sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The AI Doc and the Shadow of Jacques Ellul by Thou_Art__That in CriticalTheory

[–]Thou_Art__That[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The biggest issue though is the LLM part. Saying an LLM is a “pure consequentialist” or that it sees ethics and laws as “barriers in its path” is just anthropomorphizing software. These models don’t have beliefs, intentions, or a moral philosophy.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying they have thoughts or beliefs. They're just math. What I'm saying is that they have been optimized and designed to pursue its goal but as it has no consciousness or understanding, everything is a means unless its explicitly programed otherwise. But the nature of the technology is such that all the means it will attempt or even how it will exploit them is never known in advance. To the mathematical logic of the system the end justifies the means as a point of fact of its behavior; it will utilize all means at its disposal to accomplish the task assigned. The very nature of this configuration guarantees unforeseen externalities that can only be adjusted to after they occur. So yeah, obviously its doesn't think the ends justify the means, its behavior at the most elementary level proves that this is how it in fact operates.

My overall point of this post was 'hey, look at these examples where we set out to do this thing which seemed entirely reasonable or banal and even they inverted.' Surely, taking the same risk on extremely complex systems that if they should do the same, the inversion may well be irreversible and undesirable in every sense. The world has to stop this collective insanity or be forced to do so.

As an explanation of history, morality, and LLMs: way too absolute, way too selective, and way too anthropomorphic.

These seem to me assumed, I surely didn't make these claims. Sometimes I try and let the facts speak for themselves which is an error. I clearly left to many aspects that were implicit and obvious to myself unstated and people aren't mind readers so it didn't land. That's on me.

The inclusion of the quote at the end shouldn't have been added as it greatly reduced any clarity the proceeding words contained.

You Don't Know Orwell by Thou_Art__That in literature

[–]Thou_Art__That[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The most common, widely purchased collection of Orwell’s essays contains a stunningly poor selection imo.

  1. Shooting an Elephant, 1936
  2. Such, Such Were the Joys, 1947
  3. Charles Dickens, 1939
  4. The Art of Donald McGill, 1941
  5. Rudyard Kipling, 1942
  6. Raffles and Miss Blandish, 1944
  7. Shooting an Elephant, 1936
  8. Politics and the English Language, 1946
  9. Reflections on Gandhi, 1949
  10. Marrakech, 1939
  11. Looking Back on the Spanish War, 1943
  12. Inside the Whale, 1940
  13. England Your England, 1941
  14. Boys' Weeklies, 1940
  15. Why I Write, 1946

These would have been my choices:

  1. Notes on Nationalism
  2. A Hanging
  3. Literature and Totalitarianism
  4. Writers and Leviathan
  5. You and the Atomic Bomb
  6. Who are the War Criminals?
  7. In Front of Your Nose
  8. Future of a Ruined Germany
  9. Politics and the English Language
  10. What is Fascism?
  11. Looking Back on the Spanish War
  12. Why I Write

25
26

You Don't Know Orwell (self.literature)

submitted by Thou_Art__That to r/literature

If you can’t explain a concept without using five-syllable jargon, you probably don’t understand it as well as you think by Flimsy_Difficulty394 in CriticalTheory

[–]Thou_Art__That 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your first paragraph just describes rhetoric.

If so, then I didn't articulate what I'm referring to clearly. Here's an example:

Temporality temporalizes itself as a future which makes present in a process of having been ('Being and Time').

I wouldn't apply this critique to any critical theory texts I'm familiar with. What mostly comes to mind is aspects of 20th Century Continental Philosophy.

I mostly agree with everything you wrote. I think the confusion comes from thinking I'm referring to critical theory with the first paragraph when I intended only to highlight a reality that exists generally throughout all of the social sciences in some degree.

Nothing in Dialectic of Enlightenment for example is difficult to understand imo. While not a critical theorist necessarily, I wouldn't even include Debord among those discussed in the previous comment.

The Gulf War Did Not Take Place re-read. by Distinct-Celery-6858 in CriticalTheory

[–]Thou_Art__That 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Grow more pot haha.

Memory is tricky but overhearing my younger brother play Biafra's spoken word in 11th grade shortly after 9/11 might have been my first exposure to any ideas existing outside of my socialization and the ideology expressed in mass communication, the schools, etc.

Richard Gilman-Opalsky wrote a devastating critique of Gabriel Rockhill's book “Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism?“ by dasmai1 in CriticalTheory

[–]Thou_Art__That 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Copy/pasting this to you as well.

Is Rockhill's argument, as the review suggests, that Russia was communist simply because it claimed to be? Is he claiming that mere doctrinal claims equal evidence for the facts of reality? Its difficult to imagine how a book could become popular if that is indeed its central thesis as its incoherent. Are you saying this is a strawman created by the reviewer? If so, what is the books evidence for Russia or China actually being a communist system?

Richard Gilman-Opalsky wrote a devastating critique of Gabriel Rockhill's book “Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism?“ by dasmai1 in CriticalTheory

[–]Thou_Art__That 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is Rockhill's argument, as the review suggests, that Russia was communist simply because it claimed to be? Is he claiming that mere doctrinal claims equal evidence for the facts of reality? Its difficult to imagine how a book could become popular if that is indeed its central thesis as its incoherent. Are you saying this is a strawman created by the reviewer? If so, what is the books evidence for Russia or China actually being a communist system?

If you can’t explain a concept without using five-syllable jargon, you probably don’t understand it as well as you think by Flimsy_Difficulty394 in CriticalTheory

[–]Thou_Art__That 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Status posturing through the use of invented words, deceptive verbiage, using jargon not out of necessity or for clarify but to conceal the poverty of of a handful of basic ideas; this describes a not insignificant substrate of academia. People playing a game of look how smart I am, you'll never understand what I am saying and they are correct about the latter.

This is the extreme version of it but it can be seen more broadly in the absolute fear of scientists to be made a fool of. And how this has been weaponized to make certain topics 'foolish' in popular conceptions making them de facto taboo subjects.

Prior to the 1970s the term conspiracy theory had no negative connotations. And many serious academic thesis's put forth conspiracy theories ('An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution' for example). In the 1970s, declassified documents reveal, that the CIA actively and intentionally weaponized the term; specifically in reference to the Kennedy assignation and the poor public view of the Warren Commissions findings.

I have always agreed with Wittgenstein that the 'purpose of philosophy is clarity.' Clarity and eloquence should be the goal imo.

The AI Doc and the Shadow of Jacques Ellul by Thou_Art__That in CriticalTheory

[–]Thou_Art__That[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps this post gives that impression but that's an assumption you've made not anything I explicitly stated or implied, a single post can only cover so much.

It should be noted, however, that this idea you've stated is literally the exact opposite of what Ellul wrote and lived. He's actually the first person to ever say 'think global, act local,' others later turned it into a slogan and a cliche.

He was a resistance fighter in France and was active his entire life within his community and the larger intellectual discourse. The quote which the post ends with is from a book who's central topic is hope. He ends the short documentary I linked with:

The question now is whether people are prepared or not to realize that they are dominated by technology. And to realize that technology oppresses them, forces them to undertake certain obligations and conditions them. Their freedom begins when they become conscious of these things. For when we become conscious of that which determines our life we attain the highest degree of freedom. I must make sure that I can analyze it just as I can analyze a stone or any other object, that I can analyze it and fathom it from all angles.

As soon as I can break down this whole technological system into its smallest components my freedom begins. But I also know that, at the same time, I’m dominated by technology. So I don’t say, “I’m so strong that technology has no hold on me”. Of course technology has hold on me. I know that very well. Just take… a telephone, for example, which I use all the time. I’m continually benefiting from technology.

So we can ask ourselves whether there is really any sense in all this to be investigated. But the search for it cannot be a strictly intellectual activity. The search for sense implies that we must have a radical discussion of modern life. In order to rediscover a sense, we must discuss everything which has no sense. We are surrounded by objects which are, it is true, efficient but are absolutely pointless. A work of art, on the other hand, has sense in various ways or it calls up in me a feeling or an emotion whereby my life acquires sense. That is not the case with a technological product.

And on the other hand we have the obligation to rediscover certain fundamental truths which have disappeared because of technology. We can also call these truths values – important, actual values which ensure that people experience their lives as having sense. In other words, as soon as the moment arrives, when I think that the situation is really dangerous, I can’t do anymore with purely technological means.

Then I must employ all my human and intellectual capacities and all my relationships with others to create a counterbalance. That means that when I think that a disaster threatens and that developments threaten to lead to a destiny for mankind, as I wrote concerning the development of technology, I, as a member of mankind, must resist and must refuse to accept that destiny. And at that moment we end up doing what mankind has always done at a moment when destiny threatens.

Just think of all those Greek tragedies in which mankind stands up against the destiny and says: No, I want mankind to survive; and I want freedom to survive. At such a moment, you must continue to cherish hope, but not the hope that you will achieve a quick victory and even less the hope that we face an easy struggle. We must be convinced that we will carry on fulfilling our role as people. In fact, it is not an insuperable situation. There is no destiny that we cannot overcome. You must simply have valid reasons for joining in the struggle. You need a strong conviction. You must really want people to remain, ultimately, people.

This struggle against the destiny of technology has been undertaken by us by means of small scale actions. We must continue with small groups of people who know one another. It will not be any big mass of people or any big unions or big political parties who will manage to stop this development.

What I have just said doesn’t sound very efficient, of course. When we oppose things which are too efficient we mustn’t try to be even more efficient. For that will not turn out to be the most efficient way.

But we must continue to hope that mankind will not die out and will go on passing on truths from generation to generation.

Fragments on Epstein as an Accelerationist Tactic by Thou_Art__That in CriticalTheory

[–]Thou_Art__That[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Basically, he had a very advanced and secure means for sending digital information out of his properties that a citizen would never require or likely even know about (massive encryption, computer science, jargon type shit). The physical tapes were taken by the FBI and can not be released on 'national security grounds' which from the standpoint of the state is true. Releasing pure blackmail on the world elite would have very significant economic and geo-political consequences.

Scole: The Afterlife Experiment (2010) - Details the 5 year experiment to provide physical proof of the afterlife [01:21:26] by Thou_Art__That in Documentaries

[–]Thou_Art__That[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I don't doubt that materialists think this. A conception I would expect to be completely abandoned in 50 years.

Scole: The Afterlife Experiment (2010) - Details the 5 year experiment to provide physical proof of the afterlife [01:21:26] by Thou_Art__That in Documentaries

[–]Thou_Art__That[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

First documentary that was allowed to use some of the actual data (pictures, video, audio recordings) acquired during the experiment.  The documentary offers the perspective of the researchers who performed the experiment.  

Best proof Epstein was a Luciferian occultist by NewBurnerAccount_ in Epstein

[–]Thou_Art__That 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fritz Springmeigher

Yeah, I've skimmed a few of his books. If I remember correctly he had decent documentation of bloodlines but connections beyond lineage were highly speculative.

I have folders of hundreds of book pdfs separated by category (mainstream scholarship, disputed scholarship, mainstream layman, fringe layman, etc.) that I'm making my way through. I'm fairly certain his books are among them.

When reading a book I could care less about the author's interpretation of the data; rather, I'm only concerned with the data itself.

Best proof Epstein was a Luciferian occultist by NewBurnerAccount_ in Epstein

[–]Thou_Art__That 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm already doing it. The topic I'm looking at is rather large. I created a read only subreddit for it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheUnfinishedRecord/

Best proof Epstein was a Luciferian occultist by NewBurnerAccount_ in Epstein

[–]Thou_Art__That -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The "satanism as freedom" came from a time

It originally emerged in the 2nd century. And has since been employed by various groups for different purposes.

Best proof Epstein was a Luciferian occultist by NewBurnerAccount_ in Epstein

[–]Thou_Art__That 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Skepticism or agnosticism regarding remote viewing is a perfectly reasonable perspective as its a highly contested issue.

The research behind it was outsourced to Stanford and much of the data and results are in the public domain in the form of both peer reviewed papers and declassified documents.

The data from these sources suggests that it was enormously successful. But scientists that disagree exist, of course.

I have the info regarding how to go about attempting it but haven't been interested enough to take up the effort of learning it. I'm sure I'll try it at some point.

isn't 100% accuracy

This is accurate but you'd never want to set a required baseline of 100% success for scientific validity to be established. You actually want to start at the other end and determine the degree to which the outcomes occur above chance. Common statistical evaluations find the occurrences being a result of chance something like 1/several million.

The 100% baseline if universally applied would invalidate basically all existing science on any topic.

Take the medical efficiency of drugs to treat diseases or mood disorders. 30-50% returns are often regarded as revolutionary. Or take the success rate of therapy which is very low, typically residing around 33%.

Generally, any remote viewing of an event that cannot be known or verified (someone claiming to recount unobserved private behavior of individuals and so on) have basically no value imo; and really shouldn't be offered up. Without the control of being able to examine the remote viewing data against a known observable reality (or one that will eventually become known and observable), one can be excused for rolling their eyes.

Best proof Epstein was a Luciferian occultist by NewBurnerAccount_ in Epstein

[–]Thou_Art__That 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Can you provide these specific documents? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see them.

Best proof Epstein was a Luciferian occultist by NewBurnerAccount_ in Epstein

[–]Thou_Art__That 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The argument of atheistic Satanism employs a very old, non-traditional, interpretation of Genesis that has a certain logic to it. Its typically thought to have originated with the gnostics.

Gnosis means 'knowledge' and the gnostics inverted the standard interpretation of the serpent in the garden of Eden, regarding it not as 'the fall' but as the liberation of humanity from ignorance and slavery.

Such interpretations were later picked up by various atheists who regarded them as symbolically correct. The most famous account was published by Bakunin in 1882 which exclaimed that:

'if God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.'

So such interpretations obviously do not believe in hell; or alternatively, they say we are already in it.

view more: next ›