1,104 karma · joined June 8, 2024
Maybe the author of the actual blog post had different intentions in sharing the Mastodon post than the author of the Mastodon post did. But the Mastodon post was made in response to the event that the blog post attempts to separate itself from. It's a reasonable thing to do if you're more interested in the technical issue and not the political one that the technical issue is being compared to.
But the context of the original post is meant to respond to a (techno-)political issue. This can explain why the post's rhetoric comes across as hyperbolic.
It doesn't help that UX seems to be talked about in ways that borrow the rhetoric of ethics from other disciplines like law and healthcare.
[0]: In spite of the author at Unsung saying that Neovim is "in news" for other reasons. Chisnall's account is being given in the immediate context of that news.
The good news for Cory, I guess, is that he probably doesn't want to turn this into a philosophical debate and neither do his more serious opponents. It's mostly politics for both sides.
As opposed to an "AI atheist" that Doctorow refers to in the article.
This particular post is preaching to the choir of which a faith is yet to be determined or named at least. People who don't read Cory Doctorow are going to continue to anthropomorphize AI the same as they do other technologies, constructs and objects.
> They gave her a day to "think about it."
When this is sort of behavior that the "good guys" advance then it's hard not to expect a "bad guy" with money to show up on the scene and thwart it.
> “Neobrutalism” might be wrong in concept, but it was coined around 2023, that ship has sailed.
Who cares. It's 2026. All it takes to sink a sailing ship is a few determined gents in a motorboat. It's called Post-Corporate Memphis!
These pages are closer to "neobrutalism" or what I would call "Cybermod" [0], I think...
The statement also does little to address the ethical concerns at the root of the relationship between industries and the military.
And after some thought I'm curious whether this means that LLMs ought to be adept at forming new metaphors as opposed to handling pre-existing ones.
The exception here being that ERSC also apparently intends to be less dependent on git than the others too.
If true, they have the clear advantage.
But I think that LLMs are bad at something that has to do with taking seemingly disparate concepts and assimilating one into the other to convey a novel idea.
Like these articles...
<https://spectrum.ieee.org/jimi-hendrix-systems-engineer>
<https://zed.dev/blog/agentic-xanadu>
...are anything but convincing once you read past the gravitas that the LLM lends the prose.