Skip Navigation

Posts
1
Comments
253
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • You are not worth talking to.

  • People are being miseducated about what they can achieve by charlatans looking to make a quick buck before the hype bubble implodes, and the tech is helping cook the planet.

    It's not "fine".

  • Which is also not a real use-case. Like, just check your work, you don't need a tool for that.

    Hell I don't even use spell-check because it's just distracting, and it's a fundamentally wrong way to think about language.

  • I don't remember those being particularly emphasised traits of his.

  • That sounds exhausting to me.

    Like seriously what busywork is so routine and so basic that you need an AI to do it but couldn't make a template for it? And how is it less work to read what it gave you to check for errors? That's always the harder part of coding in my experience.

    I would love to know the specifics of where this supposedly saves time.

    I suspect the energy you're putting into learning this tool could go into becoming a better typist, and you wouldn't need to cook the planet to do it.

  • If enough researchers talk about the problems then that will eventually break through the bubble and investors will pull out.

    We're at the stage of the new technology hype cycle where it crashes, essentially for this reason. I really hope it does soon because then they'll stop trying to force it down our throats in every service we use.

  • That is not what the paper means by "interest groups".

  • Capital calls its own theft "innovation" and that of the individual "crime".

  • Excrubulently.

  • Friend of mine who'd been in the room for bone surgeries said it was basically just carpentry. All saws, drills & screws.

  • As you wish.

    I came here looking for it, so I may as well follow through on the prompt.

  • I'm not going to get a meaningful exchange with you, I can already tell. I think I made that pretty clear, as well as my reasons. Your reply is empty of anything but a very unsubtle attempt at emotional manipulation, so I'd say I've made the right call.

  • It's not about force or having authority to define something, this is about being able to have a real conversation, and you left the main term undefined except in your own mind, and then when I asked you for it you gave an absolutely wild definition that makes no sense and which I can't find anybody else using, and yet you still called it "the" definition and not "your" definition.

    If nothing else that means you're not someone it's worth trying to talk to, because you're not even trying to communicate effectively. I don't care if you have your reasons, they're not good reasons but I feel like in the spirit of this conversation I just shouldn't fucking bother to explain why, because based on precedent you'll just insist I'm wrong for your own inscrutable reasons and carry on as you were, and if I try to wrest those reasons out of you they'll be nonsensical. Also you're not worth trying to convince because you're not somebody anyone else will listen to for long before they realise you're completely full of shit.

    Goodbye.

  • That definition of authority is so immediately, obviously wrong that I don't even know where to start dealing with it.

    It's so uselessly broad. I literally said at the start that authority isn't just any inqeuality, and you didn't address it. You should have if you thought that was wrong, because that's literally the definition of the thing that we're talking about.

    I would like to see you justify this incrsdibly broad definition. If you want to see my justification for my definition, I would invite you to look it up in any dictionary.

  • I need you to define the word "authority" in that case. I've given my definition, so what is yours and how does it differ, please? Because I already addressed the fact that an imbalance doesn't create a hierarchy, and your description of imbalance does not fit my definition of authority.

    Power imbalance doesn't automatically create the conditions for domination. For that you would need both expertise and monopoly.

    And the solution to a misunderstanding isn't to concede the definition of the word "state" but to educate. The state is any entity that has a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in a region. That applies regardless of the system of government that rules it.

    Your definition isn't a definition, it's just a collection of categories that gives no useful information.

    We don't need to be dominated in order to clean up our garbage. And the state is often really bad at collecting garbage, so just teach people that.

  • I honestly hate the concept of "bootmaker authority", because it's exactly the same wrong conflation that Engels makes. Not every inequality is a form of authority. Expertise is not authority, it is expertise.

    Authority is the socially-recognised power to dominate. Getting a bootmaker to advise on or perform bootmaking tasks is not domination. The bootmaker can't hold you at gunpoint and command you to wear a certain kind of boot, nobody would allow that. There aren't bootmaking cops.

    Like what exactly does the bootmaker's "authority" entail in this theory? Giving consent does not confer authority. Authority operates regardless of consent, that's what makes it bad.

  • Because evil is loud and self-important, and people doing good have learned to be mycelial, underground, quietly building the new world in the shell of the old.