![](https://awful.systems/pictrs/image/355838af-335f-445b-9263-fa52bbfcae59.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
since 2008 (the artilect wars) or the third “a.i.” winter?
“we only recognize the Young-Girl when we eat what we are.” ~ tiqqun
since 2008 (the artilect wars) or the third “a.i.” winter?
the gettier problem
mmo festive “sexual” cartesian theatres coming for disney world from japan with loving kindness
South Park’s comedic antics will be lost on droves of beautiful souls unless The Critic is rebooted.
algorithms of oppression. noble.
i’d like to think the motivations to think or practice prime our hinge commitments to attune to noopower such that we privatize our lives in spite of the commons. the available motivations, then, would be the actual problems, adoption and qualities of thinking, the symptoms.
bcs’s On the Origin of Objects might make your day.
as someone who observes the interests of theology that has crossed disciplines with computer science, i should only speak from that regard, than as a web developer who puts a dog in the fight of competing styles, insofar as the styles bear ontological commitments. though, obviously the web is suffering in quality due to these dogmatic “software” “engineering” practices, it must be said. there’s a wider tendency to advance metaphors which make certain paradigms more attractive to some developers than others based on philosophical prejudices coming from having accepted aristotle’s agrilogistic axioms (law of noncontradiction, metaphysics of presence, essentialism). computer science is fundamentally ontotheological, not accidental, and engineers who follow martin are committed to a politicization of the object as more real than what objects are about. their style fails to purposefully and meaningfully ground fundamentally distributed applications, necessarily. someone might contrast martin against authors like brian cantwell smith, to see the orientation from which i speak.
greater still, we’re seeing the outcome of what seems like decades of uncritical adoption of practices, what seems more like political movement than properly philosophical argumentation, everywhere in c.s. and wider applications of it.
institution: yet another non-human living asexual hyperobject constantly having sex with itself stopping only to shamefully laugh at the moments in which we respire.
ice cream truck driver
as a black person i’m worried that donald trump’s batting average isn’t showing the potential it should be this season. he should spend more time in the cages.
what i’m trying to understand is the bridge between the quite damning works like Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Myth by John Kelly, R. Scha elsewhere, G. Ryle at advent of the Cognitive Revolution, deriving many of the same points as L. Wittgenstein, and then there’s PMS Hacker, a daunting read, indeed, that bridge between these counter-“a.i.” authors, and the easy think substance that seems to re-emerge every other decade? how is it that there are so many resolutely powerful indictments, and they are all being lost to what seems like a digital dark age? is it that the kool-aid is too good, that the sauce is too powerful, that the propaganda is too well funded? or is this all merely par for the course in the development of a planet that becomes conscious of all its “hyperobjects”?
the south thought it perfected slavery since antiquity. it’s supposed that “honor” can be restored or “retvrned” in the 21st century through refounding the colosseums
what about “the war on drugs” makes them say it was a failure in the peculiar institution since the end of the premodern period and the advent of modern capitalism lol? too many sparring partners of a certain melanin configuration not available to participate in all the naturally emergent belligerence?
doctrine of double effect hours