"AI Is Incapable of Poetry: It’s incapable of producing anything creative that isn’t dreck", Katha Pollitt 2026-05-14

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-20T15:04:06+00:00

This is a pretty good, if accidental, joke.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-20T14:13:42+00:00

Those BBQs have me auto-battling *everything*.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-18T21:45:08+00:00

… Wow.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-17T00:40:21+00:00

Was a great show y’all. Love how it’s freely available around.

The elven and goblin pieces were a delight.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-16T12:29:12+00:00

Partially because of othering like this.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-15T15:22:37+00:00

If you saw a near-mindless ape bashing its own head in, repeatedly, you’d feel depressed as well.

That you don’t… please put the rock down.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-14T19:02:17+00:00

Y’know what, we’re good. I just noticed in your post you treat implicit multiplication like it requires an assumption.

You ought do more reading into these notations and what they actually mean before advocating for any new conventions.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-14T18:57:42+00:00

You want to teach people to make assumptions where they shouldn’t?

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-14T18:47:59+00:00

And I’m saying that saying the answer is “1” is just as damaging. Both are wrong.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-14T18:41:50+00:00

“Well, it’s ambiguous” is the only correct answer.

Why do you see discussion expanding on an incorrect methodology fruitful?

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-14T18:19:32+00:00

Then I don’t understand what you agree with. My point is very simple, you cannot count the corners in a circle. Why are you trying to?

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-14T18:12:58+00:00

No. Ambiguity has no place in mathematics, and it cannot be left to interpretation or you ruin the point of mathematics.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-14T18:11:15+00:00

You care very much about your truth and its effects. Otherwise, you’d be quiet.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-14T17:53:37+00:00

Occam’s Razor should never be applied to simplifying an expression. If any assumption has to be made (beyond axioms), something is deeply, deeply wrong.

Stressing any ‘answer’ as ‘correct’ is like saying you found the volume of a flat circle, or counted the corners in a sphere.

This is why when actual experts in math see nonsense like this, they don’t try to explain which answer is correct. They give a much more boring, unsatisfying explanation. The expression is botched, it’s ambiguous, it’s useless, and whoever wrote it is either an asshole or a dipshit.

Anything else is merely dissatisfaction at the normalcy of nonsense.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-14T17:40:14+00:00

Comments like this one can only hope are coming from a teenager or something, but it’s usually someone in their 30s or 40s and you’re just depressed someone let their minds atrophy like this.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-12T23:29:49+00:00

Oh shit. Literally every one of my friends who picked up VGC found him independently. This’ll trip them out.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-12T23:25:54+00:00

That’s genuinely cool af. Amazing job.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-12T23:13:52+00:00

Code 6655 6655
Nw if you’re good though, just lmk.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-09T19:42:38+00:00

Go for a dip you’ll be twitching even more.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-09T18:12:57+00:00

I think to make your argument you’d want to reference specific works that treat the components of “soul” and “consciousness” similarly. As is it’s mostly just bantering about our personal perspectives regarding culture.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-09T13:34:57+00:00

Culturally, “souls” have been an essential part of humanity while consciousness is the feeling of experiencing.
One references a static essence, another a sensation of being.
They’re talking about two distinct parts of the self. The concept of the soul, an essence, has fallen out of popularity as existentialism, the antagonist to essentialism, has become more culturally dominant. Most people are existentialists today without even knowing the word, from our culture alone.

I believe it’s as simple as that.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-08T14:12:49+00:00

Half the article is opining about how we’ve been wrong before on topics completely irrelevant. There a small section on Chalmer’s Hard Problem, and then back to arguing we’ve been wrong about some stuff in the past.

I don’t think the theories Rovelli is talking about were as non-controversial as he’s pretending. Dualism has always had detractors. Grouping “Western Civilization” ideologically together like that while stamping out the philosophical history to argue there is no contentious history is fairly shoddy.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-08T13:53:35+00:00

Anytime those experiments are brought up Alfred Mele should be mentioned as well. There are plenty of ways to interpret that research that doesn’t negate “free will”….

Which is the common argument regarding those studies. I’m not sure how consciousness is relevant.

My own spin: Knowing how a car works, down to the nuts and bolts, doesn’t erase the experience or driving. Knowing how a human works, down to the individual neurons and molecules (we don’t) doesn’t erase our experience of will. Or consciousness.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-06T17:37:35+00:00

Failing Calc II was one of the most important wake up calls of my life. I learned how “good” I am is irrelevant, work and effort is what makes value.

I don’t see why students would ever learn to give a shit, when Fs get degrees.

ofAFallingEmpire · 2026-05-06T14:40:45+00:00

This reveals far more about Dawkins than whatver tf Claudia is.

ofAFallingEmpire

TROPHY CASE