Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Borges and AI

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.01425 v2 pith:CINEM5GO submitted 2023-09-27 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords imageryartificialborgesintelligencelanguageliteraturellmsunderstanding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Many believe that Large Language Models (LLMs) open the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Some see opportunities while others see dangers. Yet both proponents and opponents grasp AI through the imagery popularised by science fiction. Will the machine become sentient and rebel against its creators? Will we experience a paperclip apocalypse? Before answering such questions, we should first ask whether this mental imagery provides a good description of the phenomenon at hand. Understanding weather patterns through the moods of the gods only goes so far. The present paper instead advocates understanding LLMs and their connection to AI through the imagery of Jorge Luis Borges, a master of 20th century literature, forerunner of magical realism, and precursor to postmodern literature. This exercise leads to a new perspective that illuminates the relation between language modelling and artificial intelligence.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 5 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Do Large Language Models Reason Causally Like Us? Even Better?

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    GPT-4o, Gemini-Pro, and Claude show less associative bias than human reasoners on collider graphs, making them more normatively aligned in likelihood judgments, but none fully demonstrates explaining away.

Pith tools