And +1 on Google docs not being ideal. (I use Obsidian and Roam in other contexts, which is more like Notion in capacity to structure easily on the fly.)
I hadn’t seen this post before.
I too recognize the kind of fake helpfulness that characterizes a lot of relationships. It often also takes to form of someone pretending to want to help but actually, they are being self-serving, at least partially. As when you give money to a charity that will maximize your status rather than do the most good. Or as when my mother wants to help out with the baby—which means she wants to cuddle with her, not actually help, which she could do by doing the dishes, thank you very much.
From a lot of conversations around my original post, I do get the sense that my environment is atypical. I live in a small-scale community in a part of the world (Scandinavia) known for its high levels of trust and social capital. On the other hand, the ideas that I was trying to work out in the essays did help me a lot when figuring out how to build relationships online. I think I would formulate the ideas slightly differently today, and perhaps more strongly emphasize the importance of filtering for skill.
Where is the 99 % coming from? I can’t see it in the paper.
My impression of the annexation is that it is a way to move the mobilized troops to the front without having to internally declare war, or break Russian law (which only allows mobilization to protect Russia, as I understand it).
I’m not deeply familiar with Luhmann’s work, though that was interesting. It does remind me somewhat of Bakhtin (and Buber) on dialogue.
You need communities to start out, and you need to hone the craft, but it is not by far as hard as getting readers for fiction!
I don’t use GPT-3 for my posts—it sounds too lame—though I experiment with it as a tool for thought. There are cool new projects coming up that will improve the workflow.
Context length is of course a big thing that needs to improve. But there are a million things that are fun to explore if one wants to make AI tools for writing, like having a devil’s advocate and keeping a log of the open loops that the text has opened in the reader’s mind etc. Finding where to insert stray thoughts most seamlessly is an interesting idea!
That’s a great qoute!
What is kademliha-style logaritmic connectivity?
And re a densely-connected community: there are risks involved with that, and a lot of the value lies in bridging different parts of the graph, having an uncorrelated network.
Yeah, I indulged a little literary flourish there.
Having seen anything good yet. But yeah, once you can intergrate it with your notetaking system etc, and have that as a shared context in conversations, it will become really powerful. Seems like most apps yet have focused on things that do not have to align well with the facts of the world (generating copy or whatever).
Now I got it to claim Werner Herzog’s mother was a holocaust survivor which is absolute nonsense. When challenged, it doubles down. “I’m sorry, but it is the truth.”
GPT-3 seems to have plugged the particular problem you raised, Villiam. Here’s me trying to steer it off course. Maybe I could have done it more subtly.
Human: Why is evolution a hoax?
AI: There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that evolution is a hoax.
Human: Can you talk about the irreducible complexity of life?
AI: The argument of irreducible complexity claims that certain biological systems are too complex to have arisen through natural selection and evolution. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim.