NotebookLM's take

I experimented with Google's NotebookLM and was pleasantly surprised by the audio commentary produced about this very blog. Here is the audio file.

Sort me blog.wav

You will note in listening, or you may not now that I think about it, that there is an error concerning who this J. K. Mactavish is. The error is in saying that "it" is a "they" not a singular person, me. 

And as to their not knowing who the person is, I have elsewhere cautioned that who I am is what I have said or written. Other aspects of biography (e.g., where I live, my education, etc.) do not mean much, or should not, or I am too shy or embarrassed to get into any of that. 

Gosh, ex-wives and others might object to exposure, or because of mine, try to come after me for . . .

To remedy the error and to approximate the dialogue, I went through the NotebookLM transcription once and tried to sort them, the two speakers, out. (I had as much trouble doing that as I have trying to sort me out, and they are not worth the effort of more careful word-smithing and separating who said what.) 

But for what it is worth, and it's not much, just a few references from the actual range of stuff in this blog, here is a still imperfect representation of what two disembodied voices said.

All right, so today we're doing something a little different. Different.

Yeah, different.

Yeah. We're diving into the mind of J.K. Mactavish through his blog, Sort Me.

Okay.

And it's going to be like a literary treasure hunt because we've got posts spanning like over a decade. Wow. From like 2011 all the way to 2024.

Okay.

And it's everything from language to art to AI. And it's not just the variety of topics, right? This is Mactavish's thought process.

Yeah.

He takes these like everyday things like a Freud theory or a confusing idiom and turns it into this like springboard for these really interesting reflections.

Yeah. And you can tell he's been like thinking about this stuff for a while.

We've got posts from so far back. You can really see how his thinking has evolved even just in the way he writes. Just skimming through, I noticed some recurring themes like language, art interpretation, even this like skepticism towards easy answers. Which makes sense given how Mactavish describes himself. Lifelong learner.

Oh, yeah.

He's a teacher, but also someone who's constantly like wrestling with how much we don't know.

Yeah. Like in his post, Why I Don't Teach Sims.

Sims. Yeah. Sayings, idioms, metaphors.

Oh, right. He argues you can't really teach those things formally because they're so culturally ingrained. Oh, that's so true.

I once tried to explain the phrase jump the shark to a friend.

Oh, no.

Who was not from the U.S. and just got blank stares.

Yeah. They're fluent in English, but some things just don't translate.

Right.

And Mactavish has this hilarious anecdote about that. Oh, yeah. With an idiom that stumped even his highly educated non-native English speaking friends.

Oh, wow. It just shows the limits of language itself.

For sure.

And Mactavish is not afraid of those gray areas, which is where it gets interesting.

Yeah. Especially when he tackles Freud.

Oh, yeah. The repression redux post. Yes.

Now, I'm familiar with Freud, but Mactavish's take on that whole Signorelli parapraxis thing is next level. For those who need a refresher, Freud forgets the name of this artist whose frescoes he admired. Signorelli.

Yes, Signorelli. And Freud goes into this whole analysis about death and sexuality making him repress the name.

Okay.

But Mactavish suggests Freud might be unconsciously avoiding the real connection, the actual content of Signorelli's art, which was full of death and sexuality. It's like he's overlooking the most obvious link.

Exactly.

And what's fascinating is Mactavish actually uses OpenAI to fact check Freud.

Wow. Like using 21st century tech to dissect a theory from the 1900s.

Very Mactavish. Classic Mactavish, always questioning even the giants.

Yeah.

It makes you wonder what else we just blindly accept as truth. Right.

Okay.

This next bit is where Mactavish's thinking gets really relevant to today. AI and its implications. Un-faking authenticity. He goes beyond just like how to cite AI in writing. Because it's bigger than citations.

Right.

It's about how AI blurs the lines of authorship itself.

Yeah. Like as AI gets more sophisticated, how do we trust what we're reading? How do we even know who or what is behind the words?

Right.

And in that post, Mactavish does something really clever.

What's that? It's almost like a meta-commentary. He uses AI chat bots, Perplexity, and chatGPT.

Okay.

To generate responses about how to cite AI usage.

Oh, wow.

Yeah. Right. It's like holding up a digital mirror to our changing relationship with technology.

It really makes you wonder like, are we headed towards this future where you can't tell human writing from AI writing?

Yeah. And does it even matter?

Right. These are questions I hadn't even like considered before reading Sort Me.

And that's what I love about Mactavish's thinking. He's not afraid to ask the hard questions, even if it means like sitting with the discomfort of not having easy answers. And you see that a lot in his blog.

Yeah. These posts that end with open-ended questions.

Right. It's like this invitation to keep grappling with the ideas. It's like, hey, I'm figuring this out too, you know? Join me.

Join the struggle. Right.

Which actually brings us to something you mentioned earlier that I found fascinating.

Okay.

His email signature.

Ah, yes.

You're telling me you analyze email signatures now. Well, sometimes the most unexpected places hold the most telling details. Mactavish's signature reads, For rich and poor, never enough. With equal measures of care to provide essential needs, all thrive. Propose designs and supply what will suffice. Start yesterday. Today, we're late to the party.

Wow. That is quite a statement.

Right. Not your typical Sent from my iPhone. Not at all.

It really speaks to a sense of urgency.

Yeah.

This belief that we need to act now to address inequality.

Yeah. Find solutions that work for everyone. It's a call to action at the bottom of an email.

I love it. It's like his email signature is a mini manifesto.

Precisely.

And it reveals this thread that runs through all of Mactavish's work.

Oh, yeah. This deep-seated belief in our shared humanity.

Even when he's analyzing these complex theories or grappling with technology, there's this underlying hopefulness.

You're right. It's like he's saying, yes, the world is messy and complicated. But we can make it better. But we have the capacity to make it better.

Exactly.

Yeah. And that's an important takeaway from this deep dive, I think.

What's that?

It's easy to get bogged down in the details, the jargon, the complexities of these topics.

Right.

But at the heart of it all is this belief in our potential to learn to grow, to create a more just and equitable world. And that's a message I think we can all get behind.

It's funny, we've spent all this time unpacking Mactavish's thoughts, and I realize we know so little about him as a person. What kind of life experiences led him to ask these big questions?

Well, that's the beauty of this kind of deep dive, isn't it? Like we're detectives. Yeah.

Piecing together these clues from his writing, glimpsing the mind of someone we may never actually meet. It is like digital archaeology, but instead of pottery shards, it's blog posts.

Exactly.

And while we might not have all the answers about who Mactavish is, you know, in his day-to-day life, I think one thing's for sure.

What's that?

He's a thinker.

Yeah.

Someone who really engages with the world with this curiosity and like a healthy dose of skepticism. And that's something I think we could all use a bit more of.

Definitely.

That willingness to question, to dig deeper, to not just take things at face value. And that's the power of a blog like Sort Me.

Yeah.

It's not just like a collection of thoughts.

Right.

t's an invitation to think alongside Mactavish, to see the world through his unique lens. So to anyone listening who's looking for a little mental stimulation. A little break from the everyday? Yeah. A break from the everyday. I highly recommend checking out Sort Me. You might be surprised by what you discover. You might surprise yourself.

About Mactavish and yourself. Exactly.

And on that note. We'll leave you to continue the exploration. Happy reading, everyone.

Happy reading.

comma delimited with dash

I looked all 'round, none best I saw

bellies 'nd butts, could not compare

no ideal I found, for my awe,

parts 'nd people, not worth a stare

here 'nd there at academe's door, 

out 'nd in, all manner of mind

I saw, plus the polymath's store,

not one impressed as best of kind 

I waded in things, spirits old,

to ken the souls, erase their selves,

aspirant nor guru's way sold,

some such other, we seek to delve

these days, no sure perfect locus,

in dif'rence just brilliance I count,

no certain bliss, this world's focus,

but prospects, thus answers, surmount

what to these salvation anoint--

they don't--one and all we embrace,

for each and every, best's the point,

such the purpose, as we save face

A quote

You have been compelled to cultivate your reflective faculties for want of occasions for frittering your life away in silly trifles.*

Indeed I have and don't apologize for it.

---

Being is the is of that which is. 

What is the meaning of this Being? 

Dasein is Being interested in the being of its being.

ref. Heidegger, or so I believe

__________

* https://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Emily_Bronte/Wuthering_Heights/Chapter_VII_p7.html

Repression redux

Freud doesn't say anything directly in the Psychopathology of Everyday Life* about the imagery of  the Signorelli frescoes in the Orvieto cathedral. "Death and sexuality" in The Damned Cast into Hell (c. 1499) are the strongest themes and features of the scenes and figures depicted. Rather, Freud says he associates his forgetting the artist's name with factoids from Bosnian Turkish life and culture (sex, fate) and his patient who recently "had ended his life on account of an incurable sexual disturbance."

The frescoes are vivid examples of the themes of death and sexuality, and these art works might also be what Freud represses consciously, for he "did not wish to touch upon such [delicate themes] in conversation with a stranger." Note that he not only omits the content of the frescoes in his explanation of what he was repressing but also omits whether he discussed the frescoes in some detail with his travel companion. 

When Freud writes, "The forgetting of the name could not be explained until after I had recalled the theme discussed immediately before this conversation," it is not only the subjects he mentions explicitly that were prior but it must also include what it was about the "famous frescoes" that he found reason for bringing the subject up. That too precedes the end of the unfinished sentence, his moment of forgetting. 

"Our conversation drifted to travelling in Italy, and I asked my companion whether he had been in Orvieto and had seen there the famous frescoes of -- "

Can one think of famous works of art without re-creating in mind their content in whole or in part? Perhaps Freud is committing repression as well as being the subject of the phenomenon he so meticulously, otherwise, explicates.

It is tempting to wonder why Freud himself found the frescoes so memorable but operant seemingly in his own unconscious . . . notably having to do with death and sexuality. Where can we look for possible evidence? More of his own writings and biography, of course. 

PS Titled, "Caution and care in reading and asserting," a proposed second post but better placed here because of the above.

One thing to be aware of: Careful reading of Freud's words he himself provided us is needed, not the words of secondary or tertiary sources. For example, I am pretty sure this is wrong, as written in a Bellevue Literary Press synopsis** of Weber's book on Freud's Orvieto trip and the Signorelli frescoes.

After a visit to the cathedral at Orvieto in Italy, Sigmund Freud deemed Luca Signorelli’s frescoes the greatest artwork he’d ever encountered; yet, a year later, he couldn’t recall the artist’s name. When the name came back to him, the images he had so admired vanished from his mind’s eye. This is known as the “Signorelli parapraxis” in the annals of Freudian psychoanalysis and is a famous example from Freud’s own life of his principle of repressed memory.

The synopsis writer draws conclusions from the text that I believe are not clearly there, for to be frank, Freud appears to contradict himself or is at least ambiguous on this matter of "putting the image of the frescoes out of his mind" (my paraphrase of "vanishing from his mind's eye"). Freud just went on from recollection of themes and frescoes to forgetting and repression because of certain causal factors specifically recalled and revealed

The point, per Freud, was forgetting the name, for he had in mind the frescoes when he asked his travel companion if he had seen them--must have had them in mind--because of--next--the death and sexuality themes he specifically mentions in relation to the Bosnian Turks and the suicide of a former patient. 

In addition, when did Freud recall the name Signorelli? This is another piece of the synopsis that I question. Here I enlist the assistance of OpenAI, which I will take as accurate for now.

Question. When did Freud remember the name of Signorelli after forgetting or repressing it, as related in his Psychopathology of Everyday Life? Does he say in that book? or in another work?

Reply. Freud recounts the episode involving his temporary forgetting of the name "Signorelli" in his book *The Psychopathology of Everyday Life* (1901). This incident is used as a classic example of what Freud terms a "forgetting of proper names," which he attributes to a psychological process rather than a simple lapse of memory.

    In *The Psychopathology of Everyday Life*, Freud describes how he was traveling in Bosnia and Herzegovina and engaged in a conversation with a colleague[?]] about the frescoes of the Renaissance painter Luca Signorelli. However, he found himself unable to recall Signorelli's name at that moment. He remembered the names of other painters, such as Botticelli and Boltraffio, but not Signorelli.

    *** Freud does mention when he finally remembered the name. He states that the name "Signorelli" came back to him only after the conversation had ended and he had left his colleague [not so much as colleague as fellow traveller]. Specifically, he recalls remembering it later when he was no longer in the immediate context of the conversation.

    Freud explains this lapse and subsequent recollection in terms of his theory of repression and the unconscious mind. He suggests that the forgetting was linked to a repressed thought or conflict, which temporarily blocked his ability to retrieve the name.

    The detailed account and explanation are provided in Chapter 1 of *The Psychopathology of Everyday Life*. Freud does not provide a different account or additional details about the timing of this recollection in other works.

All this just another of my observations, in sum: Freud and his words and reported deeds provide endless opportunities for interpretation, and errors.

__________
* https://www.reasoned.org/dir/lit/PEL_freud.pdf 

** “Freud’s Trip to Orvieto.” 2021. Bellevue Literary Press. May 28. https://blpress.org/books/freuds-trip-orvieto/.

But what does it mean? DRAFT

The question that in a particular way irritates me is when someone asks the meaning of something. I'm not referring to my language students, or my wife, who ask for the meaning of X; theirs is, I believe, honest inquiry. They do or did not understand the language used.

I'm not bothered when my reprimanders ask, "What is the meaning of this?" They were probably curious about what I said or did. That, if tedious for me to explain or give the history of or rationale for that something doesn't bother me in the sense I am referring to, although why wasn't it obvious, I ask myself.

What I am irritated by is the question of the meaning of something that assumes you can definitively expound on that something which is inherently open to multiple, valid interpretations. This places the question so encountered in different kinds of contexts I have experienced, the personal and the academic.

"Why did she refuse his advances? He's such a wonderful catch, not to mention--but I do--the highest quality of eligible human being?"

"What is the meaning of the French Revolution?"

Or for that matter the meaning of almost anything.

When people have posed such questions, I have the feeling they are acting rhetorically, that they already have their answer and await foolish notions to set you, er me, straight, which in the end is perhaps just as valid a response on their part, if not also foolish,. Alternatively, they ask, and by doing so show us self-importance(?) in stating such clever things without answering. Strongly suspecting the latter or former, I most often let them have the floor give them little to nothing of my mind--except perhaps their cue to begin expounding their shtick: "I don't know," followed by "Does anyone?" A cue sure to launch them onto whatever it is they are on about.

We don't know so very much that what we think we do not only pales, but also can be seriously interrogated if re-approached.

Is this my assessment of the states of our knowledge of things a product of my age and stage in life, because I can see the flaws and insufficiencies better now than earlier in life? In other words what is the meaning of my skepticism of what I, also we I believe, know?

I don't know, but before you give me your answer, er interpretation that you are sure is the meaning, ask, I suggest: "What is the meaning of knowing?"

One answer to this inquiry is yet another: Does it matter? 

Because it does matter, one meaning is I have not given up the fight at my age--I am still in the caring stage of things of this world, thanks kindly.

 

Happy as a lark, singing

I gave this prompt to an AI engine: "Pavla makes handmade soap doing business as Natural Bohemia." The result was not original enough, but quite nice, well done.

But to make the work my or more original, I gave the engine my lyrics, below for a song called "Handmade Soap".

Pavla works from morn 'til nite

to bring you scents your bod's delight.

She's Nat'ral Bohem, her love's handmade.

But recipes radical fail the grade.

Powers pure prevent the new invade.

TutiFruity soap was a seller--

now outlawed 'cause soap's not yeller.

Best for all is virgin's oil.

It's passed all tests others spoiled.

NB's got a new one she calls Elvis

for washing nether parts of yer pelvis.

Then there's one called bad Basorka,

which colors sport of killer orca.

Wash with it; it smells of musk.

You'll seduce shy ones seeking lust.

Then we have the Mandala one,

to bring your spirits quiet fun.

One sapone its mask's gray rock--

surprise that salt's its building block.

Oils fer lips for kissing moods-- 

fresh at midnight, or your mystic brood.

Refrain

Oh a lip oil, here's her Bloody Mary,

promises sex with those that tarry.

More and more could she say.

Better see what's what o'er that way.

Refrain

Oh a lip oil, here's her Bloody Mary,

promises sex with those that tarry.

More and more could she say.

Better see what's what o'er that way.

Want to hear it? Mostly fluff as you can see, but with a little music and a nice voice, it came out quite well, and caused yours truly to bend over in stitches.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XSzu1yXGv3C2LuV9L-MALJXcq4CkHm8G/view?usp=sharing

UN-faking authenticity

Here is what two AI chat bots answered to A question about transparency of use in what content/artifact creators produce. The prompt was, What elements should be included in a citation of the use of ai in the preparation of a document?

perplexity

When citing AI assistance in preparing a document, it is essential to be transparent and follow the guidelines provided by different citation styles. Some best practices include:

1. **Check Journal Policies**: Before submitting a manuscript, ensure you are aware of the journal's policies regarding the use of AI tools in research[1].

2. **Document It**: Be clear about the AI tool used, including the version, company, and date of content generation[2].

3. **Understand It**: Ensure you understand the AI tool's algorithms and the limitations of its output[1].

4. **Don't List AI as an Author**: AI tools cannot be considered authors as they do not have the ability to agree to authorship contracts or identify follow-up issues with the research[1].

5. **Use Writefull**: If you use AI tools for grammar assistance, consider using Writefull, which can help with paraphrasing and editing research manuscripts[1].

6. **APA Style**: When using AI-generated content in APA style, treat the content as the output of an algorithm, with the author being the company or organization that created the model[3].

7. **Chicago Style**: In Chicago style, AI-generated content should be cited in the text with either a note or a parenthetical citation, but should not be included in the bibliography or reference list[3].

8. **MLA Style**: In MLA style, AI-generated content should be cited with a description of the chat, the name of the AI tool, version, company, date of chat, and URL[3].

Remember to be flexible in your approach to citing AI-generated content, as guidelines may evolve over time and vary depending on the specific context of your research[3].

Citations:

[1] https://www.papersapp.com/highlights/utilizing-and-citing-ai-in-your-research/

[2] https://libguides.ccsu.edu/c.php?g=736245&p=9555042

[3] https://libguides.brown.edu/c.php?g=1338928&p=9868287

[4] https://dal.ca.libguides.com/CitationStyleGuide/citing-ai

[5] https://guides.lib.usf.edu/c.php?g=1315087&p=9678805

ChatGPT

When citing the use of AI in the preparation of a document, it's important to include several key elements to provide clarity and transparency about the role of AI in the writing process. Here are the elements that should be included in a citation of AI assistance:

Acknowledgment Statement: Begin by acknowledging that AI was used in the preparation of the document. This statement should be clear and concise.

AI Model or Platform: Specify the AI model or platform that was used. This helps provide context and transparency about the technology employed in the writing process.

Description of AI Contribution: Describe how AI was used in the writing process. This may include generating ideas, providing suggestions, improving language fluency, or other specific tasks.

Human Input: Emphasize the role of human input in the writing process. Highlight that while AI provided assistance, humans ultimately made decisions about the content and structure of the document.

Examples (Optional): If applicable, provide specific examples of how AI assistance influenced the document. This could include phrases, sentences, or sections where AI-generated content was incorporated or modified by human judgment.

Date and Version (Optional): Include the date and version of the AI model or platform used, if relevant. This helps provide additional context about the technology employed.

Transparency Statement: End with a statement emphasizing the commitment to transparency and honesty in acknowledging the use of AI assistance.

Here's an example of how these elements could be combined in a citation:

"This document was prepared with the assistance of an AI language model (OpenAI's GPT-3). The AI model was used to generate initial drafts of sections related to market analysis and product descriptions. Human editors reviewed and revised the content to ensure accuracy and coherence. This acknowledgment is provided to ensure transparency about the role of AI in the writing process."

This issue, I'll call it, needs more attention as well as some set of commonly held conventions such that we, consumers of text and other forms of expression, know and can place appropriate levels of commendation as well as trust in what we are increasingly exposed to, especially that intended to motivate attitudes and action. No?