[CG] Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Initiative

Cf: Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Initiative 5 https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/05/22/inquiry-into-inquiry-on-initiativ… Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Initiative 2 https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/07/20/inquiry-into-inquiry-on-initiativ… Re: Mathstodon • Joeri Sebrechts https://mathstodon.xyz/@joeri_s@mstdn.social/110401673746671834 <QUOTE JS:> That's not how it works. The model lacks agency. It is a machine whose gears are cranked by the user's prompt. It can ask questions, but only when prompted to. It is not doing anything at all when it isn't being prompted. </QUOTE> Sure, I understand that. The hedge “as it were” is used advisedly for the sake of the argument. (I wrote my own language learner back in the 80s.) Speaking less metaphorically, the program and its database are always in their respective states and the program has the capacity to act on the database even when not engaged with external prompts. Is there any reason why the program's “housekeeping” functions should not include one to measure its current state of “uncertainty” (entropy of a distribution) with regard to potential questions — or any reason why it should “hurt to ask”? As it were … Regards, Jon