you really want your relationship between the BAs and devs to be like steel against steel, both constantly attacking each other and forging them into a stronger version of themselves

Behold, I have eaten a McDonalds Hamburger

Can anyone explain getting up at 5 am to quaff “peptides”, microsoft notification anxiety, 8 hrs twitter screentime, grok generated wife? Why isn’t ISIS better?

If we want to avoid sea level rise caused by global warming, we need some way of using up water that doesn't just return it to the water cycle. The only known way of destroying water permanently is datacenters

scott alexander once said the benefit of a philosphy education is as a defense against bad philosophy. i feel that way about a lot of AI philosophy. I'm sure people without our level of AI/math/philosophy education are becoming far more accepting of this sort of thing.

The future

When you try and generate an image of a Equites domus in Ancient Rome but accidentally write equestrian.

What Jordan Peterson is trying to say (but keeps muddling) Peterson is gesturing toward a true insight - that science presupposes realities it cannot justify by its own methods. Those include: intelligibility of the world reliability of reason normativity of truth meaningfulness of ‘better explanations’ goodness of knowing rather than not knowing These are ontological and moral preconditions, not scientific conclusions. Where Peterson goes awry is that he slides immediately from ontology into symbolic theology and Jungian myth, collapsing: God into archetype Good into evolved narrative Truth into adaptive meaning That move weakens his case, because it makes the foundations of science look psychological or symbolic, rather than metaphysically real. So when he says “the gap between believing in God and believing in Good is very narrow”, he is aiming at something but imprecise. The real gap is not narrow or wide - it’s categorical: Good is ontological (a feature of reality) God is metaphysical (the ground of that reality) Gad Saad is saying something different. Saad’s response is textbook scientistic when he says: “the epistemology of science is fully and unequivocally decoupled from religion” he is swapping epistemology for ontology. Science may be methodologically decoupled from religion, but it is not ontologically self-grounding. Worse, Saad explains religion as an ‘evolved instinct’ which immediately undercuts his own trust in reason. If religiosity is adaptive illusion then so is truth-seeking, then so is ‘rationality’ and so is ‘science’. Evolutionary accounts explain how beliefs arise, not whether they are true. Using evolution to justify epistemic trust is self-undermining. Saad’s position only ‘works’ by rhetorically borrowing realism while functionally denying it. The core problem with both sides is that they are arguing God v atheism, when the real divide is ontological realism v ontological nihilism. Science does not require revealed religion, scripture or ecclesial authority - but it does require real being, intelligibility, normativity, truth and real good. If those are denied, science collapses into instrumentalism, power optimization, narrative management and technocratic control. At that point, ‘science’ becomes engineering in service of will, not knowledge of reality. 2020 onwards (and long before that) has been a masterclass in the denial of reality in the ‘name of science’.

“native app doesn’t count anymore”

The right has been hammering this point relentlessly, the “ngocracy”.

These guys can’t help but endlessly refactor, gameplay be damned. Great engine tho

You’ll never guess what soundtrack he’s talking about.

Has anyone heard of this girl named Amelia?... Seems kinda based actually... #GrokImagine #Amelia #ameliapathways

Crazy what people can do with AI nowadays, reminds me of @PsyopAnime

Good shit my man

You don’t need to try and engage in a good faith dialogue with dishonest enemies. You can just honour your ancestors and protect your children.

This is… uh…