chobeat

21 ms·

181.
by chobeat 8y ago
They are not conspirancy theories because they don't assume a concerted effort from these entities but just a common interest and their action converge to reinforce the same phenomenon. The author is a system biologist writing about so
182.
by chobeat 8y ago
The problem is that researchers and engineers rarely engage in the public debate except if they need to drive corporative interests. The debate sees corporations and the tech elite on one side and artists, activists and philosophers on the
183.
by chobeat 8y ago
What is the tech community? The CEOs or the engineers/researchers/data scientists? Because they are not by any means the same entity.
184.
by chobeat 8y ago
I suggest this reading to anybody interested in this topic: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078224 It tracks the history of this narrative and explains who profits from it. This phenomenon has a cl
185.
The media are unwittingly selling us an AI fantasy(theguardian.com)
92 points by chobeat 8y ago|72 comments
186.
by chobeat 8y ago
very debatable that the world is a better place after the development of distributed processing engines. Source: I'm a data engineer and almost every application I've seen in production made the world a worse place. The manifesto
187.
by chobeat 8y ago
If they are public employees, they have sort of a standardized salary coming straight from the healthcare ministry/department/whatever where the specific hospital just administer the HR part. You still think in a for profit manner
188.
by chobeat 8y ago
> Some time ago science diverged from philosophy Without epistemology there's no science. Period. Science needs philosophy because they have two complementing roles. If philosophy (or non-scientific thinking in general) doesn't
189.
by chobeat 8y ago
what? Philosophy is not about giving answers. It's about many things, but it stopped being about giving answers a long time ago. It's about creating realities, it's about destructuring other people's answers. It's a
190.
by chobeat 8y ago
Yes but consciousness is not in any way a foundation of the universe. It's a foundation of our own experience, but if you take a mechanicistic, reductionist approach, consciousness is pretty high in the ranking of things. I'm not
191.
by chobeat 8y ago
can you acknowledge that "maybe" it's just that you cannot understand the whole thing? You know, many scientists engaged in philosophy (as if science is not a branch of philosophy, lol), as well as many artists, politicians,
192.
by chobeat 8y ago
Here you go: https://books.google.it/books?id=r0Bf3lLys6AC&printsec=front... https://books.google.it/books?id=OVGna4ZEpWwC&printsec=front... These are just a couple of modern books with an anti-redu
193.
by chobeat 8y ago
Oh they are. When you have to take decisions, give priorities, give up control in favor of something else, you will see how big the gap is. Then if you see emotions as a subset of rationality, then it's again your rational view of the
194.
by chobeat 8y ago
Can you be more smug please? Also your dunning-kruger is showing. Simple answer to complex problems, outside science and engineering, are almost always wrong. The world is complex and naive answers are not sufficient, even if the subjective
195.
by chobeat 8y ago
This video isn't trying anything new. These are ideas that we've seen already, just presented in a way that is palatable to engineers. Reason itself can understand its limits. That's a good thing, we are lucky and we got to t
196.
by chobeat 8y ago
the alternative to reason is not religion. It can be empathy, emotion, spirituality. You can call it mumbo jumbo if you want to, but it's an integral part of how humans experience themselves, the others and the world.
197.
by chobeat 8y ago
Mathematics and physics are fields where reason works pretty well (in most cases). Nobody would argue against that. But they are the exception, not the rule. Also for example, mathematics and physics are usually fields that rarely have dire
198.
by chobeat 8y ago
Why? There's not a single reference to religion or any hint that the author might be religious.
199.
by chobeat 8y ago
Because ideas are not pure and unbiased. Every single event in your life contributes to your biases, to the way you conduct science, to the way make statements and the content of these statements. Race, gender and class in this case are cle
200.
by chobeat 8y ago
No, it's not, but the problem with his argument is that he gives a narrow and extremely specific definition of consciouness and then all the structure works. I'm not really that much in the debate about consciousness but I'm
201.
by chobeat 8y ago
A good part of the 20th century's philosophy is about this. I mean, many philosophers talked about it extensively even before (Kant? Hume?). It's not an argument, it's a whole branch of philosophy and epistemology. I've
202.
by chobeat 8y ago
Nobody here criticized the value of reason. The problem is when you overvalue reason. Water is good for you, too much water kills you. Saying "too much water is bad" or "water is not good when your problem is that your socks
203.
by chobeat 8y ago
In the beginning, when he gave a simple and arbitrary definition of Intelligence, I already got where he was going. It's a well-worded, better-than-average, STEMlordish explanation of reality but still very limited. The guy is smart bu
204.
by chobeat 8y ago
Rationality works for some things, doesn't work for others. Do you want to make sense of the world in a way that helps with your suffering? Rationality doesn't work for most people. Do you want to include in your model of the wor
205.
by chobeat 8y ago
Or... it's the main target of accelerationist activists to radicalize the knowledge workers and subvert the status quo through high-tech powered dissent. Or just both.
206.
by chobeat 8y ago
Countries don't compete with companies. What are you even try to say?
207.
by chobeat 8y ago
or every company in the USA given the surreal working culture and level of exploitation that is common throughout the nation.
208.
A Critical Reading List on Tech && (Politics || Society || Ethics)(github.com)
3 points by chobeat 8y ago|0 comments
209.
by chobeat 8y ago
There are so many criticism/debunk of the Singularity theory that there's not even a debate anymore. I would say that debating the scientific likelihood of a singularity is sterile because they don't provide any argument on t
210.
by chobeat 8y ago
Singularity is a religion full of bullshit. Resist reduction! https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/resisting-reduction

More ›