> go all-in on that goal and forget why these paradigms matter Certainly. Rampant iconoclasm and revisionism alone bring chaos. > No one will be able to get v

> go all-in on that goal and forget why these paradigms matter Certainly. Rampant iconoclasm and revisionism alone bring chaos. > No one will be able to get very far on their own, not even with a tribe of acolytes. Does that make sense? Absolutely, old paradigms still matter, showing where we've been, how we got here. To totally smash and forget them is to undermine our own foundations. I don't think any successful new paradigm can avoid subsuming the old ones. > a huge delay on its utility. Here's where I imagined the conversation going. However much I dislike Peter Thiel's "control machinations" there's one thing I strongly agree with him on, and it's in that famous discussion with David Graeber; "Where Did the Future Go?" Somewhere, perhaps around the turn of the century, we got really stuck; More. Faster. Bigger. Repeat. We stopped paying attention to the immense social utility possibilities that were (and still are) latent in computer science. I think we've been riding on Moore's law the way we rode fossil fuels. LLM's are the latest round. But I don't think scale is the answer to very much. Maybe it's a bit grand to call it a "paradigm", but I'm claiming the kind of radical thinking that could shake us out of it is a bit thin on the ground these days.