@hankgreen.bsky.social re: shutdown. We need liberal and progressive mayors across the country gathering in a continental congress to create a union of municipalities to replace the institutions Trump is destroying, and we need it last year.
There's no such thing as a constructivist.
I know this sounds like a good idea in your head, you probably think this will lead to cognitive dissonance, but it doesn’t. It leads to comfort and acceptance, to identification. When people "own their racism" the world does not get better, it gets much worse. "Us vs them" is their game.
Running government like a business:
Maximize revenue (taxes)
Increase customer base (immigration)
Keep customers happy (services)
Profits go to shareholders (UBI)
It doesn't sound ALL bad. Maybe we just shouldn't run government like a Trump business.
I feel like at this point it would be better to keep your job and be really bad at it. They'll replace these people with loyalists... who will also be bad at if... but who will go down with the ship instead of being in the right place when they're needed.
Oh, would you believe actual crack? Yeah, they love it!
And while there are some issues that have to be universal, like civil and human rights, there's a lot more we could be doing to embrace our cultural and ideological diversity as a country rather than imagining ourselves to be "one people".
Liberals could accomplish so much in every city nd town in the US if they stopped asking for the permission and involvement of mostly rural conservatives who mostly want to be left alone.
@hankgreen.bsky.social I have a better blind spot than birth rate decline. Tyranny of the majority. Liberals love to talk about what policies would be "best" by their modes of analysis but can't acknowledge that national adoption would _require_ disenfranchising conservatives.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Sure! And ditto. I think I'm being civil and it's weird you don't get what I'm saying. That's kinda how perspective works!
What's the taxonomy from your perspective?
It's a scale of an inverse relationship between reliability and accessibility, where deep understandinng of the primary souce cannon is on one end, llms are on the other, and wikipedia is somewhere in the middle.
That's not an equivocation. It's a single statement and one I've heard more than a few people make. I used it to construct a metaphor, which is not the same as an equivocation. I don't think they're the same, I think there are similarities.
Right! I think that's a big problem with how people see/use them. They require a healthy level of skepticism, you should just trust something an llm tells you. Which is fine! Good even. But yeah, a lot of people just want to believe everything they read, despite the internet being 2 generations old.
Sometimes people say Wikipedia is bad because you should be using the original sources. Yes, it's better to understand the original sources but there's value in a quick overview. Same idea. Docs are vital, but they can't always answer direct questions as quickly, easily, or practically as an llm.
I'm curious, how do you feel about Wikipedia?
No, I don't.
Because I'm actually interested in the conversation not in just giving NPC tier retorts.
Specifically I find it useful in three contexts. It does a good job of explaining a new concept, which I find useful for myself and for teaching children how to learn independently, it writes really good *first pass* code, and it's a good sounding board for new ideas.
Thanks, I'll reply to that thread.
That makes sense. It's more useful in situations where you might be going to stack overflow or documentation. It also makes a good first pass at a new function or query. It annoys me though when I pass it existing code and it reformats or rewrites it pointlessly. I had it the way I like it!
This is the correct take. People who think LLMs can replace human labor are silly, they have limitations. But people who understand that and assume it means they are useless are equally silly. It's like saying we shouldn't have factories because they use energy and people still work there.
They are game changingly useful in software development, reducing the time/frustration of common tasks by an order of magnitude. This makes sense because code has logical grammar and is often well documented. It can't replace human developers because it's not good at debugging, but it is useful.
Social anxiety?
Well it's like a dick is harder and more intrusive while a prick is just there taking up your sightline when least expected, and it's just like ew
But they said mean things about them 😭, isn't that the real threat to science!
I think it's good for small businesses, because as a small business owner I can tell you that it's hard and stressful, and we'd all be better off giving up on our deams and submitting to the oligarchy.
But they hurt people's feelings by asking them to think about other people's feelings before speaking, so it's vital for the sake of the 1st amendment that the government act now to stop people from being allowed to say things that make people feel bad about saying things that make people feel bad!
This is nonsense at every level. It's the same argument Republicans use against the expansion of human rights, and using that argument undermines those battles. It simultaneously understates the actual reality we're facing. They aren't "breaking norms", they're seizing power.
