kayo_20211030

I'll give the commenter the benefit of the doubt. While reading the piece, which wasn't as easy as it ought to have been, I kept wondering what the "point" was. Ultimately, the whole piece just seems a little pointless. It was just stuff, and more stuff. All without an obvious or even a subtle point. Just stuff, without any hint of an author's shadow being on it.

I know I try to find a pattern (or a point) where it may not exist. People will read into things like this what they will; sometimes they're right, and sometimes they're seeing a pattern that's not there.

My take-away is that the original post smelled like a bunch of AI generated nonsense, with light human editing; strictly with a view to nerd-sniping only. Von Neumann is catnip.

Even without the game, the website itself is excellently droll.

> wide to the hopeful Baltic Sea beyond

What a great phrase.

I read this article, all of it. I'm still trying to square the circle of how a report about the tribulations of fish-farming on the Danube align with the broader concept of the "Desertification in Europe". To me, it seems like a bs, but credible, AI article about fish-farming challenges on the Danube which met some sloppy editor who simply stuck a more click-baity headline on it - one that was completely unrelated to the content.

I've seen this same discussion in a million guises.

This particular essay starts with

> I’m a kid of the 90s, and I still remember the early internet.

... and then contains a lot of predictable stuff about how and why avalon became: tarnished, effete, weak, tawdry, despoiled, no-fun, toxic, predatory, rapacious etc. You can take your pick, it doesn't matter. It's the same argument no matter which adjective you choose.

It finally gets to

> The question is not whether the internet contains useful things. It does.

That's a truism of no value.

Take the whole essay, replace "internet" with a country's name and amend some of the details. You've seen it before? You read it every damned day in every form of media. It's used to justify just about anything; the good and the bad. In the end it's a boring, repetitive argument.

At the edge, it reduces to: my country used to be great and now it's crap because it's not how it used to be - so, we need to roll everything back despite the number of years that have passed between then and now, and despite any of the positive things that may have come during that time.

I'm interested - for reasons. Does anyone have a sense of what this study means in a practical or actionable sense?

In toto, the conclusion of the paper:

> Together, these findings define a dual-layered model of molecular convergence in ASD: convergence through shared interaction networks in the wild-type state and convergence through recurrent functional consequences of interaction rewiring in the mutant state. More broadly, this work establishes a scalable framework for systematic interrogation of the autism proteome, enables prioritization of druggable protein interfaces, and provides a rational foundation for precision therapeutic strategies aimed at restoring neurodevelopmental trajectories.

I have no grounding here. Does anyone want to have a go at teasing the meaning out?

It used to happen in NZ too. I don't know if it still does.

> It's the product, what the code does that moves the needle.

Never a truer word said. It's the only thing that moves the needle.

I'm not sure that businesses are straying from AI. I reckon everyone's on board. but AI is now accessible to the business folks - callow as they are to the requirements of the technology components - and it's bound to run up against the technology folks trying to wave them off when enthusiastic excesses threaten what the code does, now or in the future. There'll be adjustments on both sides.

I think so. Two traditional and _almost_ disjoint sets, the technology realm and the business realm, will start to (be forced to?) have much greater overlap. There have always been political battles along the boundary, but this upcoming one will be bloody and long. The current structures and control mechanisms will have to change appreciably for any of the promises of AI to be realized.

> The developers who stand out will be the ones who understand the systems.

That has always been true. AI doesn't change it. It just rearranges some elements that come ahead of that understanding. The volume and velocity are challenges but the understanding and judgement is what separates the good and the great.

BTW: "systems" in my world include not just the technology components but also the humans who operate, adjust and manage all the pieces, and the processes that control it all.

Excellent write-up that even I could understand - I'm interested, but not particularly knowledgable - thanks.

Thanks