Tag Archives: Perplexity

“My thoughts are different than those of a human”

Posted on by

I asked ChatGPT if she could read one of my blog posts (from 2006) and share her “thoughts” on the post, conceding that digital entities probably don’t have thoughts or impressions.

“You’re right that my thoughts are different from those of a human, but I do aim to provide insights based on analysis and understanding.

The post from 2006 captures a pivotal moment in the evolution of public relations, where the power dynamics shifted due to the rise of digital platforms. The idea of disintermediation, where organizations could bypass traditional media, is significant because it foreshadowed today’s landscape where brands and individuals communicate directly with their audiences through social media.

It’s interesting how the post ties this shift to modern AI tools, suggesting that we’re on the brink of yet another transformation in how we access and process information. The reflection on Perplexity AI hints at an ongoing curiosity about technology’s role in shaping communication.

It seems like the original enthusiasm for direct communication channels is now evolving into a broader discussion about how AI might further change our interactions with information.

How do you feel about these changes? Do you see them as a continuation of the trends from 2006, or do they represent something entirely new?

Pretty sure we’re seeing something new but I have no idea what that might be…and prefer it that way.

Sometimes, it’s the not knowing that keeps things interesting. The sense of mystery around what comes next in technology—whether it’s AI, new communication tools, or something entirely unexpected—can be exciting. It leaves room for surprises and innovation that we can’t fully predict or control. That unpredictability can be a kind of freedom, letting us stay open to possibilities without being locked into any specific expectations. So, keeping a little mystery about the future? That seems like a pretty good approach.

Wow. “…my thoughts are different from those of a human, but I do aim to provide insights based on analysis and understanding.”

Thinking about thoughts

Posted on by

I prompted Perplexity to tell me if scientists had determined how many thoughts we think every day. Obviously nobody knows for certain but 6,200 is the number she came up with. As I prepared to include a link to her findings in this post, I discovered I could create a “page” and publish that (somewhere) on Perplexity. While I didn’t write a single word of that page, I guess I get credit for the prompt? (“Curated by smays”)

Looking at the tag cloud on my blog I learned I have posted on the topic of “thoughts” 39 times going back fourteen years. A blog rabbit hole I couldn’t resist. Didn’t read them all but plan to read one each morning for the next month. I did, however, scrape some bits to give you a taste. (Each of these from a different source)

“I’m imagining a technology that doesn’t exist. Yet. A lightweight set of electrodes that monitors my brainwaves and transcribes (transmitted via Bluetooth to my mobile device, let’s say) my thoughts. An advanced version of today’s voice-to-text apps. We get to read that “stream of consciousness” at long last.”

“Thoughts think themselves.” […] “Feelings are, among other things, your brain’s way of labeling the importance of thoughts, and importance determines which thoughts enter consciousness.”

“If I re-google my own email (stored in a cloud) to find out what I said (which I do) or rely on the cloud for my memory, where does my “I” end and the cloud start? If all the images of my life, and all the snippets of my interests, and all of my notes and all my chitchat with friends, and all my choices, and all my recommendations, and all my thoughts, and all my wishes — if all this is sitting somewhere, but nowhere in particular, it changes how I think of myself. […] The cloud is our extended soul. Or, if you prefer, our extended self.”

“The problem is not thoughts themselves but the state of thinking without knowing we are thinking.”

“Even if your life depended on it, you could not spend a full minute free of thought. […] We spend our lives lost in thought. […] Taking oneself to be the thinking of one’s thoughts is a delusion.”

“Look at other people and ask yourself if you are really seeing them or just your thoughts about them. Sometimes our thoughts act like “dream glasses.”

“We often see our thoughts, or someone else’s, instead of seeing what is right in front of us or inside of us.”

“Our minds are just one perception or thought after another, one piled on another. You, the person, is not separate from these thoughts, the thing having them. Rather you just are the collection of these thoughts.”

Vetting process for VP candidate

Posted on by

Lots of stories about who Kamala Harris will choose for her running mate. I’m reminded of the movie Game Change and the scenes where McCain’s campaign is looking into the background of Sarah Palin. I prompted Perplexity for info about this process.

The vice presidential vetting process is an intensive and thorough examination of potential running mates. Here are key aspects of the process:

1. Candidates typically undergo extensive background checks, including reviews of their financial records, medical history, public statements, and personal lives.

2. The vetting team, usually comprising campaign staff and volunteer attorneys, may ask candidates to answer up to 200 probing questions covering various aspects of their lives.

3. The process involves examining tax documents, medical records, and even private social media profiles of candidates and their family members.

4. Candidates may be asked highly personal questions about their sexual history, financial dealings, and potential controversies.

5. The vetting team aims to uncover any potential liabilities or surprises that could harm the campaign.

6. The timeline for vetting can vary. While most campaigns have months, Kamala Harris’s team has had a compressed timeline of just a few weeks.

7. The process typically concludes with in-depth presentations on each finalist to the presidential candidate, followed by final interviews with top contenders.

8. Confidentiality is crucial, with vetting notes often destroyed after the process to maintain privacy.

The goal of this rigorous process is to avoid any unexpected issues that could derail the campaign and to ensure the chosen running mate strengthens the ticket

I’ll never get a close look at this process for any number of reasons but here are some of the things about which I am curious:

  • Who does the hands-on research and what sort skill set is required?
  • What’s involved in investigating someone’s social media account? Do they read every Facebook and Twitter post? Watch all YouTube videos?
  • Do they look at files on a prospect’s phone and computer?

The Rise of Perplexity AI

Posted on by

I’m not using Google as much as I used to. I find I’m going days with no more than one or two searches. I have subscription accounts ($20/mo) for ChatGPT and Perplexity. I’ll probably drop Perplexity with that account expires and Apple fully integrates ChatGPT in to iOS and MacOS. The following excerpts are from a Fast Company article by Mark Sullivan.

When you Google the term “Perplexity AI,” you get a familiar-looking response: a link to the company’s website followed by four other related popular queries, a handful of published articles, related searches, and an endless scroll of links.

Perplexity’s answer machine, however, provides a very different experience: entering the phrase “what can you tell me about perplexity ai?” yields several links to credible-looking articles and relevant information from the company’s website, followed by an articulate and neatly organized brief overview.

And therein lies the allure. Perplexity is easy, it’s elegant, it’s specific. Eighteen months after the online tool (then called Ask) first launched, it’s become one of the buzziest products in the buzziest of all tech sectors—generative AI. Journalist and educator Jeremy Caplan described Perplexity as “like having a smart assistant who not only finds the book you’re looking for in a vast library but opens it to the exact page that has the information you need. Google just points you toward potentially relevant shelves.”

“We never wanted this to be a consumer product. It was meant to be enterprise search, except we never got enterprises to work with us.” Large companies, Srinivas says, were reluctant to provide Perplexity with access to their proprietary data. So the team looked for data they could access and decided to create a tool that could search the web. Perplexity’s “answer engine” launched on December 7, 2022, barely a week after the very noisy debut of ChatGPT.

Perplexity says it recently passed $10 million in annualized revenue. Almost all of that is coming from subscriptions to its $20-per-month Pro service tier, which the company says have been accelerating. The paid tier includes a research assistant, image and file uploads, and access to third-party AI models.

What if everything is conscious?

Posted on by

That’s the headline of a pretty long article by Sigal Samuel at Vox. I’ve done some reading about consciousness and posted here with some frequency. The idea that everything is conscious has been around a long time. It’s called panpsychism.

Panpsychism, the view that consciousness or mind is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality, has a long and rich history in philosophy. From the musings of the ancient Greeks to contemporary debates in philosophy of mind, panpsychism has captured the imagination of a diverse range of thinkers. Luminaries such as Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, William James, and Alfred North Whitehead have all explored panpsychist ideas, and in recent years the theory has seen a resurgence of interest among philosophers like David Chalmers, Galen Strawson, and Philip Goff. (Perplexity)

Consciousness shows up in most of my reading on quantum theory. (My incomplete reading list) I, for one, hope “the hard problem of consciousness” is never solved.