and robot dogs?

people voted for this

metacognitive myopia even prevents people from updating their beliefs about the existence of WMDs.

it’s tyranny when your schema.org/WebSite doesn’t declare itself a schema.org/WebSite (nor any of the other semantic web stuff we were promised) and it doesn’t work without javascript. “a.i.” has become a distraction generator from the death by a thousand cuts that started with jeff bezos’ API Mandate.

“crypto” and “a.i.” was just dads throwing pearls (“software toys”, softpower sex toys) to swine (the kids alright)

i overheard a black preacher, the other day, on the television, assert that people who are 80 years old are “outliving” those who are “30” and “40”; while other preachers are still making outward commitments to the belief in a something-to-come. two ways in which preachers make use of eschatological thinking at the ends of history.

is this because we’re listening to all that damn “post-hardcore” music on the patios and at the parks in public?

fight back?

“social media” as buzzword (scientific speech, scientific image) and “social media” as political violence (commercial speech, manifest image) are two different beasts under the empire of law.

If machine intelligence is indeed a different form of intelligence, then it can be observed and judged on the basis of its own merits, as opposed to a messianic waiting for a moment where it might equal or eclipse (weakly defined) human intelligence. This would even render obsolete the question as to whether or not machines can think—which in itself willfully glosses over the corresponding opposite question, “Can humans think?” posed by the former Fluxus artist (and Emmett Williams collaborator) Tomas Schmit in the year 2000 (Schmit et al. 2007, 18–19). — Crapularity Hermeneutics: Interpretation as the Blind Spot of Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, and Other Algorithmic Producers of the Postapocalyptic Present. Florian Cramer.

i mean, by the grammatical rules, it’s still a valid reply to the comment.

[modifier][noun][verb][modifier][noun].

gödel reminds us: “syntax all on its own cannot determine semantics”.

the point is to evidence grammaticalness despite apparent meaningfulness, and the commenter may just be seeking to simulate the point with a logically consistent application of the rules at play. “incomplete” with respect to [mimicking] or [reproducing] an [socio-historical cultural] artifact, but not inconclusive in evidencing the point (remixing to produce variations on the theme; i.e., there are evidences of +20-word recursive sentences, if not larger).

nothing about the buffalo sentence entails the social rule “when someone else posts the buffalo sentence, it must match the aforementioned sentence verbatim”. permutations on the point are totally fair game.

bullied bullies bully bullied bullies bullying bullied bullies