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.

The enduring fascination of isotopes and neutrons zipping in and out...

Taking a look at the costs (not to mention genuine safety and sustainability in the long run): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

In the current landscape—with the costs of solar and wind power steadily falling and storage technologies emerging, driven by the expansion of electric vehicles—I really don't know what kind of commercial future nuclear energy has (in terms of delivering lower energy costs).

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

+1

Oh yes and probably the authors themselves have a related form on neuro-atypical-divergence know as neuro-tragically-compulsive-analisys disorder, related to a quite common social-accademic-pressure about being in control and classificate all things they do not have in control and that they do not clearly can relate with, causing a pathology, relatively benign, consisting in create pseudo-scientific-terms to apply to all those things, and disseminate it at large for their inner-related causal-impulse of saving all the world, and their social-satisfied ego.

seriously (just a little): the world, the life, is way more various then all their philosopy.. live and let live is a good starting point for anything..

Although in recent times humanity has often wrongly placed and considered itself separate from nature, and in practice, with disastrous results, acts as such, since its origins, humanity has lived in continuity with nature, as do other species, and its activities have reflected this condition, in which practice, knowledge, learning, and the arts were all part of a whole that contributed to life. In this sense, life possessed the quality of art, just as nature still possesses this artistic quality, a non-duality between form and meaning, between necessity and possibility, in an original, artistic, fundamental state.

Or maybe simply he miss one poin: all the rest of universe -is- art.

So many thinking to avoid the simple point? IN those times humanity and nature are the same, art and life are one.

"All art is, in the end, adoration" J.Campbell. (quoting by memory), essentially art and humanity are one in those times, no one invented the other.

In more recent times things are changed, life and art are on different path, but still in reinessance times people received education bot in liberal arts and in scientific (by the times) matters. Art and science still talks under the surface.

+1

what is -coding-? only typing down some code? the hard part is always the design part, reading doc, reading other code, understanding the sum of the parts, making choices, until the code to write is (quite) -obvious-.

Probably is a question of terms: there is two things: -design- and -coding- (but could be anything as: building, drilling, turning, traveling..) so to make things without a good design is the regal way to problems, many times is a problem left by others, and in a world more and more complex and fast-changing can only be more and more worst. Hard to say what part is really the hardest, but starting with a bad design is no good.

And now probably LLM will solve some problems, but for sure these tech will create more and more new ones.

https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/Articles/LeanSoftware.pdf

if is good/bad for you is only to you, nobody else decide for you, but reasoning about general consequences adopting this thech is to everyone

to someone hobby programming using LLM seems like running a marathon using a bicycle, you cross the finish, but at the end is not the same as running only by your only forces.

Others look only at the results, so LLM are only a tool (actually without a clearly instruction manual i suspect).

But programming (and so many others works) is not only about making, but learning and developping skills. When an LLM is not available? i think differences will be evident.

And roughly speaking: to check the result of LLM you have to be more capable than the bot, otherwise, who is the boss? And to develop those skills, you have to do it yourself.

Agree. Is the (very) old trick: private gains, and public losses. Like investing in the last 20+ years thousand of billions in speculative finance and not in real concrete economy, inflating finance to over 10 times or more than the real economy, and linking all to the rule (or fable) of eternal growt.

Some faiths can survive only putting apart real facts, so treating capitalism or socialism like 'faiths' can bring to disasters, history docet, these things are only ideas, tools, models, not matter of faiths, and when real facts will begin to show up, the faiths will crumble, but ideas stands..

If surviving is adapting, changing as needed, actually the very few winning the greatest lottery in the world and history are very reluctant to agree to help change the rules, even minimal reasonable changes, because they have no needs actually.

But when needs will rise, maybe; but there is enough time? This is the bigger doubt for me.

just (bad) opinions, without even minimal evidences of of -real- facts.

The crisis of Europe is way more in the massive investment in speculative finance than in real in-house investments and development, in the past 30 years. results? No resources = no strategic tech, no defence, no cheap energy, low employments, no higher wages, no redistribution, no public sanity, austerity to keep orders in states finances = no resources for development, and so spiraling downward.

Blaming immigration, green-tech and fighting-succes (?!) is simply brainless vapor.

putting mirrors in orbit to have (little) more light is like buiding city underwater to have more cool. ops this last will be way less stupid in the future... To downvote a different opinion without arguing is same kind of attitude: stay fresh.

Earth orbits, low orbits above all, are a finite resource, and suffer pollution as every environment, with all this kind of satellites growing in number to millions, things can go badly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Apart tecnical and scientific reasons (no need to use thousand or million of sats), apart big speculations (suspect is the main reason), many problems can be resolved in others ways.

This is not -progress-, is speculaton, at astronomical level, as 1M sat in orbit, only a very small part of humans will benefit (shareholders, but i doubt all), all the rest not even. We really need to surf web at Gb/s speed in the mid of nowhere?