I posted this book review on Douban, but I’ll post it here again as well; it’s been a while since I last updated my blog.
Since the entire book consists of interview content, the viewpoints are highly subjective, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The content is somewhat broad, but I really like it. It’s like an anthology series: each section sets a theme, and the rest is free rein, with no constraints on form or direction. Of course, being an interview transcript, there is still a certain degree of guidance involved.
I think the earlier parts regarding the theory of the body and intimate relationships were well-explained, serving as a sort of mini-review. Many of the viewpoints were new to me, and I really enjoyed the first three chapters.
But then again, this book is like a clickbait title; actually, only one section discusses that the core of intimate relationships is friendship, or rather, only Part 1 is relevant. However, I fully agree with this content. Any relationship can be viewed as a form of friendship; friendship is all-encompassing. People simply maintain and play different roles within this friendship, allowing it to connect and sustain itself in various forms.
The later section on AI was too superficial. Current ChatGPT will not be the final form of AGI. Some of the content mentioned doesn’t even require a ‘philosophical worker like him’ to explore and summarize. During the research process, there have long been studies that describe these problems more concretely and attempt to solve them. For instance, what he calls ‘copying’ is actually a manifestation of ’the harmfulness of synthetic data.’ Describing it in another language just makes it look more like ‘copying.’ Could this chapter have been written by GPT? Let me add something else: why do I believe current ChatGPT won’t be the final form of AGI? The main reason is that regression based on probability is actually unreasonable. RAG makes content generation more reliable, and CoT allows LLMs to extract more information, but neither represents a ‘great truth in simplicity.’ Therefore, I believe there will be another massive technological evolution to achieve AGI. Until then, let’s wait and see; this AGI might not be made by OpenAI.
Let me add two more points. First, all the talk about ChatGPT ruling the world comes from mouths other than those of AI researchers. Those who truly work in this field do not believe current AI can rule the Earth, because everyone knows that current AI models lack the ability to change the world. Their fear stems from the speed of technological innovation and the unknown. Currently, we have not endowed it with such capabilities. If one day we directly give it the ability to influence the physical world, that would be truly dangerous (perhaps embodied AI?).
Secondly, we indeed need to be wary of AI usage in creative works. There’s a conspiracy theory that if AGI is ever realized, AI will inevitably gradually gain the ability to manipulate the physical world, slowly control some humans to serve it, and then gradually launch large-scale rule-taking measures. If such creative works are widely used and read, they will inevitably affect human cognition and thought. From a certain conspiracy theory perspective, perhaps this is already happening?
The part about France was too boring; I didn’t read it carefully.
Regarding the point in the film documentary section that is incorrect: ‘Returning to the starting point of film, it is the most direct, simple, and plain record.’ It’s better to say this is the starting point of documentaries. I believe that for the viewer, film is about tasting a story and experiencing a life. For the director, it is a way to express their own viewpoint. Cinematic language and aesthetic techniques are forms of expression; editing is the same. All of this is done to better express the director’s viewpoint and describe the story. Documentaries or pure dialogues certainly don’t need too much artistic form; guidance is the most important thing. One cannot just talk aimlessly.
You can check out Bing Shu’s interviews; he guides the interviewee to think, then lets them speak from the heart, which might also be what Bing Shu wants to say to the audience.
‘Essay films’ are quite interesting. Filming like an essay is another form of presenting an essay.
Regarding collectibles, I suddenly had an idea: I want to find a set of lifelong collectibles during my life as a form of expression and what I pursue. The meaning of life? Isn’t living itself the meaning of life? The meaning of life does not lie within yourself; what we seek is not the meaning of life, but the meaning and value of our own lives.
Regarding art, it is said to be a way of consuming money. However, those things that are merely whining without cause should not be called ‘art.’ Art should have expression, whether in thought, form, or reflecting an era (of course, this is discovered by later generations). This is somewhat contradictory.
I really like Nietzsche’s views on fire and wine. Life unfolds around fire and wine: in the fire, vitality, strength, vigor, frenzy, and joy jump together; with the aid of wine, a chaotic, autonomous, and pleasure-filled body dances. … Once fire and wine meet, they mutually generate and stimulate each other; their respective energies become fuller, drunkenness nourishes drunkenness, and light illuminates light. … But when wine and fire are driven out, reason, logic, and knowledge dilute the wine of revelry, while temperance, asceticism, and self-denial extinguish the unrestrained fire.
Although I don’t know why, I suddenly remembered the alchemists from ‘Battle Through the Heavens.’ The condition for becoming an alchemist is the Fire attribute plus a trace of the Wood attribute. Because of the Wood attribute, one can detect or sense things. Thus, that trace of Wood attribute, which seems to be eroded and suppressed by fire yet exists within the fire, is the soul, and it is the reason why alchemists are one in ten thousand. It is the same here: this Wood attribute is like a trace of reason within fire and wine. Even when drunk or unrestrained, there must be a basic bottom line. This is rare and precious, and it is the key factor that allows you to enjoy the fire and wine.
Let’s talk about something else. After finishing this book, I noticed the dark green priority seats on the subway. If someone really wants to offer their seat, they will do so wherever they are sitting. Could the design of these seats discourage some people who otherwise would have offered theirs? I see priority seats as a reminder, but perhaps they lead to fewer people offering seats rather than more. What if the people sitting there are already exhausted and just need somewhere to lean back and rest? They too may need someone to give them a seat, whether or not they belong to the elderly, frail, disabled, or young groups. Don’t we all need a ‘seat’? The book mentions how capitalism makes people reluctant to say ‘I can’t’ or ‘I’m not able to.’ This situation feels similar.
