Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
The random number generator part of the experiment looks to be being imbued with a divine spark, although my preference would be for the marbles probabilities too.Currently the hexagram are generated using the three-coins method (probabilities). I wonder if I should switch to the 16-marbles one, since is the method that I usually prefer.
clearly indicates that this question is being answered with respect to someone else. I guess GPT4, as yet, carries no self awareness."Your quest to deepen the divinatory nature of responses involves embracing the challenge of integrating powerful, symbolic elements with respect and mindfulness".
It may have been said already but there is no such thing as the 'future hexagram'. The relating hexagram can on occasion contain elements of the future but one couldn't really fix it as 'the future hexagram'.Future Hexagram: 6, Conflict
It may have been said already but there is no such thing as the 'future hexagram'. The relating hexagram can on occasion contain elements of the future but one couldn't really fix it as 'the future hexagram'.
Apart from that I'm not very clear on the purpose of the experiment, I can't see why anyone would prefer it over divining for themselves. I suppose if one didn't know how to it might appeal but then one would be left with a very stunted cookbook approach to divining surely?
As Trojina pointed out, it restricts the possible interpretations.Another potential fun question.....
How does interpreting the secondary, changing hexagram purely as a future hexagram affect the type of reading you (GPT4) are able to give?
It is for those who don't know any better or for those who just want to see it as 'the future' because it works for them.Considering the first hexagram as depicting the "current situation" and the related hexagram to represent the "future evolution" is, to my knowledge, one of the basic ways of interpreting I Ching.
People vary a great deal in their view of the relating hexagram indeed it varies a great deal for me from reading to reading to reading, it depends how it connects to the situation, the number of moving lines and simply one's sense of it. A useful way to see the relating hexagram is that it is the backdrop, the context, one's subjective stance to a situation, where one is it with it. It is to quote someone I can't recall exactly who, maybe LiSe, 'the sea the primary hexagram swims in' or the map that has the road on it. None of these ways of seeing it rule out there sometimes being an element of the future in the relating, after all the backdrop and context can also hold the future. But what is to be avoided is the idea that the relating hexagram is always what will happen. Even then now and then it can turn out that way, that one does see the future in it.If you could suggest the description for a broader (and possibly more nuanced) interpretation strategy, it would be very helpful for me as I will try to replace it in the AI to check if any notable differences arise.
OoohI had two goals for this. First, I'm curious to see how close/far an AI-generated reading is from a real human reading because I'm sure that if one can get it close enough, there will be someone who will try to pass fake reading as theirs (and possibly scam people). I want to be able to spot such fake readings.
Sorry I stupidly cleaned up all the chat I'll redo them and correct the link.The link's a 404 error.
Getting the right text for the lines has been a challenge for me as well. I had to tag an extremely abridged version of the Wilhelm translation and upload it to GPT in order to get the right text. Without this additional "guide", the AI just picked the line from any hexagram it fancied.I have been playing around with asking GPT to connect hexagrams with verses from the Bible.
For example when I asked,“Give me a verse from the Bible that resonates with hexagram 1”
It suggested “Genesis 1.1 In the Beginning God created heaven and earth.” I’ve done it for all 64 of the hexagrams but the lines are more of a bother because it seems my GPT-3 doesn’t have them filed right or something because they come out all mixed up. I may get around to writing them out individually. Meanwhile I’ve also tried asking the GPT to give me a quote from a famous English author to fit the hexes. For 1.1 I got Dickens opening line to David Copperfield, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”
No problem at allDon’t mean to highjack the thread. Let me know if you would prefer I delete this comment.
Earlier in the year, there was a paper published in the "International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Publications", that explores the I Ching from the context of ChatGPT. I think it is interesting. File attached
Hi sparhawkIn exploring the missing of number 7 in I Ching, ChatGPT notes that the I Ching does not contain a hexagram with the number 7. In fact, the whole system does not have anything to do with the number. It is so strange that all single digits except 7 are well presented in I Ching.
Very interesting, thanks!Earlier in the year, there was a paper published in the "International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Publications", that explores the I Ching from the context of ChatGPT. I think it is interesting. File attached.
Hi sparhawk
Perhaps, a chronic case of 'there are none so blind as those who cannot see'. Cognitive awareness is not all that circulates around the misty realms of the I Ching.
Thanks for posting.
Is this just a fleeting visit or are you home for the Christmas holidays?
I now gave it the ability to pass the casting along with the question so that one can cast the hexagram with their own preferred method and only ask for an interpretation.
Yes, that's what it is:Not sure if that's your case but if you are an OpenAI subscriber you can create a custom GPT to do all this... I haven't myself though and I use it for other, work related reasons.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).