@amerika@p Not exactly. I think Pete means brainrotten radicals. We have "stolen" the fediverse from the European left. Some Swedish collective called en kompis en kompis ran most original GNU Social instances.
@p@amerika@maxmustermann I suspect a lot of it is fairy tales, and the glowies are perfectly happy to take credit for being omnipresent masters of everything. Burnishes the image without costing the budget.
The blowback from the wild stuff they actually tried, like Kaczynski embarrassing them after MK Ultra, had to have clipped their wings.
If you do not think it is possible to create demand, I would like to introduce you to the CEO of Pfizer. While we're there, there's the entire pharmaceutical industry and especially the psychiatric side. People will put their lil future school-shooters on heavy antipsychotics.
You know how the "food pyramid" got made? You know how regulations--especially export regulations--affect what gets produced? The Chinese government says they'll ban "First Man" if he plants a flag on the moon, so the studio omits the flag getting planted on the moon. The US government decides what kind of movies get tax breaks, then people go out to see a movie: what do they watch?
You can also make the thing that people really want unavailable, and then people will buy an approximation of what they like. You can make it politically untenable to sell something. Larry Fink says "ESG" and nobody will bet against the $20T gorilla in the room so suddenly Gillette is running a Superbowl ad about the evils of man-spreading.
But "what consumers buy" is a small slice of the market: nobody talking about the economy or the Federal Reserve is talking about consumer spending habits. Total US consumer spending was $22T last year; BlackRock's AUM is $15T. Ad-spend last year, just short of $1T. Federal government spending last year was $7T. Federal Reserve alters interest rates and you watch how much goddamn discretionary spending happens. Federal government wants people in cities: you think they don't know how to make that happen? The last eighty years of history disagrees: the majority of the population now lives in an urban area.
> In herds, they are dunces.
The fact that people are retarded doesn't mean that the glowies do not manipulate what passes for a market: in fact, it makes it *more* likely. therapyworks.jpg
@p@amerika Ah. Good old discussion about RAM cartel's market manipulation. That's just a bunch of Fab-owners being greedy dicks while running a fucking component Mafia.
I think the Mises Institute has some stern words about situations like that in their digital library.
@PunishedD@amerika@p Don't underestimate arrogant apparatchiks. They were willing to do some Ayylien cringe with cheap Halloween masks on their heads in the UK. I forgot the name of the famous incident, but there is more than enough evidence that it was fake and gay.
@p@amerika I also think you should dismiss that notion since Trump came into power again. He is remodeling the entire Burger right wing in this very moment. The e-right gets shafted while the real Chuds win. OK, some people won't like it, because all the clanker stuff reeks of Technocracy. Can't wait for all the Geppettos to crash out as soon as they realize that Pinnochio will never ever a real boy, because he is still a goddamn computer.
> The e-right gets shafted while the real Chuds win.
I don't think that's what's happening. The establishment hates them because he's not their guy, but he's not materially different otherwise. Like the H-1B thing: we have a fixed number of H-1Bs per year, companies love it because it's about a 30% savings on salary for a guy that gets *deported* if he quits his job. So Elon stepped in it with his "winning team" shit, and then the "best and brightest" story itself collapsed after the info-dump that most H-1Bs are for "assistant Jiffy Lube night manager" and shit like that, things that do not require looking overseas. And then Trump trots out his "Well, now H-1Bs have a $100k fee attached!" What he omitted is that this is a one-time fee per position: it just added an up-front cost, and as long as the position exists for the guy that can't quit his job, that fee doesn't get repaid. So it looks like a lot, an engineering job at 120k/year suddenly becomes 220k *initially*, but if you're paying the guy 50k/year and he can't quit, you still save way more money.
I mean, don't get me wrong, the people that are ruining the earth hate Trump and I hate him less than the alternatives, but he's still the guy he is.
> Can't wait for all the Geppettos to crash out as soon as they realize that Pinnochio will never ever a real boy, because he is still a goddamn computer.
This is caused by Glass-Steagall rather than tech-utopianism.
@maxmustermann@amerika That'll be after Q4; OpenAI is trying to race MSFT, it'll be an acquisition if they can't land psyop-as-a-service contracts. In any case the hype cycle will go down.
@maxmustermann@PunishedD@amerika "They were willing to do some Ayylien cringe with cheap Halloween masks on their heads in the UK." *is* a valid description of Extinction Rebellion, though.
You'll get no argument from me that people like dumb shit, but that's not relevant. "Holy shit, that guy has a bomb!" 'The vast majority of people in this room *don't* have bombs.'
@p@amerika Its not economic either. Its psychological, philosophical. They gonna lose all their marbles, because Computer Science itself proves their presuppositions wrongs.
@p@amerika Microslop, facebook, twitter etc... all go funded by intelligence services, even the fucking sim card, a French invention, got hijacked via the USA's BENS operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Executives_for_National_Security The issue with all these is that they're treating civilian space as if it was military space and thus weaponizing it like in the cold war. There are other methods to protect your population without needing to psyop your own country or your ""allied"" countries.
Jonestown too. It's much more likely the CIA murdered all those people, and Congressman Leo Ryan, to coverup their operations than all of them "drinking the koolaid"
@p@amerika Of course not. It wasn't a bubble. Just yet another disappointment after a breakthrough as Dreyfus observed. Moore's Law still applied back then. People didn't adhere to object oriented programming by default yet. The problem of setting up distributed systems was still seriously considered.
Now. Now we seem to have the tech to create AGI, but it will not become the goddamn Golem as technocratic speds have intended.
@maxmustermann@amerika I have worked with computers for an extremely long time and have seen how people treat them; I'm not certain what is in that book that I don't already know. I was mostly asking about your thoughts.
> Computers can never become truly intelligent, because they lack all presuppositions for intelligence.
I think the trick there is defining "intelligent". One of the things that happened in the last fifty years or so is that we started to realize what a blurry picture you get if you try to explain the difference between a thing that is conscious and a thing that is not.
> There is no body, no soul, no goal of its own.
This is one of the issues; you can make it "want" something in the sense that you can define a goal, but machines are built: they don't decide what they want. I mean, who would build a tool that doesn't accomplish the goals of the person using the tool?
Hamming gave a lot of very good lectures; he was Doug McIlroy's boss, he was a pioneer in computer simulations, one of the creators of fiberoptics, and he created error-correcting codes, which might sound trivial but it was a mathematical achievement and formed the basis of a lot of fundamental telecommunications technology. (ECC-RAM uses Hamming's encoding.) His lectures are on Youtube (ew): mid-1990s he was semi-retired and was lecturing at the Naval Academy, the lectures up there were the ones he gave a couple of years before his death. Fascinating stuff: he discusses error-correcting codes, he talks about how to run a research lab (where things went wrong at Bell Labs, according to Hamming, was when the business guys put themselves in charge of who to hire instead of letting the researchers hire the researchers, and he said "If you're doing research, you want someone with unconventional ideas about mathematics and physics. If you talk to someone with unconventional ideas about math and physics, you'll often find that he also has unconventional ideas about hygiene and personal conduct."
At any rate, Hamming was lecturing about AI, and two things stuck out. The first was that he insisted people were asking the wrong question when they obsessed over whether or not a machine could replace a man, and he said he was "more interested in the question of what a man can do with a machine". That is, he thought that the question of whether a machine was "intelligent" or "conscious" was a ridiculous question and that this was an advancement in tools, so it was more useful to figure out how to enhance human capability than to try to turn a computer into a human. The other thing that stuck out was he told the grad students that they should give serious thought to the question of whether or not there was a soul, because this would show you where you were going to fail: if you believe in a soul and that humans are not machines made of meat, you'll miss a lot of opportunities because you'll underestimate machines, but if you do not believe in a soul, you'll over-invest in technology and screw yourself over at some point.
> Its all algorithmically generated pablum that is severely abused to create the illusion of intelligence.
Well, sure (though that is kind of a narrow view of it, like I wouldn't call a chess engine's moves algorithmically generated pablum); the illusion is mostly for investors and the hype bubble and the hype bubble will pop around the time they stop pumping it, which will happen after the dust settles from the IPOs/acquisitions and they figure out the ceiling for the "much more plausible chatbot" market.
> First comes the breakthrough, then realization sets in, because computing itself reaches its limits and the fails at the given task.
That's kinda like saying that math has reached it's limits, you know, a field has boundaries. "This thing is not gonna do what the salesman says it will do" is a reasonable observation, but that's a reasonable observation for literally anything that someone wants to sell you: "This beer didn't make me fun and attractive. Nobody came to party in my apartment. The commercials lied to me! Beer has reached its limits."
A lot of these people are legit lunatic tech-utopians. This poem from the 60s is extremely popular with that group and it is pretty fucked up. machines_of_loving_grace.gif
@p@amerika My thought on the basis of the book: Dreifus is correct. Computers can never become truly intelligent, because they lack all presuppositions for intelligence. There is no body, no soul, no goal of its own. Its all algorithmically generated pablum that is severely abused to create the illusion of intelligence. The same technology that controls the behavior of a Darksouls boss is drives people into Psychosis when it is on steroids and inside the eternal mainframe. The observed pattern Dreifus used to make his case against dream of the Golem (i.e. truly intelligent AI) also holds. First comes the breakthrough, then realization sets in, because computing itself reaches its limits and the fails at the given task.
The very aggressive auto complete we have now is a wonderful technology and will probably be marvelous as soon as local models are ready. There are already video generators and some people use it to establish a new art form; Algorithmic enhanced animation. There is a cool as shit cyberpunk about some bald fixer who looks suspiciously like he used command a swell group called Titan. But we won't get a real boy out of this unless we go full Frankenstein. Not even Astroboy.
@amerika@p I concede to saying that whatever engineers made the iPod and iPhone were geniuses. but the deleterious effects of smartphone addiction should be obvious by now... not that I'm immune to them.
@p@amerika > This is one of the issues; you can make it "want" something in the sense that you can define a goal, but machines are built: they don't decide what they want. Very yes. Stop right there. No reason to digest it further. This precisely the point.
> That is, he thought that the question of whether a machine was "intelligent" or "conscious" was a ridiculous question and that this was an advancement in tools, so it was more useful to figure out how to enhance human capability than to try to turn a computer into a human. Yes. Y'ES! That's the way. I think I gonna check that guy out. This sounds more useful than a video essay by some luddite whining about a curry brained slop filter that ruins the art direction of every vidya it is applied to.
@p@amerika I gonna suck this off like a parasite. I gonna let the guy let me lecture to sleep.
Also suggested extended Hamming camp: To avoid underestimating what machines can do, one should learn the essence-energy distinction. For what the machine is doing is based on the energies their creators put into them that make them capable of anything to begin with.
@p@amerika Its basic philosophy we had forgotten. This alzheimer's is reason number 2 why some guy who contest everything I say on some place has such shitty arguments sometimes.
the other is sleep deprivation. Guy sometimes doesn't go the fuck to bed.