tines

Things like e.g. social media don't kill, you're right. They merely eat your soul and leave your body a shambling husk. Much better.

sleight*

Technopoly more relevant than ever.

Software isn't dead, thinking is dead (or dying).

It won't bring quality down, it'll just be the end of human understanding.

For now.

Yeah I mean a camera pretty precisely fits his definition of a tool. Not sure what your point is here.

It'll do it for you within the day because it's stealing from all those other projects. Eventually there'll be nothing left to steal from.

Weird romanization, wouldn't it be "suika"? There's no "ca" grapheme in common Japanese romanization systems iirc.

Yeah, some people only assign value to things in terms of money and economics. I will never understand these people.

You are the art.

I have always thought that there are two kinds of programmer, the tinker and the mathematician. The tinker likes to code operating systems and shells, the mathematician likes to code Haskell and Agda. You've updated my belief that there are a third kind, the entrepreneur, which sees programming as a means to an end and would gladly stop programming if possible.

Wait so how old is she?

Not really, no.

> Source bias is a real logical fallacy

This is irrelevant because we’re not using the source to judge the strength of an argument. Logical fallacies have only to do with the strength of a logical argument, nothing else.

To illustrate this, if I sell you some energy and you ask whether the energy comes from burning children or from a solar farm, I can’t say that it’s a logical fallacy for you to care because all energy powers your home just the same. You don’t owe any consideration to the content (energy) at all, because energy is not an argument that is subject to the source fallacy, to treat it as such is a fundamental category error.

Even to take your tack and say “We should consider the energy generated from burning children apart from its source, because we don’t want to fall prey to the source fallacy. However, the societal effects should also be taken into consideration…” shouldn’t be countenanced.

Can't the same thing be said about literature and music?

And if you can’t see the difference between those things, you’ll probably never know.

> no brainer

An excellent epithet for people who depend on AI!

Bad counterexample, c.f. the current obesity epidemic and the popularity of GLP-1s.

I get what you're saying, it's just that I think what you're saying is not overlooked, it's simply insignificant to the debate about the effect of these tools on society. Your argument comes off to me like someone saying "everyone is complaining about how these cigarettes cause cancer, but you can just as easily use lit cigarettes to warm your hands on a cold day. This is what everyone's missing in this debate."

I don't think we can change each others' minds with talk, we'll just have to see how it plays out in the coming decades.

Videos aren’t books, and ereaders aren’t TVs.

The book/written word is also a technology that has preferences on how it’s used and transformations that it imposes on its users, and they’re much different than those of TV or computers.

I know you know this, but for those reading, these detectors are bullshit.

If being a Luddite means I'm the only one who cares to understand anything, I'll accept the label gladly.

You: I think it’s good to understand some things.

This guy: If you don’t understand everything then you might as well not understand anything!

Guys like this are a corporation’s wet dream. Total intellectual dependence.

And you can use a TV to read books, but nobody does.

Every technology has ways it can be used, and ways it wants to be used. This one wants to be used in a way that produces outcomes we won't like.

I think there's a fallacy where someone points out one instance of a larger trend which will, when taken to its logical progression, lead to an undesired effect; and then someone attempts to rebut the claim by pointing out that the trend has existed before and the undesired effect hasn't happened yet, so any concern is nugatory. I'd call it the grippery slope fallacy, complement to the slippery one: we haven't fallen down the slope yet, so we can't fall down it. What if an individual instance of ignorance is acceptable because people still need to have understanding in other areas, but if all understanding everywhere is eliminated then we all suffer?

People use the word "determinism" when they really mean something akin to "linearity", i.e. the predictability of a change in input on a change in output. Compilers for example are both deterministic and "more linear" in the sense that I can tell what the output will look like given a change in input (yes yes optimizations violate this to a small degree). LLMs can be made totally deterministic, but a seemingly insignificant change in input can create a drastic change in output, which is the characterstic we don't want.

So neutrinos are changing mass and velocity constantly?

Comments are saying the vulns in that thread aren’t very impressive.

Sure, I don't have a problem with unions being restricted from political donations either.

Just like corporations can be regulated for monopoly (which by the logic that "corporations, as mere groups of people, have all the same rights as people" should be unregulatable because individuals have the right to assemble), we can regulate them for other things, without contradiction.

The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially. Hence, I think, why some have stripped away this motivated language and reduced it to the more honest and obviously absurd "corporations are people too."

I thought that the "corporations are people" meme was the actual rationale for why corpos "should" be allowed to spend money on elections: spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes.

This is making it sound way more complicated than it is. Sibling comment is much better. Thing changes over time -> thing experiences time -> it's not going the speed of light -> it has mass.