frances-kafka.bsky.social
lowmath deleuzian. mohenjo-daroan. @pachabelcanon on twitter
307 posts
162 followers
74 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
also, do subscribe to my blog for posts like these here:
listed.to/@pachabelcan...
comment in response to
post
Thank you! Which writing did you like by the way?
comment in response to
post
I'm one!
comment in response to
post
and I want the critics & philosophers of AI to be much more rigorous lol
comment in response to
post
I think it's also that you can't just become the latter if you want a girlfriend or whatever
comment in response to
post
Thank you! Glad you liked it
comment in response to
post
thank you!!
comment in response to
post
which one!
comment in response to
post
Gm
comment in response to
post
100%!!!!!
comment in response to
post
that & to internally justify said regulation—this I think however is still bound to a particular scale and I think cannot be scaled so easily
comment in response to
post
I agree, absolutely! And this reinvention is in the service of some local social problem, like censorship debates often come down to like, proship/antiship debates, and the Nazi bar stuff comes down in part with dealing with horrid people om the TL. And the shared knowledge is meant to regulate
comment in response to
post
whatever, that's just incomprehensible. like in a way I really am skeptical of the power of LLMs but mostly because I've been reading Negarestani and [stuff]. but thats not a kind of discussion that is possible
comment in response to
post
in a kind of smug tone "well it's a large language model, not a large reasoning model" (have seen this as a tumblr screenshot), but it's for "internal" kinds of discussion. nobody can really tell you what "reasoning" is, for example except in a vague way. and if you bring in reza negarestani or
comment in response to
post
what Lacan might call S1 and S2, truth and knowledge, and so the kids end up choosing the latter, to wield knowledge as a set of codified opinions to mediate social relations better. but this means closing off the former. and this applies to like, AI or whatever. so someone might say something like
comment in response to
post
to each other ... notably, it's not really for convincing random conservatives, because they're not talking to them in the first place but it's also not for thinking through ideas about gender or whatever, they're going to be befuddled reading Copjec, for example. this is the disctinction between
comment in response to
post
write Gender Trouble, and this gets locked into a pretty intense debate (for example, I think that Joan Copjec's Read My Desire has a pretty good conceptual critique of Butler), but then Butler has somehow gotten into the water supply and then teenagers write summaries or "explanations" of Butler
comment in response to
post
I think there's a sense that, this grew out of Tumblr, the point of this "knowledge" was not to be something to think about, but rather a kind of mechanism to mediate social bonds. take something like Butler's concept of performativity in gender - they draw from Foucault, Lacan and others, and then
comment in response to
post
thought, discussion, analysis whatever.
comment in response to
post
and then everyone in a particular kind of space converge onto the same set of opinions, and so on after a while and it gets codified in memes and jokes. obviously what annoys me about this is that this is rather anti-intellectual in its own way, and doesn't really allow for more serious
comment in response to
post
derives from a set of given authorities. it's not actually the same as the media or whatever, this is quite bottom-up, and the takes are optimized to do well in social media in this quasi-pedagogical affirming fashion, and something like AI ... like, a few people mention the water stuff, TESCREAL
comment in response to
post
what supplies it is mostly stuff like podcasts and video essays, which take a kind of pedagogical point of view, and then in reddit or whatever people end up just taking these amateur explanations to explain to each other, to generate a kind of shared knowledge which is obviously correct, and
comment in response to
post
so there's a very curious thing, there's a kind of space I'm going to call the "popular left-lib space" or something, where you find this spontaneous convergence on topics like AI or whatever - it's a mix of liberal reddit + bluesky + tumblr, it's very "spontaneous" and amateur
comment in response to
post
somehow worse than both classical and marginalist theories of value...
comment in response to
post
ges.research.ncsu.edu/wp-content/u...
comment in response to
post
there is by Philip Mirowski a very good analysis of open science but mind you it's not that sharing data is bad, it's more like the ideology of "open science" and many advocates + institutions. very sensible and Mirowski is good as a scholar of neoliberalism
comment in response to
post
I think I qted a post which has qts that exemplify this phenomenon
comment in response to
post
oh say more?
comment in response to
post
interesting, i am moderate on not-capable, and i'm kinda on the side of good. (though that is overall, on a bunch of stuff i'm at "bad" but mostly in the crochety "slop taking over our feeds" way)
comment in response to
post
i suspect that post-extremely-online, if you do it right, can put you in a better place than people who were never extremely online, esp. if you don't literally hate wholly the period you were online
comment in response to
post
by Taubes, Derrida, Blumenberg, who are more liberal and on the left, to discuss him and so on (I mean this comes down in part to the "conservatives in academia" stuff ... I mean, sure! We can discuss Schmitt and Heidegger and others, we have for a long time, actually)
comment in response to
post
not that this doesn't have its problems, but it does in a way allow you to analyze and to some extent "neutralize" the more 'edgy' sort of theorist like, Heidegger or Schmitt, you don't have to be a contrarian joker sort to discuss the problems in Schmitt, perfectly possible, eg.
comment in response to
post
to like, Rousseau or Hobbes or Hegel or Marx or Rawls, that gives you a language to work out various eclectic orientations and ideas without having to go through the rather banal set of questions which produce as opposition an edgy kind of response
comment in response to
post
my impression is that this is only possible where the topic of discussion finds itself "raised" to the level of a more abstract or conceptual discourse. quite I mean if your discussions revolve more on the kind of implicit metaphysical or base-philosophical differences you have, taken in ref
comment in response to
post
how would I write to you? noticed that your DMs are closed
comment in response to
post
there's something that tickles my brain about the fact that there's a regular stable of Wh40k books being produced and written regularly, even if I don't plan on reading any of them
comment in response to
post
this is so weird for me, the people sort of admitting to being bullies and being happy about it, it's hard for me to imagine this
comment in response to
post
I'd like to read it!
comment in response to
post
Shakespeare would be a blue-sky lowbie today