somethingsomething
No bio...
User ID: 1123
somethingsomething
2yr ago
I'm not sure what you mean by your question
somethingsomething
2yr ago
I appreciate the link, I'll have to spend more time digging through the previous sections but the page you linked helps me understand where you're coming from.
There are a few threads that interest me that I think expose weaknesses in CRT related to your reply here.
-
If you accept the capture of French philosophy and academic elites by communism in the 60's as analogous to CRT, its collapse could point to similar ways CRT could collapse in the future. And part of that was surely the political situation, but I'm also curious how much of that was Foucault, who possibly gave the academics something to "chew on", a less obviously activist, more wide-ranging theory. I'm sure that's a simplification, but I do think there was this kind of new breed with him and others of something more sophisticated that allowed communism to be kind of moved on from, something passe.
-
As far as the abusers go of critical theory, like that legal theorist, I'm curious how much that is a kind of perversion or simplification of something that is more useful when treated with maturity, and not just useful to the left, but against the left's power. And it doesn't necessary have to be useful in a sense of persuading them, but instead of disillusioning its sort of fair-weather followers potentially.
-
The other thing is something that I've had a hard time expressing, but I feel like CRT can't escape it's intellectualist roots, which is a point of failure it shares with communism. It wants to be pure activism, all about changing minds, but its identity demands that it take an intellectual root, and it sort of has to assume that the most effective activism is intellectual (or even pseudo-intellectual) activism, which I think is far from true, because I think you can argue most people bounce off that kind of thing, if not now then after it outstays its welcome.
Anyway I'll read your other posts but those are the threads of thought I've been pursuing
somethingsomething
2yr ago
I think that's right that that was the original conception, but I think there's something to how Marxists were kind of adapting to the failure of communism, and how Foucault abandoned Marxism, that could have possibly revealed a more core principle to Critical Theory which I think is a critique of power or a lens of dissecting behavior through power.
And through this lens, there's no reason why we couldn't have right-wing critical theory. And I wonder how salient an argument you could have that a lot of right-wing, or anti-activist critique against left-leaning power structures owes any debt to critical theory, including in its arguments against modern critical theorists, by using their arguments against themselves.
Though I could buy that that's not critical theory anymore because it's too dislodged from its leftist activist roots.
somethingsomething
6mo ago
Yeah rereading that you're right about the followers, so my characterization would not have been totally accurate, but I have to imagine there was some turnover and generally that the apostles were reacting to unexpected events at the death of Jesus, and didn't have the intense spiritual hallucinogenic experiences Paul had to give them as clear of a direction forward beyond just waiting for the apocalypse and continuing Jesus' teachings and proselytizing.
So I'd mark out the difference by saying that they didn't "know" what was going to happen next in the way Paul did, beyond reference to Jewish apocalypticism. When James says the Lord it is ambiguous if he means Jesus or God, and Paul says Jesus is Lord but does that mean he is God? Jesus probably comes back as a messiah figure but is it Jesus as God or is it just because all the prophets are coming back too and everyone lives forever with heaven on Earth? I just think there's a lot more ambiguity compared to the crystal clear metaphysics with Paul. Obviously it helps that we have his letters but I also feel like it fits the events that occurred, and the personality of Paul that comes through his letters where it seems like the mechanics of how everything works interests him far more than it did Jesus and James.
Regarding the holy spirit I don't think it's totally clear what the holy spirit was which is why I think it took a while to eventually flesh it out as part of the trinity down the line, but to me it just seems like a Paul thing, where he's differentiating between those with faith in Jesus as having this spiritual thing that connects them with God, ensures their heavenly body, and also affects their actions to be more "Godly", and I imagine it's something all his followers said all the time, "holy spirit" this and "holy spirit" that, and so it crops up in the stories the ended up writing about Jesus and the other apostles, but it's basically just when they act Godly, it just looks like word substitution to me.
somethingsomething
6mo ago
I don't know, I think they are actually disagreeing and I think that's the common view of it. Paul is prioritizing faith over works, and James is more emphasizing works. James seems to be saying, just like you shouldn't discriminate between parts of the law (I.E. you should follow all of it), you shouldn't discriminate between rich and poor (treat everyone equally).
I think the Jewish followers still believed in some form of coming heaven on Earth, I think they probably believed Jesus would come back, but I think it's unlikely that they invented/incorporated the Platonic ideas Paul preached. I imagine them being pretty shaken and confused after Jesus' death, and having lost a lot of followers presumably, but still believing in the mission and believing they would be rewarded in some way on Earth by God. I think that would've contrasted with the manic energy of Paul's movement which was probably pretty a pretty exciting thing to be a part of, and Paul seemed to have a very clear idea of what was going to happen next. But I just imagine after their meetings, a bewildered James saying "just remember the poor, whatever you're doing out there..."
If Peter 1 was written by Peter then that would be good evidence for the jewish sect being on the same page with the afterlife, but I think it's a pretty common view that it's a forgery.
I don't know what the significance of Acts 5 is, I think both gentile and jewish groups were preparing for a looming apocalypse, maybe Paul more fervently, but I could see the story fitting both Paul's thoughts and the original Jesus-style apocalyptic ideas.
somethingsomething
6mo ago
No I consider Q Jesus' teachings, but it was placed into the bible from the Pauline school, and I don't think the way the holy spirit is referenced in Q has the kind of theological qualities that it does in the more explicitly Paul writings, it's more just used as a kind of addendum or exclamation mark, there's not much meaning in how it's used there and could be removed without changing the meaning of things.
Corinthians 15:35 (and a bit preceding it) goes over what I think are his unique ideas that I don't think the Jewish followers of Jesus really had in mind, and have that platonic quality. When he's talking about "glories" of things that is basically Platonic "ideal" versions of things.
I think that contrasts with James' "whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." I'm not totally familiar with all the evidence on what Jewish Jesus followers believed, I think there would be knowledge of Greek ideas and the traditional Jewish views of it not being much, but I don't see anything like passage of Paul in the above passage along with his certainty. I only find one passage in Q that seems anything like an afterlife heaven and that may have been phrased differently in Jesus' original words, referring to what I think most scholars understand that he believed in an earthly heaven that he would rule.
And sorry I meant James 2:10 which I think Paul very much disagrees with.
somethingsomething
9mo ago
I think the error here is comparing yourself to an entire nation. If you are making an argument like "Sure it only affects my family and friends," then you're rationality is poorly calibrated.
Voting does particularly stress this because you're personal affect really is so small, and in presidential elections the electoral college schemes to reduce it even further in most cases. In this case I think it is worth finding some other process than number crunching to justify the effort because it does break down if everyone stops doing it.
somethingsomething
11mo ago
Why doesn't their reaction make sense? Aren't they just being magnanimous? What would you expect instead?
somethingsomething
1yr ago
Well to be frank, I've met plenty of high functioning autistic people who I think could do a way better job at masking, and I doubt many people are really doing all the things I suggest, I think most people just find a rut they're comfortable in and see how far it takes them. If autistic people want to show the receipts, and really lay down a whole list of things they do every day on the normie grind to impress me, I'm all ears, but it better be significantly more onerous than what say, a NP person with some social anxiety has to do.
But that said the question of how much sympathy people get for how much trouble they go through is basically a worthless train of thought. Most of the sympathy going around is false, virtue signalling, or confused. Each human being is lucky if they find a few who really understand them, are there for them, and able to listen reciprocally. If you haven't found that person, you're no different than an able white guy with no friends. You're two sad sacks looking for people who understand them. There is literally no difference in that respect, because for each person there are other people who understand, or who are willing to listen, and you only need a few. If that isn't filling then something deeper is wrong.
somethingsomething
1yr ago
I think well done 2d animation tends to look more "real" than 3d animation for anything organic, which I think has to do with the complexity of organic movement that is too time consuming to replicate with 3d models (when all it takes is the right pencil stroke to emulate in 2d). I also notice this with "muppets", if you watch Fraggle Rock for instance they show a ton of expression and liveliness that would just be too time consuming to do on a computer.
I think if you aren't satisfied with what Pixar is putting out, you're probably not going to find anything more visually sophisticated than that in the realm of computer graphics.
somethingsomething
1yr ago
That things are getting better is not a view internalized by feminists or the left, Pinker is not popular in those circles, and to believe that is basically to be naive. The whole point of "woke" was to wake people up to the idea that that kind of belief is for the privileged and not based in reality.
somethingsomething
1yr ago
look them in the eyes, ask short open ended questions, have a concerned, serious expression on your face, help them move towards a conclusion that they feel like they can move forward with, and thank them for opening up with you.
somethingsomething
1yr ago
Any specific sources that expand on this? I'm curious to hear more from this angle.
somethingsomething
1yr ago
I was thinking along these lines in regard to anxiety, which is a targeted vector. What it is targeting seems to at its core be imagined events happening or not happening. And I imagine this to be a core emotion in which these other negative emotions are used to "manage" it to various degrees of success.
somethingsomething
2yr ago
You could try a big namelist and allow one of the lines to be a name, like the original square
somethingsomething
2yr ago
I use a cheap white noise player, and I noticed that sometimes I was hearing weird ringing noises which I assumed was because of some echo effect. Recently I put it in a cardboard box and I haven't noticed that since, presumably because of dampening or something like that.
I also constantly listen to podcasts or music on my phone speakers (headphones bother me), whether I'm dealing with surrounding noise or not, and in the mild environment I'm in that gets me through distractions.
I have meditated but I find it's tricky to kind of "let go" of things. Stuff can come up in meditation and sessions can be challenging so I tend to think the quieter the better. Instead I think having some at home workout tool like a pull up bar may be better to get you out of your head.
somethingsomething
2yr ago
So I didn't realize that, I actually just downloaded it and tried a "brainstorming" session with it. There's some promise there, but it's interesting what specific ways it falls short of providing a natural conversation.
-
You have to press a button every time you want to talk
-
It will arbitrarily interrupt you and respond
-
Each conversation can only go 15 replies deep, presumably because of some technical limitation
-
The quality of its responses lean towards that "buzzkill" quality of repeating what you say and giving the most generic reply possible.
Input-wise, I think it would be really interesting to see a version of this where the microphone is always on, and the AI could try to interrupt you in your pauses, but if you kept talking it would shut up and keep listening. Just having that, with the existing tech (and removing the 15 reply limit) would be a pretty cool tool to possibly organize your thoughts in a way. But then if the AI was actually interesting to talk to in a conversational way, that would be pretty fascinating, and get quite a bit closer to the Her bar. So I'm definitely keeping an eye on it.
somethingsomething
2yr ago
Days of Heaven for a movie that kind of quietly shows a lot of aspects of the 1910s around a personal romantic story. One of the great Malick films so it's one of the most beautifully shot (and edited imo) movies of all time. (oh I see you have it, nice)
I was also thinking if you wanted to use a Herzog film, Lessons of Darkness could be a good 90s one, as it just brings an interesting visual understanding towards an aspect of modern war (burning things)
Midnight Cowboy might be a good one, it's been a while since I've seen it
somethingsomething
2yr ago
It's funny, I've just started getting into classical philosophy and my therapist asked me if this was an interest I might be able to find others to share with. It's interesting that it does seem to be a "male" self-improvement kind of thing, but really, I just felt it as a click on of sudden interest and finding some good books.
I don't know anyone in my area and dont have a place to host if I did, but maybe this kind of thing is something I could work towards. Seems like you'd want a good grasp of things as a host anyway.
somethingsomething
2yr ago
As someone who also turned 30 this year and feels similarly, I just wanted to chime in.
I've been exposed to more and more people who had good liberal arts educations recently, mostly because of Andrew Sullivan's podcast where he always asks people how they grew up, but I also found myself jealous of Oppenheimer's education reading American Prometheus and I recently started watching old Firing Line episodes where education can come up and it resonates similarly for me there.
I think how year 30 cut through for me was in realizing how deeply rich the fruits of liberal intellectual pursuits can be, how on one hand you can offhandedly know Freud was flawed, but on the other you can read him, and other texts around him, and gain so much understanding in the process. I got a good math education because that institution seems to be doing fine, but liberal arts education failed to persuade me similarly.
I think the pernicious effect of losing out on a good liberal arts education is to invite "bad" liberal arts, which is to say, bad arts, bad media, bad values, to simplify. And I feel like my 20's were very much indulging in those things, while the media around me was saying this is good, this is fine, normal, etc. I think if you are a talented young person, "entertainment" can feed off that talent in a way, without giving much back in return.
I've landed somewhere a bit opposite from you, very much in solitude as I've removed most of the people from my life, but a few of them happened to be really toxic, and breaking from them left me with a pretty big wound I've been trying to recover from. So I've been trying to treat it as a Rilke-style isolation that I'll eventually be able to come out of stronger while I realign my values and pursue a wider and more fruitful liberal education to help me do so.
somethingsomething
2yr ago
That sidenote came more from a feeling than thought out logic, so I kind of have to analyze it to answer your question.
One case in a different video was Destiny getting a heartfelt call from a therapist talking about trans issues, while Destiny just "uh-huh"ed through it playing Terraria.
In this video I feel like the constant chat feed is used as this sort of distraction in order to kind of reinforce the speaker's socially dominant role, while allowing him to kind of skip through an unthorough argument.
In both cases, there is kind of a conflation of entertainment with politics and philosophy, that obviously has been only growing the past 10 years. But it's not a marriage of those things, like a well-written political book that makes you think. It's like a series of orthogonal, unrelated abomination of various styles of dopamine hits.
somethingsomething
2yr ago
My instinct though is that if critical theory would evolve to refute itself, it would be a positive evolution, and would be a kind of completion of the original theory, as in more critical theory, not less.
I haven't thought through too much the actual way it plays out in the real world. It's possible the modern critical theorists have immunized themselves. But on the other hand, you had a similar situation with the Marxists in France in the time of Foucault, and that evolution is kind of what I am proposing could happen again today. Similarly, it might be a philosopher who is "inside" the system that hits at the right time during some slump in their power, that speaks their language while subverting them.
somethingsomething
1mo ago
I gave it a read, and yeah it's a pretty accurate summary. But I don't agree that the gemini version is meaningless, and I don't think the limitations you suggest in your post would have made the Claude test better. We have a pretty good idea now of the varying level of crutches needed to be useless (none), to get through some of the game, and beat the game. Now we can ask the question of what would it take for a LLM to not be useless without human assist.
In my mind, it basically needs to write code, because the flaws to me appear fundamental due to how predictable they are across LLMs, and seeing versions of these issues going back years. The LLM has to write a program to help it process the images better, do pathfinding, and store memory. In that sense it would be building something to understand game state not that differently than the current RAM checking from reading the screen.
It then needs to have some structure that vastly improves it's ability to make decisions based on various state, I'd imagine multiple LLM contexts in charge of different things, with some method of hallucination testing and reduction.
And it has to do all this without being slow as hell, and that's the main thing I think that improved models can help with hopefully. I'd like it if any of the current Twitch tests started taking baby steps towards some of these goals now that we've gotten the crutch runs out of the way. It's odd to me that the Claude one got abandoned. It feels like this is something the researchers could be taking more seriously, and it makes me wonder if the important people in the room are actually taking steps towards ai agency or if they kust assume a better model will give it to them for free.
somethingsomething
1mo ago
This aligns with my vibes although I've looked into it a lot less than you have it appears. The "nerd metaphysics" you describe seems to always be what I encounter whenever looking into rational spaces, and it always puts me off. I think that you should actually have a model of how the process scales.
For example you have the AI plays pokemon streams which are the most visible agentic applications of AI that is readily available. You can look at the tools they use as crutches, and imagine how they could be filled with more AI. So that basically looks like AI writing and updating code to execute to accomplish it's goals. I'd like to see more of that to see how well it works. But from what I've seen there it just takes a lot of time to process things, and so it feels like anything complicated it will just take a lot of time. And then as far as knowing whether the code is working etc. hallucination seems like a real challenge. So it seems like it needs some serious breakthroughs to really be able to do agentic coding reliably and fast without human intervention.
I think you could do good gradeable art tests using human proportions and perspective work, both of which can be made to have "right answers". Possible using graph paper if the student needs to turn in a drawing. Then have quick ways of counting tiles uses for proportions etc. And just as an artist I would feel way more comfortable grading that than various stylistic choices.
More options
Context Copy link