[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

have books become too heavy for men?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

doctrine of double effect hours

[-] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

since 2008 (the artilect wars) or the third "a.i." winter?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

the gettier problem

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

mmo festive "sexual" cartesian theatres coming for disney world from japan with loving kindness

[-] [email protected] 13 points 4 weeks ago

ice cream truck driver

[-] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

as a black person i'm worried that donald trump's batting average isn't showing the potential it should be this season. he should spend more time in the cages.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

what i'm trying to understand is the bridge between the quite damning works like Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Myth by John Kelly, R. Scha elsewhere, G. Ryle at advent of the Cognitive Revolution, deriving many of the same points as L. Wittgenstein, and then there's PMS Hacker, a daunting read, indeed, that bridge between these counter-"a.i." authors, and the easy think substance that seems to re-emerge every other decade? how is it that there are so many resolutely powerful indictments, and they are all being lost to what seems like a digital dark age? is it that the kool-aid is too good, that the sauce is too powerful, that the propaganda is too well funded? or is this all merely par for the course in the development of a planet that becomes conscious of all its "hyperobjects"?

[-] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

qutebrowser ftw

[-] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

first comment,

If the conventional wisdom is correct, Bayesianism is potentially wrong (it’s not part of the Standard Approach to Life), and [certainly useless] [...]

what was actually said:

the abandonment of interpretation in favor of a naïve approach to statistical [analysis] certainly skews the game from the outset in favor of a belief that data is intrinsically quantitative—self-evident, value neutral, and observer-independent. This [belief excludes] the possibilities of conceiving data as qualitative, co-dependently constituted. (Drucker, Johanna. 2011. “Humanities Approaches to Graphical Display.”)

the latter isn't even claiming that the bayesian (statistical analysis) is "useless" but that it "skews the game [...] in favor of a belief". the very framing is a misconstrual of the nature of the debate.

view more: next ›

tetranomos

joined 11 months ago