They were a race of humans that hated contact with other people. Each of of them lived in estates separated by acres of space.
We keep pushing our culture/society towards that sort of thing. We keep writing into to this "social" media (including what I am just writing) which is not social at all (but more akin to shouting opinions the middle of a mall).
Someone way more eloquent than me should write a column titled "Why do we read?"
Way back in the past (around 30 years ago) I remember reading an article on "how to read a book" or a similar subject. They argued that, you should not skip the acknowledgments, preface and other "personal" related sections of a book, because it was there where you got a glimpse of the person that was writing the book. The idea being that, you should had in mind that the person writing was explaining something through you.
Carl Sagan even has a video where he argues Books/Writing is some sort of communication through time.
Now, this has been the case historically: A person writes some text (even in botched language like my writing, as English is not my first language) with thinking that someone else in the future will read the ideas and reason about them.
But what about text written by an LLM? Does it have inherent intention? When reading LLM text, it feels like looking at those "this is not a person" photos. Yeah, they are words, yeah they form sentences and paragraphs but... they lack "soul".
It's not "Why do we read?" but something related that is coming up a lot in my thinking lately is Walter J. Ong's "Writing is a Technology that Restructures Human Thought".
Isn’t “Writing is a Technology that Restructures Human Thought” another way of saying that “feedback has an effect”?
If so, this seems to be a trivial (still worthy) assertion.
For example, I intend to, say, construct a shed. I make mistakes that I only see because I actually constructed. I revise future endeavours involving sheds.
I admit to not having read this piece, and am merely reacting to the title.
—-
Okay, I got through the first paragraph of Walter’s writings. While I nod to the bitterness (I assent to the existence of it), I do not bow.
Not normally, no. Can you point to a divergence of the bitterness in the subsequent text?
What I find to be the normal pattern (by intuition) is that the condensed leading text belies the expansive following text. This is likely lazy (a shortcut) and I am open to correction at your effort. If a call to your effort (I apologize) is unpalatable then I concede.
> Way back in the past (around 30 years ago) I remember reading an article on "how to read a book" or a similar subject. They argued that, you should not skip the acknowledgments, preface and other "personal" related sections of a book, because it was there where you got a glimpse of the person that was writing the book. The idea being that, you should had in mind that the person writing was explaining something through you
Maybe? That is one reason to read, but there are a lot of other reasons, too. It doesn't mean you are doing it wrong if you want to read something and don't care at all about the person who wrote it.
Yeah, but when we talk about food, there are different tastes, and there is stuff like "you can also use it as a doorstop". Fine, but that doesn't make a doorstop food.
> people had to wait overnight to continue vibe coding because vendors blocked further API calls for many hours at a time
Tangential but this is funny. Back in the early 90s, I did a lot of BASIC programming in the family computer, this was before we had Internet. I could spend hours.and hours in front of the computer doing stuff.
Fast forward to around 2010 I remember a distinct feeling one time the internet went off at home. Sitting in front of the computer and feeling that it was "useless" because it wasn't connected to the net.
We are getting to that point in coding apparently: 5-10 years ago, everyone programmed just by typing commands, looking at S.O. and thinking. Now, if we open our "IDE" and it doesn't have access to The Brain, we are left just standing there looking in awe at the machine.
dunno, I have electricity problems (especially on winters when Russia strikes the hardest on infra) but I usually have this time as a downtime for lightweight C coding in Termux and retro gaming, all on Galaxy Note 8 (Android 9!!) + power bank.
I guess it feels less like a problem when you have that problem regularly and are forced to adapt. and I guess I'll just HAVE to switch to Pixel 10 when Pixel 11 comes out - the integrated Linux terminal right there is awesome. or maybe just get a MacBook like most around me did
It isn't just a psychological feeling though. We've (unnecessarily) offloaded everything to the net, so there's a very real element of uselessness that kicks in when there's no connection.
E.g. back when you were coding BASIC, you probably had magazines and either ended up copying a lot of code by hand, or if you were lucky the mag came with a floppy disk. Now no such magazines exist. Manpages were all local, now it's readthedocs online. Fat local-friendly standard libraries in almost all languages have been modularised and package managers for the most part expect to install stuff by fetching it from the net.
So unless you have heavily prepared for the cyberapocalypse or sth, there really is not much you can do on your machine when the internet goes down.
On the other hand, however, when you can prepare in advance, it's great to shut off the net for a while. I do my most productive coding during flights, for example.
I keep going back to Sublime Text when everything in VS Code becomes too much. Last time I looked at Sublime, I was like “Damn, the last update was from 2024? Must be dead.” Until I realized the lack of updates was because it was fully functional for what they wanted as is without connecting to the internet at all.
Yeah, I also feel that this negative aspect of "AI" adoption is not much discussed overall - massive centralization and dependency on a remote service woth something as important as computer programming.
I recently at around 42yo learned how to darn/mend my socks. My mom taught me how to do it.
I have enough money that I could just throw my socks with holes to throw trash and buy new ones inconsequentialy, but mending them by hand gives me something, it is kind of therapeutic and a sense of accomplishment.
Im sure there are machines that could do it in a second, or a patch I could stick on it as well.
Point being that we can still find satisfaction in doing things by hand that technology can do fast/easily. We just stop doing it by hand for profit.
>Much of modern life is automating away the boring useless bits.
>AI, on the other hand, changes the conversation on what’s boring or useless.
A compression algorithm finds and removes redundancy. Simple automation is like simple compression algorithms (RLE like). AI (which even internally - at least the encoding to the representation parts - looks like compression) just like a much more sophisticated compression algorithm which finds and removes redundancy where we thought the creativity and originality were.
It does look like our civilization has accumulated a lot of cruft masquerading as creative/original/intellectual activities ("Bullshit jobs" comes to mind, also all that talk about stagnation in science, and all those huge collective collaborations - where collective there is a stagnation - and now with AI individual scientists will again be able to wield all the bleeding edge across the wide fields while digging deep in desired target research direction), and the AI is the vacuum cleaner for that cruft.
Within a couple of years, LLMs or equivalent AI engines will have the ability to generate factual knowledge themselves using their "outdated" knowledge and their reasoning mechanisms.
For example, one of the classical requests from S.O. questions and GitHub issues is a "minimal reproducible example " of the question/problem.
So a sufficiently advanced AI will be able to write that, run it, see the issue , go to the library/related-system code or documentation (for closed source) and derive a solution
There have been studies where an ai that feed on its own data become dumber and dumber. I don't think it's just going to 'generate factual knowledge' Ad vitam æternam.
My country is not in the list (Mexico, not that we need to... Americans hate us), but I just cannot comprehend why people would go through all the pain for the immigration process in the US.
Actually, it kind of make sense why only the most desperate try to get into the US , people who have something to lose are naturally repelled by the bureaucracy.
We love to paint the US in broad brushstrokes of color, but it more of a muddy brown across the entire country. Washington State doesn't have huge expat communities of Mexicans, but what about if I'm Chinese going to school in Spokane? Or Somali in St Paul, MN? or Pakistani in Chicago? Some "average Americans" seem to hate these people in every locale.
EDIT: Wash. is actually a top 8 destination in the US for Mexican immigrants, with an estimated population of 250-300K people, so not huge but definitely sizeable!
I dunno. The southern parts of SW WA can be pretty racist (Lewis County and south). Rural, much more red, but without the extensive farming more pervasive on the east side.
I don't mean to minimize any negative experiences you've had. But as a lifelong American, I've never heard anyone make a negative comment about Mexicans. Even in online spaces like X where there is a lot of racism, it's usually not directed at Mexicans.
If you look at Trump's famous comment about Mexicans in his speech from 2015, he actually points to Mexicans in the audience and refers to them as Mexico's best people. The media cut that part out, of course. (I'm not a Trump supporter.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apjNfkysjbM#t=3m25s
TRUMP: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best -- they're not sending you [points at unidentified people off-camera] -- they're not sending you -- they're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs; they're bringing crime; they're rapists and some, I assume, are good people."
There is no apparent indication in that video that the people he's pointing at are Mexican.
Among other issues, countries are not generally 'sending people' to immigrate to other countries. Most countries are in general keen to avoid emigration.
>There is no apparent indication in that video that the people he's pointing at are Mexican.
But it seems like the most natural interpretation.
The most obvious, good-faith interpretation of this quote is that Mexico has a mix of good and bad people, like every country, and the ones immigrating illegally tend to be bad. The fact that the media didn't even consider this common-sense interpretation contributed a lot to Trump's popularity.
TRUMP: "They're all crooks. The Somalians are -- what they've done to Minnesota -- the Somalians. They're crooked as hell. Ilhan Omar. Crooked as hell. They're all crooks. And we got 'em."
> But as a lifelong American, I've never heard anyone make a negative comment about Mexicans.
What an absurd statement on its face that comes from a place of extreme privilege. I am a brown-skinned man in America and I lost count of all of the times people that look like me have been denigrated and lambasted in this country.
>What an absurd statement on its face that comes from a place of extreme privilege.
Oh boy, here we go again. I even said "I don't mean to minimize any negative experiences you've had" and I'm still getting the privilege discourse. You are really determined to prevent the Democrats from winning elections, aren't you?
Even assuming I am privileged, then what I'm telling you is that privileged white people like myself aren't shit-talking Mexicans behind their back. Wouldn't that be relevant information? Why would it be an absurd statement?
>brown-skinned
That's not the same as Mexican.
When was the most recent time this happened to you in person? A recent, representative concrete example would be a lot more compelling that performative outrage.
But "suppliers" know that demand has bo choice but swallow the prices and services.
Kind of like "cable companies" oligopolies but worse (see southpark espisode).
Health care should not be for profit.
reply