psychoslave

Also here, that’s still an option, and comments are still there and (I guess) open to new entries. So what is the concern pointed at here?

A LAMP stack is still possible. Some lean toward alternative "frugal" stacks, like https://learnbchs.org/

It’s not like choice is not there.

> The reality is that the adoption is incredibly fast and that revenues of the AI labs are like doubling by the quarter.

How is that compared to the speed at which money is thrown in them? And how much of the profit downstream they might indeed potentially capture with high retention rate?

Bubble can’t be assessed on mere quarter profit expansion over short period (relative to large company group life expectancy).

Physicists and epistemologs do refer to Aristotle and flat earthers all the time. Maybe with more critical mindset and as a will to exemplify what they consider undesirable outcomes, but still they cite them all the time.

It's hard to dodge totally a figure that the discipline itself sell as a founding member or a representative of what is antinomic to these foundations yet enjoy some persistent followers.

That looks very interesting to go read it, but on the other hand who knows where this curiosity might lead to?!

fertility trap, with precarity as its driver and delayed, reduced reproduction as its expression

Then this leads to "how does it feel to be a bat", if humans feel necessarily to close. Though really, between autistics spectre and aphantasia and hyperphantasia, synesthesia and cenesthesia, and whatever, everything is the same neutral architecture beneath feels as decisive as everything is atoms, particules or quantic wavelengths. Yes sure we have the models to explain it top down and bottom up with nice common imbricated level of architecture. But if we take emergent phenomena as a thing, it's not really necessarily predictive in ever way of scale change.

It might be weirder, but part of human intercommunication issues lies in the fact that people live with very different representation, though they can be supposed to live in the same single encompassing one. They don't all experience all of the world and even when they share some common experience they went through, they didn't experiment them from the same ground and previous experiences do influence current and future interpretations.

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

You don't need to motivate people to create. That's a spontaneous move of human beings. Humans were making music and were paintings on walls far before any obsession of legal owning started to haunt their mind.

They are the same yes, except we don't have yet a technology to instantly copy whatever macrosized object ad nauseam like we can with intellectual work in digital era.

If anyone could duplicate the whole universe at will, of course current human laws would all seem as silly as those covering random virtual monopoly on cognitive experience possibilities.

It's unclear to me at least what you mean here. In term of what is logically possible, if we take for granted that all integer numbers and more are mappable from a subset of this interval, then we do have this number.

Now, on logistical level, the mapping procedure is not free, it does have a physical/energetic/mental cost to handle it, and a more trivial representation of integer has a lower cost on this regard.

But the simpler integer representation can represent less many situations. If all one need to deal with in a certain frame is covered by a simpler shipper representation, from an economical perspective it can be argued it worth the risk of hitting a point where the representation will be insufficient as the situation evolved with cases it can't handle.

My impression is that your underlying premises are conflating all of this distinguishable aspects. But of course my impression is limited by my own narrow representation of the world, no matter how open and curious I can be about learning from experiences it makes me go through.

Eu- is a classic antonym morph for dys-, yes, and though rendered as u- is less usual it's still the same morpheme that one find in euphoria or euphony.

Both are classically used to name fiction places, starting with Thomas More eponymous book.

That said, neither eu- nor dys- are related to chronology or imaginative consideration on themselves, only about how desirable or awful the prefixed root is assessed to be in the judged situation.

The term "future" in that definition is idiosyncratic to the dictionary it was taken from, certainly. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dystopia#English don’t have any mention of "future".

Neither dys- nor -topia relates to time. One can apply dystopia in the long time ago in a distant galaxy setup, in some future, in some alternative dimension, or in present time.

What do you mean with "the future"?

Anything that can be abused through collusion in a wide scale scenario will eventually happen.

This is not a contingent issue, it’s a fundamental integrated flaw of any system that put general totalitarian spy as an aimed outcome. Whatever the way it’s green-washed over safety tradeoffs won’t change this obvious fact.

If it doesn't depend on them, people will also die. That's one of the few certain point in life, eventually people will die.

Now obviously here the point was that putting LLM in charge of more life depending decisions will result in people dying more prematurely.

But we indeed can ask, how will it compare to bare human only decisions. And even with LLMs actually and still humans in the loop. The thing is that we know the LLMs can be tweaked to maximise this or that outcome, and reinforce or inhibit this or that biases.

We don't need to blame anyone specifically, or even any specific group. Yet we, as species, do have huge tendency to scapegoat, be it some individual or some group.

Unfortunately it didn't wait that we had contemporary technologies to organize genocides at scale.

Don't fear the tool, have the courage to recognize where there are plan to commit odious actions and where they are employed for the greatest good of humanity as a whole. Yes there can be grey areas, lot of them, but also people that obviously lost there path far away from pondering empathy with the due high weight in important decision in which they are significantly influencing outcomes.