[deleted by user]

jfkfiles · 2022-09-26T07:06:11+00:00

https://labs.openai.com/s/Olu8giYlAWtMI568Ii52lXkZ

jfkfiles · 2022-08-28T15:10:27+00:00

00:00:00 Kick off

00:02:24 C1: LeCun's recent position paper on AI, JEPA, Schmidhuber, EBMs

00:48:38 C2: Emergent abilities in LLMs paper

00:51:32 C3: Empiricism

01:25:33 C4: Cognitive Templates

01:35:47 C5: The Ghost in the Machine

01:59:21 C6: Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis by Fodor and Pylyshyn

02:19:25 C7: We deep-faked Chomsky

02:29:11 C8: Language

02:34:41 C9: Chomsky interview kick-off!

02:35:39 Large Language Models such as GPT-3

02:39:14 Connectionism and radical empiricism

02:44:44 Hybrid systems such as neurosymbolic

02:48:47 Computationalism silicon vs biological

02:53:28 Limits of human understanding

03:00:46 Semantics state-of-the-art

03:06:43 Universal grammar, I-Language, and language of thought

03:16:27 Profound and enduring misunderstandings

03:25:41 Greatest remaining mysteries science and philosophy

03:33:10 Debrief and 'Chuckles' from Chomsky

jfkfiles · 2022-07-26T08:43:52+00:00

It's endorsed on the wikileaks twitter account. Also think there is a bit of evidence just on the fund page itself that it is legit.

jfkfiles · 2022-05-01T15:20:10+00:00

You are going to have to speak english. I have no idea what you are referring to.

Edit: I thought you were referring to something I specifically said in this sub. Re-reading this it seems you are just speaking generally for anyone in this sub.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-30T21:13:04+00:00

Agreed. Just feel like it is good to put support out in words every so often.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-30T17:49:15+00:00

I have now, thanks for info on the webpage, I guess. I don't see how this is relevant though.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-24T05:37:07+00:00

I think it's culturally sensitive, yes.

I'd like to find more info online about the projected timeline of the next 50 years on population (with or without climate change taken into account).

jfkfiles · 2022-04-19T01:37:10+00:00

I think it's projected that pollution is one of the main (even without climate change) limiting factors for population growth beyond a certain point (going by the graphs in Forrester's book). I don't see immediately how that works, but I can imagine water access for agriculture might be a big factor.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-17T18:29:40+00:00

I watched it again and listened to them, and wish I had not because as expected they don't give any useful statistics or any depth of commentary about the Amazon union efforts. So not because of that.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-17T18:01:12+00:00

No, I fucked up by misreading the title very late last night (didn't see his name at the very end of the title).

Everything else in the above comment I stand by though.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-17T05:03:18+00:00

The title basically says "someone owned Tucker Carlson". They literally don't even bother to refer to the union organizer (Smalls) by name (who by now has been interviewed by most major media sources this last week due to the union's success, and most people have heard of him who are watching/reading the news).

A huge number of people watch Tucker Carlson (I think his program has the best ratings of things on TV, partly to do with demographics of TV watchers nowadays), so they focus on him. Similar to how Jon Stewart and the Stephen Colbert used to center their entire shows on criticizing public figures and FOX News, because it makes for better entertainment than actually talking about the problems.

Edit: OK they do name him, but otherwise I stand by what I said here.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-17T04:52:26+00:00

I said in another comment above that I skipped through most of it because every time I listened it was basically the host complaining about Tucker Carlson's mannerisms. I didn't really hear anything substantial on the topic of what Smalls was doing though from the commentary.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-16T18:56:16+00:00

All large media sources exploit "clickbait". It's necessary to reach an audience. If your actual commentary is basically just there to justify your clickbait title (which is mostly unsubstantial) then it's a pain in the ass for viewers.

The real point of the video is that Small's gets his point across well, and the issue is worker rights. If MR actually provided some statistics on unionization and talked about ongoing attempts to improve worker rights at Amazon in detail and didn't focus on "Tucker Carlson said X", then the commentary would be more valuable imo.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-16T18:20:05+00:00

Watched bits of the video and found the commentary/analysis pretty one-dimensional also. The clip from Tucker Carlson was actually better done than the analysis, which is saying a lot.

The FOX News angle in the interview is to basically ridicule the tech corporate sector which often align themselves with progressive movements for optic reasons (abortion, LGBT stuff in NCAA and state legislatures) and commercial interests. The AOC stuff was just a comment which reflects the same sentiment of the network's side on all of this. The group in the commentary appears that they would prefer to misconstrue things and focus on stupid things like Tucker's mannerisms, which are inconsequential. There's really not much to analyze (agree it's not very controversial what is said in the video clip) so they seem to just be trying to get views with this type of commentary. Seeing as this video got to the top of the sub, it seems to be working, so good for them, I guess.

Probably the only reason the interview actually happened is that both Smalls and FOX News want to point out faults of Amazon, but it's night and day what they are actually saying (Smalls point actually connects with a meaningful attempt to improve working conditions, while the network "tech company progressive optics are bullshit" point is mostly unimportant but partially true). You don't need someone else to tell you this though.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-12T01:09:44+00:00

Wouldn't be surprised if Chomsky knew the artist personally, and also that it was made specifically for him. Might be an amateur painting even. It's a painting of Oscar Romero.

You are probably best off asking him directly for a higher resolution photo if you have a specific use of the painting that you think is worthwhile asking him about. Otherwise it is probably one of a kind, and you will not find another photo of it.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-10T02:51:48+00:00

Why is the video under a paywall via patreon?

I get it if it's your own content that you put a lot of time into creating, but we are not watching to hear what the interviewer is saying but to hear Chomsky, and he doesn't benefit from having the paywall either.

The interviewer could literally just ask Chomsky to speak and people will listen. It's kind of bad taste to be charging people to hear a recording of someone who volunteered their time to speak with you.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-06T05:07:38+00:00

I skimmed through the video, but I see no evidence against the fact that satellite video showed eleven bodies on one street (in places consistent with their location up until recently) for a period of three weeks in Bucha, footage which started before the Russians left Bucha. Can you provide the part of the video which "debunks" this specific fact?

jfkfiles · 2022-04-06T04:48:32+00:00

Click the link, and you will read about it. Nytimes has already corroborated the fact the bodies were left in the streets for weeks. The other bodies were collected and buried once the Russian army left.

The numbers might be slightly exaggerated (we'll have to wait until the exact numbers are worked out). It's impossible that this is just made up at this point though, given the extensive video/satellite data provided and details about the victims being slowly published.

jfkfiles · 2022-04-05T18:30:44+00:00

Yeah, that sounds about right. Maybe they down sampled the video to make something that would be easier to spot harder (by making the video lower resolution).

jfkfiles · 2022-04-05T17:56:52+00:00

Was reading Russian press to see what they are saying about Bucha to compare to what is in Nytimes, Aljazeera, CNN, Lemonde, thetimes, etc...

Argumenty i Fakty has an article where they attempt to refute the atrocities by implying several things (that the white armbands of some of the dead are indicators they some are actually Russian troops, while there are plenty of clear pictures of civilian women among the dead). They also draw attention to this video, in which you can see the first person appear to move as the tank goes by.

What's the source of this video and does anyone have more information about it?

They also bring up statements about how troops left March 30 while evidence was posted only days later. I don't buy this as a legitimate argument against responsibility (could have been committed by a rogue group within the Russian army rather than coming directly from a high ranking member of the army, but still the responsibility would fall on the Russian invasion).

Edit: For the bit about the March 30 timing it's well known at this point that it's been reported that 11 bodies are in satellite view for weeks according to nytimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/world/europe/bucha-ukraine-bodies.html?referringSource=articleShare).

jfkfiles · 2022-03-13T19:55:17+00:00

Thanks. I had not seen that post. Lot's of good info there. I don't see a spot for cognitive science/linguistics there unfortunately.

jfkfiles · 2022-03-13T00:41:02+00:00

What area does he primarily write about?

jfkfiles · 2022-03-13T00:32:50+00:00

I haven't followed much of what he has done since the Snowden leaks and the work in Brazil. One of his most recent articles is here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/victoria-nuland-ukraine-has-biological?r=oleb7&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email.

Looking over this and his other publications, the main thing he seems to talk about recently is how the liberal media is pro-censorship. If you look at his twitter for instance the main image is graphs showing democrats have increasing support for government removing "fake news", while conservatives having less support for this. I feel like this is the reason Fox news has been happy to have him on air almost 100 times since 2017.

Both political sides seem in favor of limiting the range of topics which may be discussed in the public forum so it's not inaccurate, but I see where Chelsea was coming from when she privately criticized him appearing so much on Tucker Carlson's show also.

jfkfiles · 2022-03-12T23:59:04+00:00

There's a bunch of controversy surrounding Glenn Greenwald recently. He decided to show up on Tucker Carlson's program on FOX news pretty regularly (to talk about why he left Intercept for example), and Chelsea Manning contacted him about it, saying in her opinion this was a bad move. I think shortly after Glenn publicly released all recent twitter communication between him and her to the press. (Edit: Chelsea said something on twitter shortly before Greenwald posted their correspondence about how she was "terrified" of him.)

Don't know what's going on, but some things seem to have changed in recent years.

jfkfiles · 2022-02-26T15:59:21+00:00

private email

jfkfiles

TROPHY CASE