polarization is often rational, but what seems irrational is creating technosocial structures that accelerate or re-entrench polarization and then denying this is happening
*scours ancient Zimbabwean & Sumerian archives for a banishing ritual so cumulatively immediately effective that every techbro grifter scamming on "AI" would instantly, loudly, publicly do & say whatever the fuck it'd take to make each of their investors drop them & abjure their technosocial vision*
something seems off to me as an explanation to implicate specifically generative (a technical term) AI and not specific dynamics of hype for the current AI summer/bubble. this is a technosocial event that repeats and not one about what distribution the algorithm learns
In history & philosophy of computing this week, connecting line btwn the development of COBOL & people just wanting computers to work, & John von Neumann original ideas about the singularity, today's silicon valley misappropriations of said, & the reality of a self-perpetuating technosocial paradigm
I would genuinely like us to build a better, more compassionate, consent-oriented, marginalized-peoples-centered, & just technosocial paradigm of "AI," & for "AI"'s current paradigm to fuck right off into the sun, reduced to its component subaatomic particles, & lost even to the mind of god. Thanks!
I reiterate: I need this whole technosocial paradigm to just fucking chill out for like five fucking minutes.
Stopped clock, plus he likes that is slows down people he doesn't like, and also the fact that this is about "AI Safety," which tends to come from people talking about "X-Risk/Existential Treat/ASI/Terminator" bullshit rather than like… systemic technosocial harms
I need this whole technosocial paradigm to just fucking chill out for like five fucking minutes.
I need this whole technosocial paradigm to just fucking chill out for like five fucking minutes.