Skip to main content

Eric waited for Albert in a cafe in Paris in April 1945. Albert never turned up.

William Fear has published an insightful piece in The Critic this week entitled "Orwell, Camus and truth" (Hat tip again to ALDaily). The article tells the story of a missed moment in history when two of the 20th century's great writers might have met. And the anecdote is full of irony, verisimilitude and pathos as we onlookers speculate on what might have been had these two great friends ever actually met. 

Orwell sat and waited, and waited, for Camus to arrive. He never turned up: he was laid up with an exacerbation of tuberculosis. They would never get the chance to meet again, and Orwell would die five years later, having lost his own battle with the same disease

For friends they were according to Camus, though they never did meet or correspond, as far as William Fear can determine. What they shared was a deep seated need to pursue the unknowable truth and the wisdom to know that the essence of truth was that it was unknowable.

Both of these writers took the view that truthfulness was more important than ideological allegiance and metaphysics, that the facts should be derived from the real world, rather than the world of ideas

This observation caught my eye because it reverberates with similar cadences and concerns to those  we grapple with now in the 21st century pursuing truth in the face of Chat BOTs, Large Language Models (LLM) and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). These warriors of the 20th century sound uncannily familiar to Emily M Bender dueling with the proponents of the singularity, trying to reassert the grounding of language and meaning in real sensory human experience, rather than in the mere "distributional semantics" of LLMs inside Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPTs). 

This endless hard fought battle for the truth does have very deep roots in human culture. Can this latest apocalyptic battle for the truth with BOTs, OpenAI and Skynet, be just the latest iteration of humanity's eternal fight to find truth, whilst never conceding that it is findable or has been found?

Or could this latest battle be the last one of the war? There is also a curious chord of similarity in observing that we can never know when we have found the truth with the notion that we cannot know when we have reached the singularity. Maybe the cosmic ambiguity of our journey to truth is now finally reaching an endgame as humans cede responsibility for the need to search for truth to the machine. 

Are humans truly going to give up the fight for truth to these BOTs?



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Jackson, martyr ?

. Someone has to die for their beliefs to be a martyr . Drudge pointed to headlines last Friday saying that Jackson's was a " Death by Showbusines s". So in the sense that Jackson seems to have died for his belief in celebrity, yes, he might be called a martyr. I never got Michael Jackson. Thriller didn't thrill me at all ( Now Noel Coward, that's another story ). But I did get a bit of a kick from seeing others get him. He was boppy and catchy and slick, as well as monumentally fluffy and hugely impaired. What I struggle with is the apparently massive consequentiality of fluffiness and impairment like Jackson's. What is the fuss about the passing of a semi-talented song and dance weirdo from decades past? Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, has had a stab at explaining it to we mystified souls who struggle to get with the programme. He reckons it's just like Princess Di. And I agree, to the extent that I was almost as unprepared for and dumbfounded by th...
2 comments
Read more

Bullshit detection is our main AI protection

The volume of chatter in recent online musings about the hydra headed peril of AI dominance, is becoming ear piercing. These piercings will likely support even more garish burbles of thought to dangle decoratively in front of both the curious and accidental victims. A brief diversion - it seems one of the more remarked upon "tells" of the presence of AI in a piece of writing at the moment, is what I now know to call the " Em Dash " (_). Thank you NYT of 18 Sept 2025.  I'll keep an eye out for them. And I'll need to, if I'm to live up to the pleas of the balance of this post. The main subject of this post has been prompted by yet another article that Arts & Letters Daily has pointed me to recently. It's entitled " Large Language Muddle "  and is an editors article from an online magazine called "n+1" published in the Fall of 2025. The central proposition of this muddle piece seems to be that we human authors need to fight back...
Post a Comment
Read more

The list of "tell"words for LLM speak grows, but these Bots are now teaching us to speak like them ..

According to an article in the Washington Post on 20 August 2025 by Adam Aleksic " people are starting to talk like ChatGTP ".  The previous post here on the Realm pointed to some words that have been nominated as indicators that a Large Language Model (LLM) is the likely author of the piece. According to Mr Aleksic's article we can now add to our list of" delve ", " adept ", " realm " and " meticulous ", the words " intricate " and " commendable ".  As he says elsewhere, it is becoming hard to keep up. But his more telling point is that as LLMs become more and more prevalent contributors in our discourse, it's not just the bots that are using these words, we've all started using them more too; in our own speech.  It seems that the feedback loop from the LLMs gulping up so much of their own outputs when scraping content from the web, is intensifying this linguistic shift.   Aleksic says:  ...  In the two...
Post a Comment
Read more