perception - like having enough bits to fully capture what's on tape in audio world. Maybe this is never possible, and (I hope) some details are unresolvable, but it will be interesting to see.
LLMs are already used in signal processing so the idea is explored.
Simply put anything that can be encoded is a language, so you just need sensors to capture and classify the incoming data and build that into a model. The real question is post training the model to behave correctly as these places are far less explored than things at the human scale. RLHF may be a poor choice because the models may see actual behaviors that humans don't and humans will discount it as being incorrect.
This seems like a good place to ask: I have a memory of a longer story along very similar lines. Maps are made that are increasingly larger, but in the version I'm remembering the maps are in a room of a palace or something?
"I have a map of the United States... Actual size. It says, 'Scale: 1 mile = 1 mile.' I spent last summer folding it. People ask me where I live, and I say, 'E6."
His way with words and way to highlight to absurdity of situations is first class.
My favorite is the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. It's a critique of the classification used by the Institute of Bibliography which he considered nonsensical. He claims to have found the list in an ancient Chinese encyclopaedia:
- those belonging to the Emperor
- embalmed ones
- trained ones
- suckling pigs
- mermaids
- fabled ones
- stray dogs
- those included in this classification
- those that tremble as if they were mad
- innumerable ones
- those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
- et cetera
- those that have just broken the vase
- those that from afar look like flies
The hubris it takes to maintain the view that we can just keep figuring things out if we are rational enough is also sometimes overwhelming to me. It's not that we can't understand things better through analysis, just that it sometimes seems foolish to me to try to get all of it through system-2 type behavior. We will always miss something crucial[2].
[1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4vHnM8WPvU
[2]:https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borges_and_Me:_An_Encounter
https://sites.evergreen.edu/politicalshakespeares/wp-content...
His stories are such a strange read. The plot, the characters, the mentions, all feel almost secondary to the feeling they evoke.
Changed my life, when it comes to literature.
The feelings you get from that work are hard to describe, but unique and engaging and marvellous. But when you step back and look at it from a critical reading, it's all a bit odd and silly and mocking.
There is no writer I want in my pocket more than Borges though, particularly when it's dark and cold outside and the fire is burning, and a friend who also appreciates him is nearby to discuss.
Simply put anything that can be encoded is a language, so you just need sensors to capture and classify the incoming data and build that into a model. The real question is post training the model to behave correctly as these places are far less explored than things at the human scale. RLHF may be a poor choice because the models may see actual behaviors that humans don't and humans will discount it as being incorrect.
Does this ring a bell to anyone?
Steven Wright
Though it's not as funny without his delivery