<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Journal on Purpose and Function</title>
    <link>https://wenyi.blog/tags/journal/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Journal on Purpose and Function</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- 0.157.0</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <atom:link href="https://wenyi.blog/tags/journal/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>ChatGPT, the Slot Machine</title>
      <link>https://wenyi.blog/posts/chatgpt-the-slot-machine/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://wenyi.blog/posts/chatgpt-the-slot-machine/</guid>
      <description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not the voice that commands the story: it is the ear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The word “chat” in ChatGPT always amuses me. It’s brilliant branding: one syllable that makes machine output feel like human conversation. But with AI, the ‘chat’ rarely feels participatory—at least not in the way we’re used to.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The best thing about human conversation is locality. You can interrupt—“wait, what do you mean by that?”—request a rephrase, and get the updated version right where the confusion happened. The whole experience is functionally nonlinear: it emerges, loops back, and self-corrects.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
