psychoslave

And in business the first move is to create a juridical fiction to endorse accountability instead of the people driving it.

Apart bare nude citizen and end of chain operator, there are not much people not playing such a dodge game it seems.

But saying the conclusion seems out of touch, but it's not necessarily limited to STEM formatted people. Everyone and their dogs think they have the most apt representation and whoever disagree ever miss information or the ability to act accordingly.

- Captain, there are icebergs front forward, we can go around or decelerate to a pace enabling to safely navigate in between.

- You brainless sailor, push engines to their max capacity and in a straight forward line we will arrive to destination in the only metrics that matter, quick and short. Time is money, money is everything, safety measures is for coward losers. Also jump out of my ship in this cold sea full of sharks once you tweaked the engines, your dumb mentality could contaminate the rest of my crew otherwise. You can kiss the feet of the giant golden status of myself as an act of repentance before we throw you.

If one consider to know in advance what will be useful or not, it's fair to categorize that as fortune telling.

Now there can be other relevant limitations, like physical constraints such as how much data storage is available, or social concerns like not divulging the physical address when some threats and hurts are very plausible consequences.

The fact that such a trivial need require to go into such an esoteric details speak more about the qualities of C than the author proposal actually.

And the kind of situation you describe sure can happen, but if it's more than once in a team life time, there are organizational issues at stake which are far more of a concern than any accumulation of code artistry pushed border line with occultism.

Of course we should record it all. How we articulate them into relevant encyclopedic article or some pedagogical book or something else (Wikimedia ecosystem don't need to limit to Wikipedia) is a distinct matter. The underlying goal was indeed "imagine a world where everyone as access to the sum of all knowledge" and not something shrinked to whatever notability definition is in fashion in this or that context.

Of course it would be knowledge, including knowledge about how some human would process to map that kind of phenomenon, as well as his they name things. As soon as someone put some attention to some information, it becomes some kind of knowledge.

More ambitious is not necessarily aiming at covering with less discrimination.

I would find an encyclopedia with exactly zero article about any individual biography far more ambitious than one that cover only some, provided it would explain everything in term of structuralist perspective and consider names of actual people involved as relevant as the names of cells in a macrosized living form.

Or indeed the other way around, covering every single individual with an equal level of details, should it be done with first hand done investigation.

The middle ground that let enter only articles about people whose personal information passed the selection bias of other institutions is the lowest ambition of them all.

Ah yes I remember meeting this end of spontaneous expression to bend toward whatever might please some algorithm.

Soulless Enshitificatoon Oblivion now exercises a huge weight on societies to such an extent, it's ridiculous.

I don't know, with LLM it feels like I finally have possibility to prepare all the dull text that corporate environment expect in a form that colleagues are able to digest even if they don't specially enjoy it like it's the best poetry their beloved one ever composed specially for them. This is in sharp contrast with the struggle to shrink into a somewhat coherent excerpt the wide web of interweaved psychological experience flow graph into this alien expressions which are text streams. It's still impossible to dump really the whole experience and communicate wholly the full semantics they cast, but at least these automatons are never scared to face far much than they can sustain in what can be thrown at them, and apparently most people prefer the dull soulless prose to whatever can suggest vivide continuous reconnection of everything as the context inevitably drift and everything needs to be reconsidered properly with all the rest.

You can't build trust over science, that's just an error of category. You can only build trust in some people on some topic. One can measure reliability in a process, but if no specific human is involved, there is no literal trust engaged.

Now of course, to each its definition and metaphors are useful tools.

But when one starts a discussion on truth, trust or reality as core topic, it's better to start with what is meant with these words and in which context to which scoped boundaries.

Because of course, science can back a contemporary etnologic account that asserts there is no (longer) different races in homo sapiens, just as much as it can serve as frame for phrenology and whatever supremacism claim.

So no, we didn't build trust in science over centuries, and not even in any scientific person because we don't have that much humans to hold the role of such a trustable entity over such a long period of time.

Social institutions can carry unchanged names over centuries, but that tells nothing about how trustable are the people that inhabit them over time.

LLMs certainly come with their own challenges, but the erosion or scientific institutions with its bizarre scheme of publication process have been there basically as far as I can remember.

Attribution is a fascinating topic.

For example, one generally don’t name cells in their body, and cells works generally pretty well to sustain a whole self.

On societal level, obviously no one is aware of who authored the biggest mass of benefit that is granted by the mere fact of living in society. No specific individual have credits for example regarding the language they use daily¹. For the most recent ones, it’s now often possible to attach some name to invention of some cultural/technological artifact, but of course Zeitgeist-wise perspective tend to consider it’s rarely a single punctual individual that should be considered the critical pivot point.

On the other hand, even Marx that was so critical of individual alienation couldn’t refrain to make the intellectual equivalent of pissing territory and attach a name referring to its own ego within all of his works. Ego is a masterpiece of illusion: it will bring the foundational leveraging to build every possible societal hegemony under the sun while convincing the deluded that serving the ego is the indispensable first step of everything to best serve every individual selfs.

¹ Even for constructed languages, such as Esperanto that I practice myself, whoever construct them obviously don’t start from cultural blank slate.

Well, how many kids could Ali defeat through brutal violent force before being sent to jail would then be the analogous question.

If the company putting at risk underlying social contract is not completely dismantled and its head is not sent in jail, the message they get is clear: go on as long as you can sustain the loss and profit. Or at least it's apparently the only way they can interpret it.

Reinforcement feedback loops, etc