81–88 of 88 posts
This is exactly what tech monopolies want. To make everyone forget about the alternatives to their products. Strip Newspeak down to the very bone. Eliminate the words for things they can't control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you dramatically underestimate how much your own mind is a product of narratives, some of which are self-selected, many of which are influenced by others.
Perhaps, but what you said is unfalsifiable and/or unknowable. Ideologies are not invented unless you're a caveman. We all got to know the world by listening to others. The subject of discussion is if and when external forces can alter those ideologies at will. And I have not seen any evidence to support the feasibility of that at scale.
here's the paper this guy seems to be reacting to https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07935v1
It says AI could be impactful to those fields. Modern chemistry is impactful to medicine but it didn't replace doctors.
So unfortunately the article this post linked to, while it has its own merits, starts off by citing a clickbait tweet and wildly misinterpreting the paper in the first sentence. Still, I hope people give both article and paper a generous reading. Even if the article starts off terribly it has interesting points which we shouldn't disregard just because of a lazy hook. The intermediate tweet, by contrast, is just lazy clickbait: half-truths and screencaps, the bread and butter of modern disinformation.
The sad thing is that it's easier than it's ever been to follow up on references. Even in this case, where the tweet itself provides no citations at all, I had to search for less than a minute to find the original paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but what you said is unfalsifiable and/or unknowable. Ideologies are not invented unless you're a caveman. We all got to know the world by listening to others. The subject of discussion is if and when external forces can alter those ideologies at will. And I have not seen any evidence to support the feasibility of that at scale.
The idea that falsifiability is necessary or good for a belief system is a narrative you are choosing to believe in. :)
> There can be no objective story since the very act of assembling facts requires implicit beliefs about what should be emphasized and what should be left out. History is therefore a constant act of reinterpretation and triangulation, which is something that LLMs, as linguistic averaging machines, simply cannot do. This exactly why tech companies want to replace those jobs with LLMs. The companies control the models,…
Just a matter of time until they can do it. I actually believe it will be an "organic" nature for LLMs to correct narratives that require correction after assembling all facts.
The objective story is a discourse, including the nonsense that is often necessary for a few lines or more before one gets to the core of something or builds up the strength of character to say the truth. Objectivity is a conversation, a neverending one and getting in the way via censorship, gaslighting, cancel culture and what not is no more than an act of vanity.
Humanity's age of consciousness is getting fucked pretty bad atm and we won't recover "in time" to save enough minds before hitting the road towards singularity but I'm positive Robots will be able to salvage enough pieces later on, and simulate it to train us to be better.
> The deeper risk is not that AI will replace historians or translators, but that it will convince us we never needed them in the first place. I think the bigger danger would be that they'd lose the unimportant grunt work that helped the field exist. Fields need a large amount of consistent routine work to keep existing. Like when analog photography got replaced by digital. A photo lab can't just pay the bills with t…
We aee currently wrecking the economics of running an informational website with ChatGPT and AI summaries. Who will bother reviewing products when Google places the conclusion right on top of the search results, before the source itself? Likewise, who will bother chronicling things and putting information online without an audience? What will be the point of blogging and publishing photos or data that future historia…
There are nice example how even after human input the translation misses things. For example, the price of the fish was stated as 2.40 rubles. This is meaningless outside the context and does not explain why it was very expensive for the old man who checked the fish first. But if one knows that this was Soviet SF that was about a life in a small Soviet town of that time, then one also knows that a monthly pension was…
There was a consumer bank (Sberbank) where you could store your money. Besides the risk of the state just keeping it (which also was real - the Soviet state never played fair) the problem was getting the money out would involve going to the office of the said bank, standing in a long line there, dealing with famously friendly (not) Soviet service, etc. So it was an option when you needed to store or retrieve a lot of money, not when you needed something day to day. And of course nothing like personal checks or personal credit or anything like that existed, so in day-to-day affairs, cash was always the only way.
> The initial draft was terrible in conveying tone, irony, or any kind of cultural allusion. My mother reads books mostly in Russian, including books by English-speaking authors translated into Russian. Some of the translations are laughably bad; one recent example had to translate "hot MILF", and just translated "hot" verbatim - as in the adjective indicating temperature - and just transliterated the word "MILF", as…
As a Russian, горячая милфа is exactly how I’d translate it. I think a lot of slang got borrowed like this in 2000-s.