svnt

It is meaningless when what you sell costs more than what your customer pays for it.

I could sell $100B of GPUs at 90% of their cost tomorrow and I have market acceptance.

And receiving investment from their vendor in exchange? When this is done in established companies it is typically called a kickback and directed toward one person, but in this case the whole thing is so incestuous the kickback goes straight to the top.

It is entirely possible, especially in small companies in my experience, that “factors beyond the dev teams control” means “technical founder with severe myopia and decision fatigue who prevents “complexity”” as they see it, which for them means everything you discuss here as being necessary.

This dancing between positions is all very defensible and if the path is currently working for you, more power to you.

Dogma, like the binaries, still functionally exists, whatever the narrative. If you can’t admit that, that might also be something interesting to meditate on.

Say you have eliminated all suffering. How many versions of that world exist? How many of them are true, beautiful, and good? See how, in order to evaluate the success or failure of Buddhism, we have to move beyond “eliminate suffering” to a higher value standard?

I am curious where you got this impression?

Apple fought it the whole way, commissioned studies to show it was a bad idea, etc etc. This after they had a decade prior been subject to the same thing with micro USB and skirted that agreement by shipping more unnecessary cables.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/02/02/what-the-eu-manda...

This is what happens when the market for phone batteries only exists for OEMs who buy millions at a time, custom.

It will stop only when there is a reason for consumer-detectable battery quality indicators — ie non-tech people have a reason to buy them. Which will now be the case with this law.

Ah and there is the dogma -- the otherness of the enlightened.

The binaries still functionally exist. I see a lot of value in reflective practices. At the same time it seems unlikely to me that the point of existing is to not trouble your mind.

There are no conspiracies where a corporation has profit incentive. There is perhaps a question of planning and initial intentionality, but the metrics and motivation to continue are clear enough.

Are you able to use the language practically? How would that work? You prompt it in english but tell it to work in tokinensis? And then translate back at the end?

The Western Zen? In my experience it is downgraded from being a religion to being a system of practice which relieves it of the broader Mahayana cosmology. But I would suggest the dogma is less obvious but still there, often just somewhere else, such as in its own limitations, or in a philosophical container at a higher level such as scientism.

Which one?

Your version of the last point is a bit softer I think — parent was putting it down to “loss of talent” but yours captures the gaps vs natural human interaction patterns which seems more likely, especially on such short timescales.

Right but it is at most a couple of hours with claude code and posted on Sunday night.

That makes sense, but what is the solution?

Sure, but if that were the case why has it gotten worse recently? I would expect it to be as a result of cost optimization or tradeoffs in the model. I suppose it could be an indicator of the exhaustion of high quality training data or model architecture limitation. But this specific example, revel vs reveal, is almost like going back to GPT-2 reddit errors.

I also don’t want to pretend there is no incentive for AI to seem more human by including the occasional easily recognized error.

I’ve also noticed Gemini and Claude occasionally mixing terms recently (eg revel vs reveal) and can’t decide whether it is due to cost optimization effects or some attempt to seem more human.

I can’t recall either using a wrong word prior this month for some time.

Or one from a place of unfounded hubris.

You edited your comment to remove it.

This assumes regulatory capture is not a thing.

Thank you for disclosing that your entire purpose was ad hominem, it makes it easier to understand why it was difficult to pin down your criticisms of my arguments.

I meant West Eurasia, I agree it doesn’t seem to support any broader conclusion.

I am not sure without additional clarification, but by “pseudo intellectual LLM assisted rampage” you seem to be referring to the long passage I pulled verbatim from the notes section of the author’s post.

I am not sure what argument you are making about sexism but it seems like we are not having the same conversation.

We disagree that “not claiming to be an expert” is sufficient cover for “apparently not having read much at all in the topical area.”

I am a shill for what?

No one in adjacent fields has been seriously engaging tabula rasa speculation from the 17th century for quite some time prior to this paper.

What you think the implications are of that for your present day lived experience, that might be a different conversation.

I haven’t had time to really dig in to the paper but these data (from only one region) are limited in their ability to compare regions, right?

If anything they seem to support homogenization of intellectual capacity/mental health in Eurasia since 2kya.

The methodology, if it holds up, seems to hold a lot of promise for answering questions like this in the future.

Let’s not avoid the problem by being disingenuous. The below, to you, does not qualify as trying to be an intellectual? The author skips over 150 years of engagement with Peirce and tries to go straight back to the source but fails to locate any actual reason to do so:

> In the research phase of this article, I came to the conclusion that existing system models are insufficient as they do not describe the process of how human knowledge, ideas and concepts evolve and how they are connected in a form that makes the idea of this work easily understandable. That is why I propose the “Dynamic Dialectic Substrate” to describe a model of cognition including the resulting dynamics and evolution. I hope this system model helps to understand this article. I choose the name “Dynamic Dialectic Substrate” because it symbolizes the obvious dialectic process, but other than the popular understanding of dialectic, it is, in my understanding, not static and rather dynamic, which I wanted to explicitly include in the name. Also, although a substrate is usually thought of as something passive, it is used here in a very active way. The idea was that humans (and apparently also AIs) are the actors and the Dynamic Dialectic Substrate is just the pool or medium out of which the actors draw their dialectics and, in doing so, changing the substrate itself. One could also say that the Dynamic Dialectic Substrate is just Pragmatism (C.S. Peirce’s logic of abduction) or Evolutionary Epistemology… if you have this perspective, please ask yourself if it is really REALLY the same and if the Dynamic Dialectic Substrate is not a much better representation of what needs to be grasped here.

I know that there are many theories of cognition like Conceptual blending, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis and also in some sense Memetics, but they all catch only parts of what we need here to understand the problem, like they only describe the mechanism of cognition or the transport mechanism of memes. The Hegelian Dialectic is too abstract, widely misunderstood, and bloated while vague at the same time. For example, the Hegelian Dialectic is often perceived as static and not dynamic, although Hegel would probably be very angry about that. It is by the way a common misconception that the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis model is from Hegel, it is actually from Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus. ↩

Dialectic, also known as the dialectical method, refers originally to dialogue between people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to arrive at the truth through reasoned argument. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and rhetoric; the object is more an eventual and commonly held truth than the ‘winning’ of an (often binary) competition.

I have provided several references to authors who developed material subject to peer review that would belong in an properly cited article. You have contributed exactly nothing to the discussion except trying to imply I am responding out of sexism, and then implying that someone referencing Peirce and stating they feel there is a need for a new informational substrate without engaging with any of the work since is not acting as an “intellectual.”

I call the author out for not being widely read in areas where they are attempting to coin neologisms. If that seems like insulting someone’s intelligence and telling them to calm down to you then I’m not sure this will be a productive conversation.

Coining new terms for established ideas is not intellectual contribution — it is, in Wiredu’s language, the opposite of conceptual decolonization. The topic does not need new vocabulary. The author needs to read more widely, cite more justly, and recognize that the scholars they overlook understood these problems first, understood them more deeply, and in some cases paid significant professional costs for doing so.

Rereading my comment I don’t see anything about the author’s intelligence or anxiety level.

When you have insane amounts of capital and your gpu and talent needs are more or less met, there is a capital relief valve known as growth hacking. It only works if the consumer isn’t aware they’re being hacked.

Yeah I can’t disagree I think it is really disruptive in a corporate-job-expectation setting where you don’t have the same level of agency.

It is a quirky article but the author, instead of engaging with information sources to understand what important thoughts people have had about these topics, feels the best thing to do is introduce new terms that other terms already exist for. This is basically just inductive bias plus the AI homogenization idea producing a distribution shift.

This is what happens in thought-isolation. It isn’t better than educating yourself, whether that education involves AI or not.

Phillip Kitcher is known for epistemic monoculture, Dawkins and then Henrich popularized collective intelligence and cultural evolution.

The thing about these fear pieces is concepts like the hollowed mind are reductive and that reductionism is based on a reductive view of (usually other) people.

But what actually happens is we have formalized processes and can externalize them. This is a benefit if you can use your newfound capacity and free time for something better, which I think most people ultimately will.