- Ever read Plato?
- You're adhering to an excess of rules, methinks!
- No, you see, this phrase must have appeared in his training set.
- I've always been averse to this sort of Jungian schema (it's a Freudian baggage I have -- Mourning and Melancholia has much value on the present topic!), but more and more I'm seeing how much wisdom was lost in the historic disavowal of myth and archetypal thought. Since having a child, my wife and I have been repeatedly stunned at how incapable our own parents are. I don't mean a mere absence of help with babysitting (although they suck at this, too), I mean they just have no idea how to deal with us or our kid as living beings. They shrink at the first sign of difficulty. They want absolutely no relationship with death. We've had to find new elders elsewhere; they really aren't easy to find but they do exists.
- Right, in my experience it's a distinction that's offensive to the "Northern" camp that thinks about the disparity in terms of each country's independent "growth"/"progress"/development". It also offends "would-be Northerners", i.e. comprador/petty bourgeois individuals located geographically in the "South", for similar reasons. To complicate matters, dependency theorists were themselves petty bourgeois apologists of the Non-Aligned Movement. It's just that times have changed, just like how "American Indian" is preferred by the older generation because "Native" and "Indigenous" are impositions of liberalism, even though the newer generation may prefer the latter labels.
Personally I don't care what language is being used as long as the real conditions are being brought to light. Persecutory investigations into psychology on these matters are dead ends. The successful adoption of "Native" and "developing" did not liberate.
- Offensive how? "Developing" and "things aren't so bad" are offensive because they obfuscate imperialist relations. That's the position of the theorists who use "Global North"/"South", anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South#...
What do you mean by discriminatory?
- The vertical strikes are pretty distinct. Either way you can't say "definitely". The AI probably wasn't even prompted in this way; without any specific investigation, and just because I exist in the symbolic world, I would guess that there is proximity between the embeddings for "factory worker" and "camp prisoner". That is the common rhetoric, isn't it?
- Yeah, I think "stochastic parrot" is a crappy phrase that obscures the mechanics of the LLM. Of course the LLM is capable of producing novel outputs, for some definition of novel. My only position here is that we can take any apparently magical outputs of the thing and, based on an understanding of how LLMs work, understand how they were likely produced. I think that sort of literacy will take us a long way.
- That's exactly the sort of thing a "stochastic parrot" would excel at. This could easily serve as a textbook example of the attention mechanism.
- > "AI" models are trained at the expense of underpaid workers filtering inputs of abhorrent content, and does not respect the owners of input content. Ethically, it sucks.
These ethics are definitely derived from a profit motive, however petty it may be.
- It's been 80+ years since a famine in the former Soviet Union. Here's your Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia...
> From the beginning of the 11th to the end of the 16th century, on the territory of Russia for every century there were 8 crop failures, which were repeated every 13 years, sometimes causing prolonged famine in a significant territory.
(That was already right there in your Wikipedia link. Sources are more scattered regarding the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, but it's all there if you search for it. One thing I was just reminded of is that in the 19th century and up until 1917, the Russian Empire maintained communal granaries to combat recurring famine, but to no avail.)
> After 1947 there were no known famines.
- At some point relatively early in the Soviet revolution, recurring famine was abolished. Famine occurred about once a decade for the entirety of documented history. Then it stopped. The interesting thing isn't how famine occurred in the early 30s (or the 40s to a much lesser extent), it's how it was absolutely prevented from occurring since. Industrialization of agriculture, collectivization, and centralized grain distribution was the solution. You have to admit that it happened. It was the same with the Chinese revolution. My point is that this all happened before "opening up", and that it was part of the logic of socialism.
- > China, like Russia, started from an incredibly low baseline - largely caused by authoritarian power. A new authoritarian power revitalized the economy and genuinely improved people's lives. People are generally grateful, and they have reason to be.
Besides the ideological component here being embarrassingly incoherent (the bad was caused by "authoritarian power" in general; the good was caused by "a new authoritarian power" in particular) your facts are plain wrong. The low baseline was pre-Mao (and pre-Lenin) when famine, illiteracy, technological impoverishment, and labor immobility was the rule. Deng's opening up certainly was something, but it undoubtedly stood upon the shoulders of the Mao era. Even the WEF agrees: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/how-china-got-rich-4...
> But the “conventional wisdom” ignores the fact that — even inclusive of the serious mistakes, lost lives and lost years that some insist define the early decades after 1949 — the foundations laid during Mao’s rule, including land reform and redistribution, substantial investments in heavy industry, public health, literacy, electrification, and transportation gave China a substantial leg up. These developments positioned China for takeoff well ahead of the official inauguration of Reform and Opening in 1978. While Deng’s reforms catalyzed China’s economic takeoff, they built upon critical foundations established during Mao’s era, which are often overlooked.
Even the WEF is wrong, of course, because they do the usual thing of inflating the importance of GDP; GDP has virtually no applicability to a socialist economy and the "revitalization" you speak of was, as far as its quantitative measure, a magic trick. A literal capitalization upon decades of labor mobilization.
- Thank you, I'll add these to my reading list!
- Indeed. I've experimented a bit with abusing DD/DBSP for my purposes by modeling various kinds of data structures in terms of Z-sets, but these efforts have not yielded very impressive results. :)
For how elegant DBSP is I still found the paper a tough nut to crack, and it really is one of the more accessible theoretical contributions in the space, at least from this grubby programmer's perspective... I hope to devote some time to study and play around more, but in the meantime I'm rooting for you!
- Are you aware of any efforts to apply DBSP's theory to a general programming language/environment? From my perspective, DDlog was the most inspiring project in the field of incremental computation, but it seems like all of these projects just lead to implementations of streaming databases or other similar commercial products that fit into Data™ pipelines (no offense). Incremental computation pops up everywhere, from databases to business logic to UI rendering and video game graphics, and I have this hunch that if the problem could be solved at a fundamental level and in an accessible way, we could have revolutionary gains for programmers and programs.
Again, it would be a mistake to not afford some degree of autonomy to language. The question is to what degree language is free to structure the world. Ultimately any language, I believe, can be expanded to express whatever new ideas arise in society, so that it is the real conditions that have ultimate power "in the last instance".