conputer dipshit

don't you think the popular legitimacy of such horrendous actions (by both state and corporate leaders) and the viability of the excuses depends in part on the public's understanding of these questions, of what the levers of control even are?

I think what you need to push back on depends on what you take to be the more common tendency in thought at the moment. people are paralyzed by the thinking available on this. example:

punch me if I ever start talking about the conjuncture

I suppose I'm trying to chart a middle path that takes "it's inevitable" and "nothing is inevitable" as equally misleading

inevitable is an imprecise word that will get people's hackles up too much and I should avoid it unless I'm trying to do that. what I mean is some forces are more powerful, some are less; some configurations are more rigid, some are more flexible

ew!

I know, I'm saying I actually do hold a version of the view you're parodying — it is to some extent inevitable and part of the task is to characterize which parts are more inevitable and which are less

that sounds like it conflicts with what I'm saying here, but what I mean is you need to distinguish between what is inevitable and what is not, and it is never the case that it's *all* inevitable

on "nothing is inevitable"

etc

I do think this, and that's exactly why we need to think about the precise ways it could happen

Just as myths already entail enlightenment, with every step enlightenment entangles itself more deeply in mythology. Receiving all its subject matter from myths, in order to destroy them, it falls as judge under the spell of myth. It seeks to escape the trial of fate and retribution by itself exacting retri- bution on that trial. In myths, everything that happens must atone for the fact of having happened. It is no different in enlightenment: no sooner has a fact been established than it is rendered insignificant. The doctrine that action equals reaction continued to maintain the power of repetition over existence long after humankind had shed the illusion that, by repetition, it could identify itself with repeated existence and so escape its power. But the more the illusion of magic vanishes, the more implacably repetition, in the guise of regularity, imprisons human beings in the cycle now objecti- fied in the laws of nature, to which they believe they owe their security as free subjects. The principle of immanence, the explanation of every event as repetition, which enlightenment upholds against mythical imagination, is that of myth itself. The arid wisdom which acknowledges nothing new under the sun, because all the pieces in the meaningless game have been played out, all the great thoughts have been thought, all possible discov- eries can be construed in advance, and human beings are defined by self- preservation through adaptation—this barren wisdom merely reproduces the fantastic doctrine it rejects: the sanction of fate which, through retri- bution, incessantly reinstates what always was.

"Receiving all its subject matter from myths, in order to destroy them, it falls as judge under the spell of myth."

(Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 8)

very tail wagging the dog. could be!

yeah, I bet the CC extension is worth a try. I've heard from @ed3d.net that the version of Claude used by Copilot is a weird version with a smaller context window or something. my thought is the harness is probably less good when it's designed around multiple models rather than just one

I suspect even the seemingly mechanical application of a rule is not so mechanical. on the other hand it is still a bunch of matmuls. it is time for thinking

is there a level of detail at which you can specify a task so that applying the plan becomes entirely mechanical? if you think so, maybe Claude is just like a CPU executing a program! these are extremely ethically relevant questions because they determine who is responsible for what is done

and, like, in 1978 do you try to boycott the filing cabinet company? I think we all have a sense that there is a difference here, maybe articulable as a substantive vs. a formal or abstract contribution. but we need to articulate it! this is why these are not idle philosophical questions

obviously they've been working and talking. but sometimes circumstances clarify what we need from them

lol familiar

prove me wrong! please!

historians of computing, you are needed RIGHT NOW. this is the bat signal. hello

From the ExperiencedDevs community on Reddit Explore this post and more from the ExperiencedDevs community

pretty wide mix of opinions here

ha what was the deleted post (I don't want to know who, just curious what they said)

I don't think the CPU is the analogous thing — seems better to think about computer systems in general, comprising hardware and software, of which CPUs are an essential part

this is an interesting thought! LLMs are not computation, they are meta-compute because they generate code. I don't think this works, seems easy to argue that all computation is such meta-computation. but very interesting!

not good! at best we can say this will focus the public discourse on what the fuck to do about this

I appreciate an argument on the substance. I say something like "LLMs are mostly more computerization" not because I'm 100% certain that's the right frame but because I want to figure out whether it is

Opus 4.6 and gpt-5.3-codex are a big leap over what was out then. it just takes a lot less for them to get it right

Oxide and Friends | Engineering Rigor in the LLM Age What do LLMs mean for the future of software engineering? Will vibe-coded AI slop be the norm? Will software engineers simply be less in-demand? Rain and David join Bryan and Adam to discuss how ri...

I think this line between webapps and real software is not tenable. it's really good at software

not sure this website will be able to survive this discourse