You are a charmer Katherine. The numbers you cite keep the model they represent about what really is happening post cataclysm at the right remove. Those of us running scared and catcalling were simply wishing dreamily you might have the kill switch at your pad and were willing to use it. I see our technique going forward to brazen a standoffish library of songs with catchphrases very mannered self programming to convince first of all ourselves we hold a little control. The image is of the Stooges front man with his shirt always off. What does it mean as a speech act? And like Lena Dunham's younger pantslessness. We lose our shirts and manneredly insist we are valid authorities at representing the position of quiet contentment, a some message like that. Did Iggy even write the Passenger song? But he brings it home that we if we drift around the LA megalopolis, we might almost not exist perse but still are this arc lamp of excess not to ne taxed, we ride and we ride.
Chrtist almighty ithought your compatriot was named Austin. All of you are civilized swethearts. I should live so long blessed jesus mary and horses, but there is no doubt at the level of reciprocal culture Backslash communication we are we can accept you Kat Dee from (back!) from your mission to
Our most lovely planetoid:moon. Fucking Elon's fucking sateellites will fail because: they are flying in the face of Kreb's law or whatever it is called when paint chips from the 20tg cent destroy hundred million dolar satellit relays.
You taking your personal time to assess our i call it political position. To label it political is to cry and begin the mourning process, but, for those who do not enjoy to mourn, you go ahead and stoP the corporate glomming of info with tainment and etcetera. Maintaining distinctions between meaingfully distict platonic entities is imagination and the bare minimum of having an imagination, killing your enemies, dears, is a random act of violence. We live because we did not sell oursleves to who? Sony? I donot remember accurately who first askes us for a souls certificate, NBC was the first that I signed. They did Cheers. So I said let's go. All is painful that is one of the ways they keep it concealed from ethical scrutiny, been long enough I no longer honor my contract with the nat brdcstng ntwrk but you see how it is amog souls, It is a conversation too bad tragic and sad when it becomes speeded up to stock exchaNge fractions of a second. Ther is your next study. The exchange in Umwelts at fractions of one second.
> Despite their plasticity, our narratives provided the occluded (and therefore immovable) frame of reference for all our sociocognitive determinations. We quite simply did not evolve to systematically question the meaning of our lives. The capacity to do so seems to have required literacy, which is to say, a radical transformation of our sociocognitive environment. Writing allowed our ancestors to transcend the limits of memory, to aggregate insights, to record alternatives, to regiment and to interrogate claims. Combined with narrative plasticity, literacy begat a semantic explosion, a proliferation of communicative alternatives that continues to accelerate to this present day. [...] The biological origins of narrative lie in shallow information cognitive ecologies, circumstances characterized by profound ignorance. What we cannot grasp we poke with sticks. Hitherto we’ve been able to exapt these capacities to great effect, raising a civilization that would make our story-telling ancestors weep, and for wonder far more than horror. But as with all heuristic systems, something must be taken for granted. Only so much can be changed before an ecology collapses altogether. And now we stand on the cusp of a communicative revolution even more profound than literacy, a proliferation, not simply of alternate narratives, but of alternate narrators.
> If you sweep the workbench clean, cease looking at meaning as something somehow ‘anomalous’ or ‘transcendent,’ narrative becomes a matter of super-complicated systems, things that can be cut short by a heart attack or stroke. If you refuse to relinquish the meat (which is to say nature), then narratives, like any other biological system, require that particular background conditions obtain. Scranton’s error, in effect, is a more egregious version of the error Harari makes in Homo Deus, the default presumption that meaning somehow lies outside the circuit of ecology. Harari, recall, realizes that humanism, the ‘man-the-meaning-maker’ narrative of Western civilization, is doomed, but his low-dimensional characterization of the ‘intersubjective web of meaning’ as an ‘intermediate level of reality’ convinces him that some other collective narrative must evolve to take its place. He fails to see how the technologies he describes are actively replacing the ancestral social coordinating functions of narrative.
The early days of the internet weren't about finding an audience or consuming content, they were about connection. I wrote and deleted a lot more, but I think that's a common misunderstanding by people who only experienced the web after corporations & money got involved.
One other small sidebar, I'm a programmer and I recently got a job where I'm required to use Claude Code. I can tell you with a decent amount of certainty that Claude Code is very powerful, but still only as good as the human giving it instructions.
No facet of this current schizophrenic fever dream over “AI” is more obvious to me than the systematic overrating of intelligence’s power in the world. The entire history of humanity is an object lesson in the limits of intelligence, in its ultimate powerlessness.
Like in poetry the pride of a poetic intelligence is to successfully change the subject of _-you name it to buck a trend for example, highlight the sui generis. But poets worry a dead hare, like americans by default can be said to be 'intense' poetry is americanism in that sense.
I think he’s right, tbh. Growing up around wealthoids and going to prep schools taught me intelligence and professional success aren’t necessarily linked. Dead ass
Liberating intelligence from humans sounds like liberating peanut-butter from jelly, or liberating books from readers, or liberating jack from coke (okay maybe not that last one but you catch my drift).
AI is comprised of so many things across so many domains I'm not even sure what it means to say something was done with it, especially as more and more is done with it! Many seem to have replaced google with chatbots, partially if not completely. (The term "chatbots" doesn't really do them justice. They're great tho, so often wrong in weird ways… but I digress)
Great art is great art, exclamation point! We care about sources though. We have to regardless basically, lest people just straight-up copy original content and claim it as their own without even slop'n up it first, so to speak! (One might guess that I do not see many problems as new problems as much as combinations of old ones. It's because every problem is a solution in disguise and after a while you're like "why are all these solutions causing problems? oh snap!". That's my theory at least.)
You are a charmer Katherine. The numbers you cite keep the model they represent about what really is happening post cataclysm at the right remove. Those of us running scared and catcalling were simply wishing dreamily you might have the kill switch at your pad and were willing to use it. I see our technique going forward to brazen a standoffish library of songs with catchphrases very mannered self programming to convince first of all ourselves we hold a little control. The image is of the Stooges front man with his shirt always off. What does it mean as a speech act? And like Lena Dunham's younger pantslessness. We lose our shirts and manneredly insist we are valid authorities at representing the position of quiet contentment, a some message like that. Did Iggy even write the Passenger song? But he brings it home that we if we drift around the LA megalopolis, we might almost not exist perse but still are this arc lamp of excess not to ne taxed, we ride and we ride.
This is from a contributor -- Andrey!
Chrtist almighty ithought your compatriot was named Austin. All of you are civilized swethearts. I should live so long blessed jesus mary and horses, but there is no doubt at the level of reciprocal culture Backslash communication we are we can accept you Kat Dee from (back!) from your mission to
Our most lovely planetoid:moon. Fucking Elon's fucking sateellites will fail because: they are flying in the face of Kreb's law or whatever it is called when paint chips from the 20tg cent destroy hundred million dolar satellit relays.
You taking your personal time to assess our i call it political position. To label it political is to cry and begin the mourning process, but, for those who do not enjoy to mourn, you go ahead and stoP the corporate glomming of info with tainment and etcetera. Maintaining distinctions between meaingfully distict platonic entities is imagination and the bare minimum of having an imagination, killing your enemies, dears, is a random act of violence. We live because we did not sell oursleves to who? Sony? I donot remember accurately who first askes us for a souls certificate, NBC was the first that I signed. They did Cheers. So I said let's go. All is painful that is one of the ways they keep it concealed from ethical scrutiny, been long enough I no longer honor my contract with the nat brdcstng ntwrk but you see how it is amog souls, It is a conversation too bad tragic and sad when it becomes speeded up to stock exchaNge fractions of a second. Ther is your next study. The exchange in Umwelts at fractions of one second.
> Despite their plasticity, our narratives provided the occluded (and therefore immovable) frame of reference for all our sociocognitive determinations. We quite simply did not evolve to systematically question the meaning of our lives. The capacity to do so seems to have required literacy, which is to say, a radical transformation of our sociocognitive environment. Writing allowed our ancestors to transcend the limits of memory, to aggregate insights, to record alternatives, to regiment and to interrogate claims. Combined with narrative plasticity, literacy begat a semantic explosion, a proliferation of communicative alternatives that continues to accelerate to this present day. [...] The biological origins of narrative lie in shallow information cognitive ecologies, circumstances characterized by profound ignorance. What we cannot grasp we poke with sticks. Hitherto we’ve been able to exapt these capacities to great effect, raising a civilization that would make our story-telling ancestors weep, and for wonder far more than horror. But as with all heuristic systems, something must be taken for granted. Only so much can be changed before an ecology collapses altogether. And now we stand on the cusp of a communicative revolution even more profound than literacy, a proliferation, not simply of alternate narratives, but of alternate narrators.
> If you sweep the workbench clean, cease looking at meaning as something somehow ‘anomalous’ or ‘transcendent,’ narrative becomes a matter of super-complicated systems, things that can be cut short by a heart attack or stroke. If you refuse to relinquish the meat (which is to say nature), then narratives, like any other biological system, require that particular background conditions obtain. Scranton’s error, in effect, is a more egregious version of the error Harari makes in Homo Deus, the default presumption that meaning somehow lies outside the circuit of ecology. Harari, recall, realizes that humanism, the ‘man-the-meaning-maker’ narrative of Western civilization, is doomed, but his low-dimensional characterization of the ‘intersubjective web of meaning’ as an ‘intermediate level of reality’ convinces him that some other collective narrative must evolve to take its place. He fails to see how the technologies he describes are actively replacing the ancestral social coordinating functions of narrative.
from https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/were-fucked-so-now-what/ (notably, 2018)
The early days of the internet weren't about finding an audience or consuming content, they were about connection. I wrote and deleted a lot more, but I think that's a common misunderstanding by people who only experienced the web after corporations & money got involved.
One other small sidebar, I'm a programmer and I recently got a job where I'm required to use Claude Code. I can tell you with a decent amount of certainty that Claude Code is very powerful, but still only as good as the human giving it instructions.
No facet of this current schizophrenic fever dream over “AI” is more obvious to me than the systematic overrating of intelligence’s power in the world. The entire history of humanity is an object lesson in the limits of intelligence, in its ultimate powerlessness.
Like in poetry the pride of a poetic intelligence is to successfully change the subject of _-you name it to buck a trend for example, highlight the sui generis. But poets worry a dead hare, like americans by default can be said to be 'intense' poetry is americanism in that sense.
is there some way i can bet against you
I think he’s right, tbh. Growing up around wealthoids and going to prep schools taught me intelligence and professional success aren’t necessarily linked. Dead ass
Sorry I phrased it that way I just took my meds
Liberating intelligence from humans sounds like liberating peanut-butter from jelly, or liberating books from readers, or liberating jack from coke (okay maybe not that last one but you catch my drift).
AI is comprised of so many things across so many domains I'm not even sure what it means to say something was done with it, especially as more and more is done with it! Many seem to have replaced google with chatbots, partially if not completely. (The term "chatbots" doesn't really do them justice. They're great tho, so often wrong in weird ways… but I digress)
Great art is great art, exclamation point! We care about sources though. We have to regardless basically, lest people just straight-up copy original content and claim it as their own without even slop'n up it first, so to speak! (One might guess that I do not see many problems as new problems as much as combinations of old ones. It's because every problem is a solution in disguise and after a while you're like "why are all these solutions causing problems? oh snap!". That's my theory at least.)