He’s just polluting the airwaves to keep his voters wound up.
A single layer of cloth doesn’t stop it. There’s a reason why those scarfs aren’t allowed in airplanes (well they say that, still see them in use). But it can help reduce the distance it travels.
It’s semantic wank, which is all politicians are good at.
We can’t create enough material machines for everyone that wants to code to code.
If that’s dystopian, wait until you hear about your impending natural death.
I can sit by a tree and work on my sci-fi space opera for hours.
I feel really sorry for people who are so addicted to technology they think the entire species should surrender its agency to that pipeline.
A hardware machine has known operational limits. No amount of delusion about coding and games means it’s anything more than a dopamine buzz (if it can be described as such scientifically as dopamine floods then it is).
None of us are resolving or answering questions about reality. We’re just masturbating a chemical delusion.
Who knows? Maybe organic machines are even cooler and we can program organic matter via chemical and electrical manipulation.
But let’s have another go around writing x86 code.
Wow. How clever. There’s a new skin to put on a MySpace clone in one of us somewhere!
The reason they want us in offices is real property is the root of power.
If they don’t own all that land they lose influence locally. They can’t put on spectacle in their “stadium”, distracting us from the reality we reconnected to during covid.
Yep. Babies can add and subtract when they’re days old.
Can they write Shakespeare?
If human language is fundamental, how is it missing from the start? Are we learning language or muscle mechanics? Why can a word or phrase mean one thing in this country and nonsense in another? If language processing has a universal basis, why all the confusing variety and ignorant ideas? 1+1=2 everywhere because we can observe the physical process everywhere, because light, eyes, etc
Who cares?
Like I said back in the day we didn’t know that. We had to theorize these abstract schemes to establish something.
But like religion, doesn’t mean linguistics is building on something that means what we want it to.
Given how hard it is to learn language while arithmetic seems innate, how do we know emphasizing it’s value is leading us where we want?
It’s easier for me to see that long dead scientifically illiterate humans we inherited those ideas from were just stupid.
Yes. It’s emergent behavior of a physical universe that has no meaning. It just is.
“Meaning to us” is subjective. That’s how we have conflicting theories in many fields. Science isn’t about meaning. It’s about measuring how matter coalesces at various speeds relative to light.
I make noise because my biology “just has” properties to allow it given the other physical conditions.
Perfectly elegant theory based on the physical structure of reality alone. No ephemeral language organs.
Theory can quickly go from scientific observation to reinforced nonsense used to sell books and bond as species.
That’s fine, it’s how society works. It doesn’t mean anything to reality.
Yeah, same experience. We had to write our own “terraform” like tooling to make use of it (retry loops and the like). It has (had? This was a couple years ago) no awareness, for example, of AWS, so out comes the SDK and Go.
“Why not just create templates with the SDK, constrain configurable fields with regex?”, I offered.
“CUE has typed feature structures!”, they said.
“FML.”, I thought.
It didn’t simplify configuration at all.
What simplifies configuration is all the people that know an existing tool and can be productive in it. As a late-comer CUE has none of that advantage.
Businesses want to solve business problems. Not meditate on one problem in perpetuity.
Religion shows we can create very detailed belief in ornate ideas that are scientifically nonsensical. It’s possible the concepts linguists seek to develop are similarly self reinforcing feedback loops that are meaningless to science.
There’s been an explosion in biological science since Chomsky became prominent. He even admits his work is abstract and to serve his ends. We may be putting more into his ideas due to his fame and infamy than we should.
Trial and error, social constraints on sounds and the mechanics of biology can explain it elegantly. What do the ornate theories and ephemeral organs provide except to satisfy “linguists” biological agency to create and imagine?
Linguistics came about in a much less scientifically aware era in human history. My money is on it going the way of religion; an abstraction that’s so
orthogonal to advancing science we leave it behind.
Why is it so hard to accept mirror neurons fired when early humans heard birds and animals, each other’s grunts and over time we refined it?
Everyone has some capacity to refine and strengthen muscle. Why do we need some abstract meta-construct to explain where language comes from? It comes from us. Fleshy meat bags that mutate state over a short period then die.
Chomsky diagrams, conceptual organs and the like are useful for “being on the same page” in a particular context, but there’s no reason to believe language is a requirement for consciousness except our own propensity for romanticizing our existing.
Perhaps thinking language is a key aspect of consciousness is wrong.
Chomsky has said human languages themselves are just random sounds we’ve been polishing the meaning of.
So yeah I have no doubt a machine can sort them correctly if we tell it to. They mean what we want and see in them.
That’s hardly proving anything about consciousness. Just that a computer can sort and count syntax, and guess at meaning by frequency of relative placement.
It’s acting on English data sets. Not human biology.
I can write code to bubble up stats across text sources in any language.
I’m reminded of a behind the scenes video of Batman 1989, where they discuss a complicated layering of Joker makeup to achieve the effect in the scene where he wipes off fleshy colored face paint; white makeup on Nicholson, special coating to be able to apply the next layer, on and on.
No one thought to just have him wipe white face paint onto his forehead.
I can easily see a bunch of programmers making a mess out of an elegant problem given the spaghetti code I’ve worked in.
Maybe English means nothing about consciousness? Many linguists take the position it’s random sounds we’ve been polishing definitions of for years.
What about popping the cell into a tab or overlay like we do with images, Apples 3D Touch
I want to drill into specifics, not fiddle with scrollbars, which just hide the data I started with as I scroll.
Pop that cell into a one cell view that gives me the full story.
GUI habits needs a rethink, not just a new backend