plausibilitious

More concerning is people thinking that the document you output is the outcome, when the mental models and the domain understanding are what we ought to strive for.

Organizations are primarily systems for learning. Substituting machine learning (from a vendor) for human learning inside the team is a bad strategy.

The most important jobs in the world - teaching, cleaning, caring - are extremely underrated. They are lowly paid, and people automatically assume that those doing these jobs are less than.

Sometimes the most important thing in the world is to be a good person to those around you. That can be in extremely short supply to some people.

There is so much accidental complexity in software because people keep reinventing the wheel. I think it might be interesting to do some research for a book on this topic.

This argument is the reason why LLM output failing to match reality was labelled 'hallucination'. It makes it seem like the LLM only makes mistakes in a neatly verifiable manner.

The 'jpeg of the internet' argument was more apt I think. The output of LLMs might be congruent with reality and how the prompt contents represent reality. But they might also not be, and in subtle ways too.

If only all code that has any flaw in it would not run. That would be truly amazing. Alas, there are several orders of magnitude more sequences of commands that can be run than that should be run.

This happens a lot in historiography. Easy tales become handles for epochs and then denounced as contrived, then revived. Reminds me of the xkcd about levels of rebuttal.

The guy indeed was behind the "Torches of Freedom" campaign. And was indeed an influential person. Would it have happened without him? Most likely. But he did do the things. Is History driven by personalities? By structures? Big debate there. Nonetheless, Bernays' story is not bunk.