domain:archive.ph
I don’t understand it, but there are a crazy number of tech companies purchasing calls to (outdated versions of?) GPT. The corporate market is definitely hot.
I think the point is that if your institution is over a century old, like BYU, (cue Fiddler: "Tradition!") you can get away with a lot more than if you're starting something today. Liberty seems to do okay, but Bob Jones University has gotten a lot of litigation for its beliefs (which I personally don't subscribe to, not defending it here).
The problem is that you can't start century-old institutions overnight. Maybe the second-best time is now, but that's not a huge solace. I guess "find a vestigial existing one and wear it as a skin suit" could be done --- haven't there been a number of liberal arts colleges going up for auction in the last decade?
I still don’t understand the enshittification model.
There are plenty of reasons to degrade your user experience. Increasing revenue through ads or merch or predatory monetization. Decreasing costs by cutting complicated features and tech support. But the central examples of enshittification aren’t doing those things. They’re paying more to add features that people don’t want. To adopt patterns that don’t seem like they should make more money.
I mean, maybe I’m just wrong. Maybe spamming AI news articles on the lock screen really does get more people to buy Windows. But…why? How?
Thé motte wants a different kind of conservatism than BYU has.
It is at the very least less harmful to broader society than grievance studies.
Yes. So?
Recreating the Cultural Revolution to own the libs?
Zvi Mowshovitz published his delenda est post on the Facebook algorithm in 2017. So the situation was bad enough to provoke a generally mild-mannered New York Jewish quant into making a public delenda est post by then.
My idealized solution is to try and keep up. I fully recognize that might not be a possibility.
I don't see any reason for optimism here. Digital intelligence built as such from the ground up will have an insurmountable advantage over scanned biological intelligence. It's like trying to build a horse-piloted mecha that can keep up with a car. If you actually want to optimize results, step 1 is ditching the horse.
In which case, yes. I'd rather Butlerian Jihad.
As someone who doesn't regret his "obnoxious atheist" phase of his online life from about 15 years ago, it saddens me to say that I'd take that tradeoff in a heartbeat, because I can't honestly judge Ham's "scholarship" as any worse than the mountains of "scholarship" that is produced by modern academia. And, unlike the latter, the Hams of the world don't actively try to subvert the ability of other fields to do good scholarship by denigrating basic concepts like "logic" and "empirical evidence" as tools of White Supremacy that must be discarded for us to get at the truth. So if we can reduce the latter at the cost of increasing the former, I'd see it as an absolute win.
But I don't think increasing the former would reduce the latter anyway, so I think the plan would be bad if implemented with Creationism. As someone else alluded to, if we could get good HBD research along with the nonsense critical theory "research," it would be a strict improvement, since it'd be helping to reduce the dilution of academia's truth discovery by the critical theory nonsense.
Then find some other way to solve the Culture War before it comes to that. Coordinated Meanness without limit pointed at half the country is not survivable long-term.
I just encountered a business whose product is "AI renter harassment". Imagine a chatbot that pretends to be a person, and annoys your renters with frequent reminders that the rent is due, and then keeps hassling them for up to three months after move out!
Can't wait for the counter-offer, "AI creditor deflection".
Why? The shoe isn't on the other foot, will not be on the other foot in our lifetimes (if ever), and if somehow the shoe did switch feet it would involve a Somalia so transformed that any comparison to present Somalia would be useless. "What would the Somalians do in this situation?" is irrelevant to what we should do in the situation we are dealing with. Punishing people for the infractions of their hypothetical counterparts is counterproductive to your actual goals.
I'm not sure what this means. The US' last war against Germany was fought under very different circumstances, with different goals, and with different ROE than the GWOT.
More options
Context Copy link