Since nobody else is talking about AI these days, check out my conversation w/ @azimshariff, sponsored by the International Telecommunications Society & the Munk School. It’ll be fun! (Azim and I disagree about a few things.) February 19, 9:30–10:30 AM EST
These mocha-ordering fellow humans must fall into one of these categories: They don't know that it's rude They don't care that it's rude They disagree that it's rude
The world would be so fucking boring if we constantly sought 100% compatibility in our opinions and in our politics. And when it comes to my code generator, which is what Claude is, I don't need it to share all my politics.
“you are a devil’s advocate, disagree with everything” is probably the worst possible prompt for this agent. within a week everyone would ignore her. she’d become the slack equivalent of a smoke detector that goes off whenever somebody makes toast.
Some people think CI means you reject grammar books. I disagree. I often reference grammar materials and find these explanations useful. However, the focus of my learning is not to “master the rules”. Grammar resources simply help me notice and make sense of patterns in the language.
Unfortunately, no, because politics is about people who disagree with you. If you’re working with computers, or robots, or pure math, you don’t have politics.
It has to be controversial that you have to be a reasonable person should be able to disagree with it because otherwise you're probably just trying to compete on raw execution
Useful philosophies disagree with each other sometimes, and this is only an issue if you expect yourself, or reality, to be philosophically consistent.
The stand-out non-fiction book of the year was Rory Stewart's Politics on the Edge. I have a lot of disagreements with Stewart's political positions (the more I listen to him, the more disagreements I find), but he is an excellent memoirist who skewers the banality, superficiality, and contempt for competence that has become so prevailing in centrist and right-wing politics. It's hard not to read this book and despair of electoralism and the current structures of governments, but it's bracing to know that even some people I disagree with believe in the value of expertise.
He hasn’t posted since January, but I hope he gets back to it. We need more musings, especially musings I strongly disagree with so I can think about and explain why I disagree with them.
Most of the time, when I read one of his posts, I disagree with it. But it is almost always interesting, and valuable to think about exactly what I disagree with and why. The questions are always big.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.