effed3

It’s like something I read a while ago in a newspaper (I don’t recall which one); it went something like this: "CO2 levels are dropping, trees consume CO2, therefore trees are in danger."

It’s depressing, not even worth the CO2 emitted to publish it, let alone the CO2 emitted to read it, -but- it works, time, resources, words, and reasonings are all squandered on complete nonsense, helping to keep afloat something that is, in intellectual terms, little more than a street brawl, but serves someone’s purpose.

I remember a little story from the 70s or 80s about the different approaches taken in America and the USSR toward major engineering challenges:

In America, they buy or build a $1 billion supercomputer and hire 5 engineers/programmers.

In the USSR, they take an old, eight-story Tsarist-era building in Moscow—with a view of the Neva—and fill it with 1,000 mathematicians armed with slide rules, chalkboards, and chalk.

The result is the same.

Space exploration is wonderful, i quite saw Armstrong walking on the regolith. But if we dismantle NASA and its supporting ecosystem to hand it over to the private sector, which is precisely what is happening, we ought to be asking ourselves why there is no funding left to invest: The reason is that trillions, globally, have been funneled into financial speculation, a trend that has accelerated dramatically over the last 25 years. And it is not just space; the entire economy is caught in this same current. And these people are talking about the "Antichrist"? It’s no wonder some get riled up.

These ideas regarding demographics and democracy have been debated for a long time, they may be inevitable trends, or perhaps they could be mitigated; but this individual and his friends consistently -forget- to explain about one of the root causes: the fruits of progress and modernity are increasingly benefiting a shrinking number of people. Instead of reinvesting in the medium-to-long term fostering genuine progress and development for everyone (themselves included, this is the wonder), the -real- productive economy, they fuel massive, short-term speculation for their own exclusive gain. Smart.

Forget the "Antichrist"—, that’s a fairy tale by comparison. The global economic and financial system, the true (private) power behind any contemporary (public, wide, collective) policy, is effectively sawing off the branch it sits upon. Global public debt has reached astronomical, science-fiction levels, yet that money hasn't simply vanished, it has ended up in the pockets of a few (major) private entities, and not going in real economy, this, in turn, generates ever-widening poverty, lower wages, reduced consumption, contracting economy, demographic decline, migration, crises, and cuts to everything, except for speculation, all fuel a downward spiral that keeps repeating itself. Very smart.

And every big new thing that appears, (guess.. AI) heavily touted as the latest miracle and pushed onto global markets—is increasingly just an expression of speculation, rather than a response to people’s real needs.

Forgive the rant; better to look at the stars.

Indeed. Is an "interesting" read.

It is a confirmation, though always somewhat surprising, to see a deluge of facts and diverse, individually accurate citations, cemented together by unbridled opinions, coalesce into something entirely nonsense. Or perhaps the point is precisely to dilute any genuine discourse with this kind of chatter, which serves to give an air of intellectual depth to the stance of someone who,"having only a hammer as a tool, approaches the world as if it were all made of nails". Unfortunately, he is not the only one who embodies this particular intellectual attitude. He likely identifies with Christ, seeing Antichrists everywhere, or perhaps he simply uses religion to better peddle his own "ideas." And this obsession with "who is in charge" may well stem from an inability to govern (or know) oneself, driving to try and reshape the world in his own image, just to feel secure. ok,too much psychoanalysis...

I get the impression that this is a story seen many times over the last two or three thousand years.

I don’t know why, but it brings me a story to mind: A thief breaks into a house, and when he’s discovered by the owner—and the police arrive—he starts shouting, "Thief! Thief!" while pointing at the owner.

Who, then, would the Antichrist be?

From a simpler, more practical perspective, it seems to me that there is only one world—a common home for us all, more or less—and there is no guarantee (nor does happen in reality) that those who have great culture, eloquence, wealth, and knowledge are also intellectually honest, or, to put it more simply, of sound mind, regardless of the position or level they may have reached.

A final quote—I’m afraid I don’t recall the author, -mea culpa-, goes: "There is nothing more dangerous than a great idea in a small mind."

Someone once wrote that power corrupts, and the greater the power, the greater the corruption. So there is a more concentration of power, more privilege, deeper inequality, and an enhanced capacity to amass further power—all of which creates a perverse feedback loop. It is an age-old story, resurfacing today with greater speed and intensity than ever before.

And if the so-called democracy —where it truly exists— is a heuristic method for distributing power across such a broad base that the level of corruption per capita remains below a critical threshold, a point at which moral and cultural antibodies can still function?

Who knows.

I understand; tools arise from human needs, and therefore reflect and follow human nature (good or bad, and a little fetishizing in the good side probably..). Adapting to tools is essentially learning to use them better after their creation, and refining that until tools becomes an extension of oneself (transcending it) is a "healthy" god thing. It is much like an athlete learning to surpass their own limitations (the body itself is the tool). This is entirely different from merely becoming a slightly more intelligent appendage of the tool, learning and adapting does not mean trapping oneself within a limitation; i feel that one can always change the tool, the technique, or even the goal.

Regarding the tension between the human and the artificial (machines), there is something to be found in Stanisław Lem’s Cyberiad.

positive effect? "very probably" -not-.

Heidegger’s conception of machines and technology is essentially nineteenth-century. Today, the concept of the "machine" is universal and qualitatively entirely different, (chaos and complexity) to the point that Heidegger would likely be left catatonic. (I do not share Heidegger’s critique of technology, as being technological is an inherent part of human nature; even in the Neolithic era, humans were already technological.)

However, the underlying critique, the essence of the "Butlerian Jihad", might be read as: at what point does a tool remain merely a tool, and at what point does it become an end in itself? Knowledge, strength, power, technology, and machines are all tools; they ought to be utilized to contribute to progress. Yet, the very concepts of evolution, progress (and the environment) are elusive. Herbert offers his own interpretation, a task that required an entire book.

Agree. LLM looks more like a complex semiotic system, and meaning is attributed to the output by humans during interaction; all intelligence is human, since we interpret the output, but LLM operates only at the level of pure symbols, logical-probabilistic output, which however has nothing to do with meaning. Tho have meaning is to have interaction (with the world), cannot be a closed game of signs.

[Following note]: If the author's satire is (as it may seem, and perhaps even understandable) in practice it perfectly overlaps with truly serious "studies" (including his own?) that are the true object of various reflections and some counter-satire, a bit mimetic, a bit casual. It is the true "author" behind the author, the excuse for another reflection: on something as mysterious as the human mind, countless theories can be invented, current therapies, schools, and fortunes can be built upon it, which may perhaps interest and even help someone (really?). But none seems to go beyond that, on something (diversity, strangeness, pain, and joy, and even madness) that in ancient times were the sign of the divine, of everything that goes beyond comprehension.

Today, everything seems to be resolved by applying a "cure" to a more or less tailor-made "pathology," but this is a very narrow horizon within which we lock ourselves away from life and the mind, and it is easily abused and degraded in its socio-industrial theorizing and applications.

Therefore, in my opinion, particularly regarding "preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity" (avoiding laughing, because maybe someone is genuinely worried), I believe that we need to put the spotlight on other things, such as society, culture, education, and inner growth, and the "pathologies" will be reduced to the minimum real number, on which to then elaborate a deeper reflection.

agree, as being normal is somewath odd.

maybe you are right, quite sure is all 3 things at the same time :) about something that, by my point of view, is -very- easy to understand, but, i know, ymmv.

I feel that in this kind of matter, demonstrations (an others things) are in the eye of beholder, and a language that has a specific weight much greater than what it seeks to represent, set afloat in the sea of life, runs the risk of capsizing and sinking (feel free to laugh here).

it's inevitable and i'm (partially) resigned to the implications it has on whole (modern) life, but anyone who wants to continue to pathologize vivisect and classify human experience is free to do so, but (for me) regarding life, true knowledge comes first over (presumed) academicism