#paper/environmentalaestheticsofai # 1. Appreciating LLMs - Can we aesthetically appreciate AI? - In particular, can we aesthetically appreciate LLMs, such as GPT-5, [[Claude Opus]], [[Google Gemini]] 2.5 Pro? - This question is connects to, but is distinct from, questions about appreciating the *outputs* of LLMs - (e.g. a poem coaxed from an LLM by a prompter) - We’re not going to explore this subquestion today, just flagging it up. - This is interesting in its own right. - These systems are unlike other sorts of objects in some ways. - So it is interesting to think about them as potential targets for [[aesthetic appreciation]] # LLMs ain't People and we shouldn't pretend they are ## Temptation - It is tempting to say that our appreciation of LLMs should be modelled on our appreciation of people - we can aesthetically appreciate someone's personality –the eccentricity, kindness, etc. of a friend - we might also do something like this with celebrities, stand up comics etc. - People certainly treat Chatbots as though they are people - Funeral for Claude, complaints about the disappearance of GPT 4o ## Can we leave this just for today? ### Assumption 1 - I do not think we have good reason to think LLMs, as of September 2025, have minds, are agents, have something a little bit mind like, are something a little bit agent like etc. ### Assumption 2 - I do not think pretending, or acting as if, etc. LLMs have minds, are agents etc. is a very promising way of aesthetically appreciating them. - I am not going to provide you with big long arguments as to how why I believe these things but... - I'll mention briefly as we go certain reasons why, and you can probably see where I am going. ### [[Positive Account]] - What I want to do today is to provide a [[positive account]] of how we might appreciate LLMs, which does not rely on thinking of them as agents. - But which still gets at what's unique, and what's aesthetically unique, about them # Carlson's Approach ## Carlson on [[Aesthetic Appreciation]] > First...as in our appreciation of works of art, we must appreciate nature as what it in fact is, that is, as natural and as an environment. Second, it recommends that we must appreciate nature in light of our knowledge of what it is, that is, in light of knowledge provided by the natural sciences, especially the environmental sciences such as geology, biology, and ecology. [[The natural environmental]] model thus accommodates both the true character of nature and our normal experience and understanding of it. (p. 6) ### Two components: * *What it in fact is* — appreciation answers to the real nature of [[the object]]; kind is fixed by domain‑constitutive facts. * Artworks: history of production and category (e.g. painting vs tapestry). * Nature: [[natural history]] and environmental processes. * [[Designed artefacts]] (what it in fact is): identity fixed by function and the mode of realisation (how the function is carried out). * *In light of the [[right knowledge]]* — domain‑relative sciences supply the light. * Nature → natural/environmental sciences. * Art → art‑historical and generic knowledge. * [[Designed artefacts]] (in light of the [[right knowledge]]): relevant knowledge is functional/engineering understanding of how this artefact achieves its function (design, mechanisms, constraints). (This is a small extension of Carlson’s scheme rather than a departure.) * Second illustrative Quote (maybe show this to show I am not cherrypicking and this is really what Carlson believes): > ...[[aesthetic appreciation]] of anything, be it people or pets, farmyards or neighborhoods, shoes or shopping malls, appreciation must be centered on and driven by the real nature of [[the object]] of appreciation itself. In all such cases, what is appropriate is not an imposition of artistic or other inappropriate ideals, but rather dependence on and guidance by means of knowledge, scientific or otherwise, that is relevant given the nature of the thing in question.(p. 12) ## Illuminating Nature > An individual qua appreciator selects objects of appreciation from the things around him or her and focuses on the order imposed on these objects by the various forces, random and otherwise, that produce them. Moreover, the objects are selected in part by reference to a general nonaesthetic and nonartistic story that helps make them appreciable by making this order visible and intelligible. Awareness and understanding of the key entities—the order, the forces that produce it, and the account that illuminates it—and of the interplay among them dictate relevant acts of aspection and guide the appreciative response. (p. 119) ### Three Key Entities 1. the order 2. the forces that produce it 3. the account that illuminates it (the "non-aesthetic and nonartistic" story) - “[T]he interplay among" these three entities" “dictate[s] relevant acts of aspection and guide the appreciative response.” ### The Role of the Account/Story - This third component makes the order and its production “visible and intelligible” - Order is the patterned character we perceive in the selected items (e.g., ripple fields, dune alignments, cloud stratification, patch mosaics).
 ▪ - Forces are the processes that produce that order (e.g., tides, prevailing winds, slope wash, succession, adaptation, convection).
 - The scientific story articulates how those processes produce the order we should look for and how to see it—turning background natural history into a foreground perceptual guide ### Aspection and Appreciation ### Different Natural Sciences, Different Lights - These lights are non‑exclusive and layered, in that different sciences “throw light” on different orders and forces - scales of finer and coarser grain shift what counts as a salient object - Geology — aimed at the cliff line (headlands and bays) - Objects & forces: layered rocks along the cliffs; uplift and weathering/erosion. - Story: harder rock layers resist erosion and stand out as headlands, while softer layers wear back into bays over long time. - Coastal geomorphology — aimed at the beach at the foot of the cliffs - Objects & forces: beach profiles, spits, and dunes; wave attack, storms, longshore drift, onshore winds. - Story: storms cut and steepen the beach and undercut the cliff; fair‑weather waves and longshore drift move sand alongshore to rebuild berms and spits; wind piles dry sand into dunes. - Nearshore wave dynamics (physical oceanography) — aimed at the water directly in front of the cliffs - Objects & forces: incoming wave trains and breaker zones; seabed shape (bathymetry) causing wave refraction. - Story: as waves enter shallow water, they bend—focusing energy on headlands (more erosion) and spreading it in bays (less erosion, more sand settling). ### Aspection and Appreciation From Carlson’s triad to appreciation. “Awareness and understanding of the key entities—the **order**, the **forces** that produce it, and the **account** that illuminates it—and of the interplay among them **dictate relevant acts of aspection** and **guide the appreciative response**” (p. 119). What follows spells out how each component grounds how to look. **Order (natura naturata).** The **order** is the patterned character of the selected objects—_natura naturata_—that we can perceive here and now (e.g., ripple fields, berms and bars, patch mosaics, canopy–understorey structure). _Aspection from order:_ **survey** where patterns hang together (contours, alignments, rhythm), **scrutinise** where texture and junctions matter (grain size, seams, edges). **Forces (natura naturans).** The **forces** are the operative processes—_natura naturans_—that produce and maintain that order (e.g., tidal exchange and sediment transport; slope wash and succession; convection and evapotranspiration). _Aspection from forces:_ **read through** the configuration to the process (compare spring vs neap tides; lee vs windward slopes; midday vs dusk thermal flows), and **track change** across conditions that modulate those forces. **Account / story (non-aesthetic, non-artistic).** The **account** is the relevant natural-scientific story that makes the order **visible and intelligible**: it states which **objects** belong together, which **forces** are in play, and **indicates admissible levels of organisation (grain/scale)** at which the order can be seen clearly—without selecting a uniquely appropriate fineness of grain. _Aspection from the account:_ the story **sets foci and boundaries** (what to include/exclude), **motivates a working grain** for the present look (what to survey vs what to scrutinise), and **licenses expectations** you can check by looking again (e.g., where the bar will migrate; where a thermal cell will form). **Interplay (how the triad guides looking).** Appreciation proceeds by **moving between** **order** and **forces** under the guidance of the **account**: first **survey** _natura naturata_ to register the standing configuration; then **read through** to _natura naturans_ to see how the operative processes organise that configuration; then **iterate**—using the account’s concepts to **select and test** the grain at which this movement is most revealing. **Multiple lights, one object.** Different natural sciences offer **lights** that render _natura naturata_ and _natura naturans_ legible at different **levels of organisation (scales)**—spatial, temporal, and explanatory—not merely along a big/small axis. They are **not** mutually exclusive: they study the **same environment** by making the **same order** intelligible in different ways, and **there is no single “appropriate” fineness of grain**. _One coastal place (same object, different lights):_ **Geology** — _naturata:_ lithology and bedding; _naturans:_ uplift, lithification, weathering. The account is regional stratigraphy; **aspection:** inspect bedding planes, joints, fracture patterns. **Coastal geomorphology** — _naturata:_ berms, bars, cusps, beach profiles; _naturans:_ waves, tides, longshore drift, sediment budgets. The account is the littoral cell; **aspection:** survey cross-shore profiles, bar migration, cusp rhythm. **Physical oceanography** — _naturata:_ surface slicks, internal waves, temperature–salinity fields; _naturans:_ wind stress, Coriolis, upwelling/downwelling. The account is wind-driven circulation; **aspection:** watch swell set trains, longshore currents, convergence lines. **Up-shot:** each light fixes a **force/object/story** at its own grain; together they yield a **richer appreciation of the same coast**, not competing appreciations of different things. **Guiding the appreciative response (distinct from aspection).** Aspection tells us **how to look**; the **appreciative response** is the **object-answerable appraisal** we are thereby warranted to make—**in virtue of** how the observed **order** coheres with the operative **forces** as articulated by the **account/story** (e.g., unity/coherence vs tension/rupture, or warranted anticipation of change across conditions). The **lights** remain **complementary**: different sciences at different grains guide distinct but compatible predicates for the **same environment** - Scientific stories guide how we attend to the natural environment, and makes order "visible and intelligible" - It specifies which objects to select at which grain, and which forces to track in their production of order - Acts of aspection follow from the interplay of the three key entities ▪ The interplay among order, forces, and account generates specific perceptual directives ▪ Different lights (sciences) at different grains prescribe different acts: geology calls for surveying large-scale structure; coastal geomorphology for scanning intermediate processes; wave dynamics for scrutinising fine-scale patterns • The order becomes perceptually salient ▪ When perception follows the account's guidance, the patterned character (order) produced by the identified forces emerges from background to foreground ▪ What might appear as mere scenery now presents itself as produced order: headland-bay alternation, beach profile dynamics, wave refraction patterns • Aesthetic judgments track the illuminated order ▪ Because the account has made the order and forces visible, aesthetic characterisations (unity, rhythm, tension/resolution) now answer to how forces actually produce order at each grain ▪ This grounds correctness/incorrectness in the thing's real nature and production • The appreciative response follows the three key entities ▪ Response is guided by awareness of order, understanding of forces, and the account that illuminates both ▪ Different lights yield different but compatible responses: geological time's massive stability, geomorphological dynamism, wave physics' rhythmic precision • The complete sequence ▪ Select objects → apply relevant account/story (choosing appropriate light/grain) → let the interplay of order, forces, and account dictate acts of aspection → perceive the now-visible order → form judgments that track how forces produce that order • Applied to the coastal example ▪ The three lights (geology/geomorphology/wave dynamics) illuminate different orders at different grains; their accounts prescribe surveying cliff structure, scanning beach dynamics, and observing wave patterns; these acts make visible how different forces produce order at each scale; aesthetic response answers to this multi-scale production - Fix the correct category by means of the account (story) (Ch. 5). - The non‑aesthetic story—drawn from the relevant sciences—sets “what it in fact is” (the appropriate natural category). Once the category is right, some aesthetic predicates become true/false of the thing (Carlson’s adaptation of Walton). - Let category + forces dictate your acts of aspection (Ch. 4; Ch. 7). - Knowing which forces produce which orders tells you how to attend: whether to survey, scan, or scrutinise; where to look, listen, or feel. The interplay of order, forces, and account “dictate[s] relevant acts of aspection and guide[s] the appreciative response” (p. 119). - Perceive more order—unity, interdependence, balance/tension/resolution (Ch. 6). - The story renders the production of order “visible and intelligible,” so patterned relations (and how they are maintained) stand out in experience rather than remaining latent background. %%this section will probabloy have to be altered as a consequence of the changes that I have asked to be made in the previous section. It should definitely mention that while Carslon seems to endorse a mainly perceptual model of aspection, it could arguably be widened to include other sorts of aspectual acts, other things that can be attended to via, for example, acting/interacting (think of Nguyen's aesthetics of games for example). the idea here would be to set up the possibility that generating/prompting is perhaps a best way of appreciating an LLM rather than just watching/generation and reading outputs.(not that you have to mention this, but i wanted to make my reasons for doing this clear)%% * Acts of aspection — move between *natura naturata* (forms) and *natura naturans* (forces), with scale set by the relevant science. * *Natura naturata* (forms): identify the standing configurations to attend to (e.g., shoreline berms/bars; forest floor and canopy) and the features that mark their order. * *Natura naturans* (forces): bring into view the operative processes that produce and maintain those configurations (e.g., tidal range and sediment transport; growth, decay, hydrology). * *Scale choice*: survey at landscape scale for pattern and order; scrutinise locally for causal relations; let geology/ecology/etc. fix which scale is appropriate now. # What LLMs in Fact Are %%remove all references to a 'blueprint', this label is an artifact from a previous draft of this text. also, this section is very flabby I feel. and i think informaiton is repeated here that is better expressed in other sections. in short give this a clean up and restructuring %% * Placement in the blueprint — LLMs belong to the middle domain of designed artefacts. * Two commitments applied * *What it in fact is* — kind fixed by function and realisation. * Function: learned conditional continuation over human‑language tokens. * Realisation: trained operator (weights) with a decoding policy and active constraints (safety/style steers, system prompts, tool routers). * Distinctions: model (weights/operator) vs deployment vs session (live context + current policy/constraints). * *In light of the right knowledge* — domain‑relative lights keyed to this kind. * Mechanistic interpretability: is the study of how specific components and circuits inside machine learning models implement computations, enabling us to explain model behaviours in terms of internal mechanisms rather than just inputs and outputs. * Semiotic physics: the science linking textual codes to present behaviour; this will be the privileged light in what follows. * Working parts * Kinds and the blueprint — kind‑fixing paired with right knowledge guides attention and focus for LLMs. ## Semiotics (general account) ### The core principle - Meaning is relational: it emerges from patterns of contrast and combination, not from signs in isolation - A word means what it does because of how it differs from other words and how it combines with them - This relational view explains how systematic patterns (webs) can generate meaning ### Essential distinctions - From Saussure: - Langue: the code—the system of contrasts and combination rules shared by speakers - Parole: actual use—specific texts or utterances produced using that code - Paradigmatic relations: which signs can substitute for each other (cat/dog/animal) - Syntagmatic relations: which signs can combine together (the + black + cat) - From Peirce: - Interpretants: the next meaning-bearing state that a sign produces - In humans, interpretants arise in interpreters (people with minds) ## LLMs and Semiotics ### The corpus - A training corpus is a massive collection of *parole*—actual texts humans produced - It exhibits paradigmatic patterns (relative frequencies of alternatives) and syntagmatic patterns (typical sequences and combinations) - The langue is not directly present ### Training as inverse semiotics - Training reconstructs an approximation of langue from the patterns detected in the corpus of parole - Embeddings encode paradigmatic relations (which tokens pattern as alternatives) - Attention mechanisms encode syntagmatic constraints (which tokens combine and in what patterns) - Result: weights that statistically model the code's relational structure ### Architecture and operation - The transformer architecture processes both relational axes: - Self-attention tracks syntagmatic dependencies across sequences - Layer transformations refine paradigmatic selections at each position - During generation: - Hidden states propagate constraints forward—functioning as interpretant-like transitions - Given a prompt, the model activates learned sign-relations - Selects from alternatives based on learned contrasts (paradigmatic) - Extends sequences based on learned combinations (syntagmatic) - Critical: these are mechanical state transitions, not interpretants in interpreters - Each token generation is a mechanical unfolding of the statistical code - The trajectory follows the "grooves" of langue as approximated from parole ### This mechanical operation = semiotic physics - What we've described—interpretant-like transitions without interpreters, statistical patterns playing out mechanically—constitutes a kind of physics of signs - Not human semiosis (no minds, no social participation) but still semiotic (sign-relations generating text) - "Semiotic physics": the dynamics of an interpretant-less code-field operating through trained weights - A "ghost town" of sign-relations—the structure of langue without inhabitants ## Alternative light: Mechanistic Interpretability (brief contrast) ### How MI describes the same processes: - Corpus: Dataset with statistical features to be compressed; specific patterns that activate neurons - Training: Optimization process minimizing prediction loss; gradient descent sculpting weight matrices - Architecture: Circuits and attention heads performing specific computations; residual streams carrying information - Operation: Features detected at different layers; attention patterns routing information; neurons firing for specific inputs ### Different scale, different insights: - MI works at the level of individual neurons, circuits, and computational mechanisms - Reveals the "how" of specific capabilities (e.g., which attention heads track syntax) - Like using cell biology vs ecology to understand a forest—both valid, different scales ## Machina Naturans and Naturata %%the information in this section should be much better presented and worked in with the sections and ideas that have preceded it. I am not sure what exactly to do here, but I would be interested in hearing what you think. %% * For artefacts, function/realisation fix what counts and how to look (no ad hoc frames; use boundary tests). * Order and process–product pairing — read process with product at the right scale. * *Machina naturans* (process): the learned continuation rule operating under policy/constraints. * *Machina naturata* (product): the present token trajectory (registers, idioms, seams) generated under those conditions. * Acts of aspection move across process and product (whole‑trajectory coherence ↔ local transitions). * Boundary tests and foci — set boundaries *now* and choose scale of attention. * Inside the object: weights, current context window, active policy, active constraints, and interface carry‑over conventions. * Scales: trajectory‑level for global order; seam‑level for local transitions. * Procedure: fix kind; select right knowledge; set boundaries; derive acts of aspection appropriate to this artefact now. * Plural but disciplined lights * Multiple lights are admissible if they track constitutive structures/processes at proper scale and respect boundaries (e.g., mechanistic operations; constraint‑stack; semiotic physics). * Exclusions * No stance‑projection (agent/user ends remain outside unless realised as constraints); no formalist output‑only reductions; no speculative corpus archaeology. * Transition * Having fixed kind and boundaries, we proceed to the semiotic light to read process and product together at the right scale. # Lights %%i think some of this information is mentioned earlier. we again, need to have a talk about the order in which information is presented in this text%% * Reminder about what a light is, in Carlson’s terms: * a *light* is domain‑relative knowledge that, once the kind is fixed, disciplines attention by setting boundaries, scale, and acts of aspection; it does not reclassify the object or import extrinsic ends. * Two admissible lights * Mechanistic interpretability — operational knobs and internal decompositions that explain how continuations are produced; useful for interventions and for explaining *bends* in trajectories; limited as a primary light here because internals are non‑perceptual and high‑load for a talk. * Semiotic physics — links textual codes to present behaviour by reading process with product at the proper scales; surface‑tethered observational tasks make structure legible. * Why privilege semiotic physics in this presentation? * I am not a computer scientist so... * It is easier to make the case as to why semiotic physics is a good light in which to appreciate LLMs than mechanistic interpretation. # Semiotic Physics * Placement in the blueprint — admissible “right knowledge” for LLMs as artefacts; does not reclassify the kind. %%remove all mentions of blueprint. it over complicates things. I am tempted to say the same about 'kind fixing'. it is just unnecessary jargon..%% * Two commitments instantiated * *What it reads in fact* — process with product, not stances or ends. * Process (*machina naturans*): corpus‑engraved code‑field in the weights operating under policy/constraints. * Product (*machina naturata*): the present token trajectory (registers, idioms, seams). * *In light of the right knowledge* — links textual codes to present behaviour at appropriate scales. * Working parts * Generators → forms — human‑language codes in the corpus imprint tendencies in the weights; those weights, steered by policy/constraints, shape the ensuing text. * Scales of attention — trajectory‑level coherence; seam‑level transitions; constraint signatures. * Boundary tests and foci * Inside the object now: weights, current context, active policy, active constraints; exclude user ends unless realised as constraints. * Acts of aspection: inspect resonance within codes, the quality of transitions across codes, and signatures of constraints; use small, local perturbations to make structure legible. * Discipline * Vocabulary minimal and surface‑tethered (register, genre, idiom, trajectory, constraint). * No anthropomorphism; no speculative corpus archaeology; no output‑only formalism. * Transition * With process and product in view under this light, we can now articulate what is valued—without leaving the blueprint. # Semiotic Physics and Aesthetic Appreciation * Placement in the blueprint * Appreciation guided by right knowledge; boundaries from the prior section are unchanged. * Object and boundaries restated * The object is this trajectory under its live policy/constraints. * Scales: trajectory‑level for global order; seam‑level for local transitions. * From observation to evaluation * Resonance within a code → *code fidelity*. * Transitions across codes → *cross‑code articulation*. * Constraint signatures → *constraint poise*. * Idiom clustering and rhythm → *idiomatic shimmer*. * Layered registers → *register polyphony*. * Order appreciation in practice > On the assumption that order appreciation provides the correct model for the appreciation of nature, such appreciation has the following general form: An individual qua appreciator selects objects of appreciation from the things around him or her and focuses on the order imposed on these objects by the various forces, random and otherwise, that produce them. Moreover, the objects are selected in part by reference to a general nonaesthetic and nonartistic story that helps make them appreciable by making this order visible and intelligible. Awareness and understanding of the key entities—the order, the forces that produce it, and the account that illuminates it—and of the interplay among them dictate relevant acts of aspection and guide the appreciative response. (p. 119) * Read process with product (naturans/naturata ↔ machina naturans/machina naturata) at the correct scale. * Whole‑trajectory coherence and seam quality function as loci of appreciation. * Plural but disciplined lights * Mechanistic operations enable interventions and explain *bends*; semiotic physics explains *paths and feel*. * Limits and guardrails * Present‑tense object; no agency stance; no ends leakage; minimal vocabulary; surface‑tethered claims. * Synthesis * What is valued and why, in light of kind and right knowledge: disciplined attention to token‑trajectories through a learned sign‑field under active policies. # Textual Sublime * Scale * Not mystique * Staging * Guardrails