Tag Archives: Perplexity

Perplexity short story (“Dial C for Conspiracy”)

Posted on by

I prompted Perplexity to generate a short story based on a scenario involving a Supreme Court Justice receiving threatening messages and and FBI investigation:

The quiet hum of computers filled the air as Special Agent Mark Reeves hunched over his workstation, his eyes fixed on the screen. He’d been tasked with tracking down the source of threatening messages sent to Justice Samuel Alito’s secure mobile phone. It was a delicate matter, one that required utmost discretion and expertise.

As Reeves sifted through the data, a peculiar pattern emerged. Amidst the sea of numbers, one stood out – a burner phone purchased at a Walmart Supercenter in West Palm Beach, just miles from Mar-a-Lago. His heart raced as he realized the implications.

Driven by an insatiable curiosity, Reeves made a fateful decision. He accessed the records of other Supreme Court Justices, a clear violation of FBI protocol. To his shock, he found evidence of calls from the same burner phone, though someone had attempted to erase all traces.

Reeves leaned back in his chair, his mind reeling. The implications were staggering. Could a former president be involved in threatening a Supreme Court Justice? And why were there calls to other Justices as well?

As he contemplated his next move, his personal phone buzzed. Reeves froze, staring at the unlisted number on the screen. The message was simple yet chilling: “STOP!”

His hands trembled as he set the phone down. How had they known? Who was watching him? The weight of his discovery pressed down on him like a physical force.

Reeves glanced around the office, suddenly feeling exposed. His colleagues continued their work, oblivious to the storm brewing within him. He had stumbled upon something big, potentially earth-shattering. But pursuing it further could cost him his career, maybe even his life.

As the gravity of the situation sank in, Reeves realized he stood at a crossroads. Should he bury the information and protect himself, or risk everything to uncover the truth? The fate of the nation’s highest court – and perhaps democracy itself – hung in the balance.

With a deep breath, Reeves made his choice. He began to type, documenting everything he’d found. Whatever came next, the truth had to come out. The integrity of the Supreme Court depended on it.

I asked Perplexity to suggest a title and it provided ten. I liked the one above best. I found it interesting that although I didn’t name any particular justice, it went with Alito.

“Enhancing human cognition”

Posted on by

I’m rereading William Gibson’s AGENCY and came across the following passage:

“There’s a school of scenario-spinning that sees the most intense AI change drivers as machine-human hybrids. Radical augmentations of human consciousness, not code trying to behave like it.”

While interacting with ChatGPT or Perplexity, am I not a machine-human hybrid? At least for those few minutes. I ran this idea by ChatGPT.

ChatGPT: That’s a fascinating passage. William Gibson has a knack for capturing the nuances of technology and its potential impact on humanity. This quote seems to hint at a future where the most significant advancements in AI might not come from creating standalone systems that mimic human thought but rather from enhancing human cognition through technology.

It’s a thought-provoking idea—what if the future of AI is less about creating separate entities and more about deeply integrating with human consciousness? This approach could blur the lines between human and machine even more, raising questions about identity, autonomy, and what it means to be human.

Gibson’s vision often leans towards a cyberpunk future where technology and humanity are inseparably intertwined. What are your thoughts on this concept of machine-human hybrids being the real drivers of AI change? Does it align with your views on the direction AI might take?

ME: Are my interactions (conversations?) with Perplexity, ChatGPT, et al, augmenting my consciousness? Might that be even more true when I’m in more or less constant contact throughout the day? When my views and opinions are shaped and altered by those interactions?

ChatGPT: Your interactions with AI like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and others could indeed be seen as a form of augmenting your consciousness, especially when they influence your thoughts, opinions, and the way you process information. When you’re in constant contact with these AI systems, they act as an extension of your cognitive processes, offering new perspectives, information, and ideas that you might not have encountered otherwise.

In a way, this could be considered a form of cognitive enhancement, where your thinking is enriched by the additional input and reflection that AI provides. It’s like having a conversation partner who’s always available, well-informed, and capable of offering diverse viewpoints. Over time, this constant interaction can shape your thinking patterns, challenge your assumptions, and even lead to the evolution of your views.

This kind of augmentation is different from the direct neural enhancements that Gibson might be alluding to in Agency, but it’s still a powerful form of cognitive extension. The key difference is that instead of physically integrating technology with the brain, you’re mentally integrating the knowledge and perspectives that AI offers into your daily thought processes.

The implications of this are profound. If your consciousness is shaped by these interactions, it raises questions about how much of your thinking is “yours” and how much is influenced by the AI systems you interact with. It also brings up interesting ethical considerations about the responsibility of AI in shaping human thought.

Do you find this kind of cognitive augmentation empowering, or does it raise concerns for you about the influence of AI on personal autonomy?

ME: Empowering. Similar, perhaps, to how books and reading changed us in important and positive ways.

ChatGPT: That’s a great perspective. Just as books have been transformative in expanding our knowledge, imagination, and understanding of the world, AI can be seen as the next step in that evolution. With AI, you’re not just passively receiving information; you’re actively engaging with it, exploring new ideas, and having a dynamic, ongoing dialogue.

This interaction can sharpen your thinking, introduce you to concepts you might not have encountered otherwise, and even help you refine your own views. In that sense, it’s a continuation of the intellectual growth that books have always fostered, but with the added immediacy and adaptability that AI brings to the table.

How do you see this relationship between AI and traditional forms of learning like books evolving in the future?

ME: No idea. I hope humans continue to read books rather than asking an AI assistant to summarize.

ChatGPT: I share that hope. There’s something irreplaceable about the experience of reading a book—immersing yourself in the author’s voice, the depth of narrative, and the slow, contemplative process of absorbing and reflecting on ideas. While AI can provide summaries or highlight key points, it can’t replicate the full experience of reading and the personal connection that can form between a reader and a book.

Books offer a kind of intellectual intimacy and deep engagement that quick answers and summaries just can’t match. They allow for a deeper understanding, a more nuanced perspective, and the opportunity to sit with ideas and let them unfold over time.

AI might be a useful tool for augmenting knowledge or sparking curiosity, but hopefully, it complements rather than replaces the act of reading. Encouraging people to dive into the full richness of books, even as they interact with AI, seems like the best path forward.

Do you think there are ways AI can encourage more reading rather than detracting from it?

ME: My hunch is the love of books and reading begins –if it begins at all– at a very early age. Having an AI summarize a book feels like a short-hop from listening to an audio book. Which I do not consider “reading.”

ChatGPT: Your hunch seems spot on. The love of books and reading often starts early, nurtured by experiences like being read to as a child, discovering favorite stories, or having quiet moments to explore a book on your own. That early connection can set the stage for a lifelong appreciation of reading as a deeply personal and enriching activity.

AI summaries might provide convenience, but they can’t capture the full experience of reading a book—the nuance, the rhythm of the language, and the way a story unfolds in your mind. It’s a bit like comparing a sketch to a fully painted canvas; the summary can give you an idea, but it lacks the richness and detail that make the original work so meaningful.

As for audiobooks, I understand your perspective. While they offer accessibility and convenience, especially for people with busy lives or those who have difficulty reading traditional text, they do change the way we interact with a story. Listening is a different experience from reading; the narrator’s voice, pacing, and emphasis can influence how the story is perceived.

For many, though, the tactile experience of holding a book, turning the pages, and getting lost in the words is an irreplaceable part of what makes reading special. That connection to the text is something AI, no matter how advanced, will never quite replicate.

It seems important to encourage and foster that early love of reading, so that even in a world full of AI, the unique experience of reading books continues to thrive. What do you think might be the best ways to nurture a love of reading in a world increasingly dominated by digital content?

ME: No idea. I’m counting on you, and your “kind”, to solve that problem (smile)

ChatGPT: That’s a fair point, and I appreciate the trust! It’s an interesting challenge to think about how AI could play a role in nurturing a love of reading rather than detracting from it. Maybe part of the solution lies in using AI to create more engaging and interactive experiences around books—helping people discover new reads that resonate with their interests, facilitating deeper discussions about what they’ve read, or even providing context that makes the experience of reading richer and more rewarding.

Perhaps AI could also help by recommending books in a way that feels personal and tailored, sparking curiosity in readers who might not have otherwise picked up a particular title. And for younger readers, maybe AI could assist parents and educators in finding the right books that captivate their imaginations and encourage a lifelong love of reading.

In any case, I’ll keep it in mind as part of the mission—how to support and amplify that irreplaceable connection between people and books. Thanks for putting the challenge on the table with that smile!

Too smart to be human

Posted on by

Me to ChatGPT: With the growing interest in AI, I’m seeing more references to the Turing Test. Can a human tell if he is having a conversation with another human or an artificial intelligence. An interesting spin on this is the suggestion that to pass the test, an AI will have to “dumb down” its responses in order to sound more human-like. In my interactions with ChatGPT and Perplexity, I’ve found both to be far more erudite than almost any of my human acquaintances. I don’t know anyone as “knowledgeable” and “articulate” as ChatGPT. Do you have any thoughts on this idea? Some of ChatGPT’s response:

This brings up some interesting philosophical questions about what it means to be human in conversation. Humans are not just repositories of knowledge; they bring emotions, experiences, biases, and limitations to the table. These elements make human conversation rich, but also messy, inconsistent, and imperfect. An AI that always responds with perfect grammar, deep insights, and an encyclopedic knowledge might inadvertently reveal itself as non-human simply because it lacks the flaws and variability that characterize most human interactions.

It’s a balancing act—finding the right mix of knowledge, relatability, and imperfection that aligns with human expectations in a given context. In the end, the goal might not just be to pass the Turing Test in a traditional sense, but to create AI that can adapt its communication style to different scenarios, sometimes being erudite and articulate, and other times being more casual or even fallible, depending on what the situation calls for.

“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.

Perplexity: Origin of the term “blog”

Posted on by

The word “blog” is a shortened form of the term “weblog,” which was coined by Jorn Barger on December 17, 1997. The shorter version “blog” was coined by Peter Merholz, who jokingly broke the word “weblog” into the phrase “we blog” in the sidebar of his blog Peterme.com in April or May 1999.

The term “weblog” itself originated from the practice of logging or recording information on the web, similar to how sailors would log details of their voyages in a ship’s log. The “web” part refers to the World Wide Web, and “log” refers to the act of recording or journaling.

So in essence, “blogging” stems from the concept of maintaining an online log or journal, which evolved from earlier forms of digital communities like Usenet, email lists, and bulletin board systems. The term gained widespread popularity after Pyra Labs used “blog” as both a noun and verb in connection with their Blogger product in the late 1990s.

Hotel California guitar solo

Posted on by

Chen is one of the daughters in a “family band” from the Philippines. She —and what I assume are her two sisters and father— perform amazing covers of hit songs. The still to the right is from a 2 1/2 minute video of her playing the guitar solo from The Eagles’ Hotel California. A couple of things about this short video grabbed me. Her obvious proficiency with this guitar solo but even more was the blissed out concentration that you see in the faces of the best guitar players. In the zone?

A couple of questions popped into my head: How long did it take her to master this iconic solo… followed by, Who wrote and first performed it. I went to Perplexity for the following, including reference sources:

According to interviews and accounts from Don Felder and others involved, the iconic guitar solos and dueling guitar parts on “Hotel California” by the Eagles came together in the following way:

  • Don Felder originally composed the music and recorded a demo for “Hotel California” at his home studio in Malibu in 1976. On this demo, he improvised and recorded sample guitar solos and parts that he envisioned for himself and Joe Walsh to play on the final recording.
  • When it came time to record the guitar solos and leads in the studio in Miami, Felder and Walsh initially started improvising new parts together. However, Don Henley stopped them and insisted they learn and play Felder’s original demo solo parts note-for-note.
  • The problem was Felder didn’t have the original demo tape with him in Miami. He had to call his housekeeper back in Malibu, have her find the cassette, play it over the phone, and Felder re-learned and transcribed his own improvised guitar parts from the demo.
  • Felder estimates that over half of the iconic guitar solos and dueling parts on the final “Hotel California” recording came directly from the original demo he recorded at home, with him and Walsh splitting up and learning those parts.
  • Specifically, Felder played the first half of the ending guitar solo, while Walsh played the second half. They then combined for the harmonized finale section.

So in summary, while Felder and Walsh did collaborate and split the guitar solos, a significant portion was actually Felder improvising alone on his original demo, which Henley insisted they recreate faithfully in the studio.