- adamtaylor_13Not if you understand how the wheel works. That's the whole point.
- > Human cognition was basically bruteforced by evolution
Well that's one reason you struggle to understand how it can be dismissed. I believe we were made by a creator. The idea that somehow nature "bruteforced" intelligence is completely nonsensical to me.
So, for me, logically, humans being able to bruteforce true intelligence is equally nonsensical.
But what the author is stating, and I completely agree with, is that true intelligence wielding a pseudo-intelligence is just as dangerous (if not moreso.)
- Eh, that one is worse than the first, and while not "celebratory", certainly shows a lack of judgement and character. I'd fire someone for this, too. This has less to do with free speech and more to do with revealing yourself to be an insensitive asshole.
The man was murdered in front of his children, and this woman's instinct is defamation of character. She's continuing to repeat the lie that Charlie Kirk "excused the deaths of children in the name of the Second Amendment".
- I don't believe that the FCC threatening ABC's broadcasting license has anything to do with free speech. There were murmurs about lawsuits for defamation of character all over Twitter. I'm no lawyer, I don't claim to know if that's even possible.
But it's clear that with the emotional tension of the situation, ABC wasn't about to get itself in legal trouble over a second-rate, late-night show host.
So, while the FCC may have been threatening, we have a legal system designed to prevent such over-steps of power, should they occur. It seems pretty clear ABC wanted no part of the storm that was brewing.
- > "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" largely can't be a reason to, say, lose your drivers' license, social security benefits, or government employment, because the First Amendment applies to government specifically.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's not happening. If it is, it's wrong and should be corrected.
- Very interesting. I stand corrected. I will note, however, that this is literally the only example I've seen of someone getting fired for a legitimately non-celebratory remark. We've got a legal system for stuff like that. For every single example you could give me, I can give you at least a thousand counterexamples. 99.9% of all the folks being fired are getting fired for being reprehensible.
- It's clear you've never even watched the very videos you claim to be citing.
1a. He's referencing DEI, citing how it debases people. He literally says, _in the video_, "I don't want to have these thoughts, but that's what DEI does." I know you won't go watch it, but you're just parroting a false statement that Charlie Kirk never made.
1b. He never said that. He said that Black families had better standards of living before the Civil Rights Act, referencing both household incomes, rates of fatherlessness, and crime rates. All objective facts that are true. It's hardly racist to point out how America is not getting better for black Americans.
2. I've not heard this one. Feel free to cite a source and I'll take a look.
3. I've also not heard this one. Once again, I'll go look if you'd like to provide sources.
- Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. People aren't "making comments," they're celebrating the murder of a man whose opinions they disagreed with.
Many Americans are waking up to realize that a large number of people they considered friends and colleagues would revel in their death if they let their political opinions be heard.
I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder. Sorry, call me old-fashioned, but I believe in hiring people of integrity, and I will fire you if I find out you don't have any.
- Please cite a single example of someone being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim without any celebratory tone.
- They “all” lack that awareness, eh? I’m glad to have finally met someone who met EVERY SINGLE homeschooled kid and interviewed them.
I was worried for a second we might’ve been over-generalizing for the sake of online karma.
Seriously though, your superiority complex is showing, you may wanna cover that up.
- If you follow thinking like this to its logical conclusion you shouldn’t engage in ANY technology for ANY purpose.
While you’re at it, you should make your own clothes, grow your own food, and build your own home with materials you procured sustainably.
Taken to its extreme, this line of thinking is such a non-starter that I don’t even really know what to do with it.
- This seems almost uselessly simple to me. The “cognitive overhead” of a list of notes feels trivial considering this is a person who managed to put their words online.
The issue isn’t cognitive overhead, it’s not having rituals to review and refine your thoughts. Everyone has to jot down ideas from time to time, but if you never take time to stop, review, and organize your thoughts then sure it’ll feel like a lot of cognitive overhead.
- This feels like one of those very big problems in theory that so far has never materialized and likely never will.
I can read the books and acquire the knowledge from my kindle. If Amazon removes it, I can just pirate it?
I get the theoretical argument but as a very pragmatic person it just seems like tilting against the windmill.
- “But they are better”
By what measure?
- I’m a guy that simply runs Claude Code. How can I start toying around with this?
- Sheeeesh. 21 petabytes per second of memory bandwidth? That’s bonkers.
- It’s funny I’ve had to opposite experience as a consumer. I’ve had companies who couldn’t give a single shit finally respond when I left a BBB review.
So I’ve always taken this as a sign of quality. Clearly though, that’s not always the case.
- That’s not at all the point the author is making. The point is people don’t read. Now we don’t even write. At least what USED to be written had to cost a human time, something relatively precious.
Now we can churn out text at rates unprecedented and the original problem, no one reading, is left untouched.
The author wonders what happens when the weird lossy gap in-between these processes gets worse.
There’s lots of evidence that writing helps formulate good thinking. Interestingly, CoT reasoning mirrors this even if the underlying mechanisms differ. So while I wouldn’t call this thinking, I also don’t think reducing LLM output to mere algorithmic output exactly captures what’s happening either.
EDIT: previous != precious.
- The article clearly supports this type of usage.
- How big is your company? I don’t believe there is a one-size-fits-all approach here.