Today's "Christ, what an asshole" award goes to Ravi V. Bellamkonda, executive vice president and provost at th'OSU.
/r/justonemoreprompt
A student put on some Internet radio station for background music at the end-of-semester barbecue, so I heard a Grammarly ad. In related news, I now long for the sweet embrace of a peat bog.
https://bsky.app/profile/tomdellaringa.bsky.social/post/3lr4djpa4zc2t
https://bsky.app/profile/dennisbhooper.bsky.social/post/3lr4lyaxmkc2b
There comes a point when "they are themselves racist AF" becomes the simplest explanation for so many things.
🎶 Substack, David Shor, Nate Silver, Noahpinion,
Dick Hanania, bathrobe from Aella
We didn't start the fire 🎶
Was mathlab where they did the forensics for MathNet?
LessWrong has swallowed the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" hook, line and sinker, so yeah, zero crank filter.
I have to wonder whether Lyonne bought a pig in a poke, as it were. There has been, AFAICT, no actual investigative reporting about whatever the deal was for. Is it really just a new coat of paint slapped on the same kind of FX work that's been done for decades? ("Set extensions" sounds like the Star Wars prequels, for glob's sake.) Just how much here is A Guy Instead?
It would be darkly funny if the studio got reamed online for being anti-art sellouts, while also getting ripped off.
... That could be a good movie.
From page 202:
Few "scientific" concepts have so thoroughly muddled the thinking of both scientists and the general public as that of the "intelligence quotient" or "I.Q." The idea that intelligence can be quantitatively measured along a simple linear scale has caused untold harm to our society in general, and to education in particular.
That paragraph begins,
Like his predecessor critics of artificial intelligence, Taube, Dreyfus and Lighthill, Weizenbaum is impatient, implying that if the problem hasn't been solved in twenty years, it is lime to give up.
Weizenbaum replies,
I do not say and I do not believe that "if the problem hasn't been solved in twenty years, we should give up". I say (p. 198) " . . . it would be wrong . . . to make impossibility arguments about what computers can do entirely on the grounds of our present ignorance". That is quite the opposite of what McCarthy charges me with saying.
It's a snidely jokey response to an argument that Weizenbaum didn't make!
Bringing over aio's comment from the end of last week's stubsack:
Way down in the linked wall o' text, there's a comment by "Chaotic Enby" that struck me:
Further down the thread, there's a comment by "Gnomingstuff" that looks worth saving:
Another comment by "CMD" evaluates the summary of the dopamine article mentioned there: