istewart

joined 10 months ago
[–] istewart@awful.systems 8 points 5 months ago

just mark C for every answer if you don't get it, that's what the State of California taught me in elementary school

[–] istewart@awful.systems 4 points 5 months ago

I've seen people criticize Eric Berger for being up Musk's ass about SpaceX, though I'm simply not that passionate about space stuff anymore. And so far I don't see them posting anything about the NIH freezeout, even though that surely affects a vast swath of their reader base. Seems odd.

[–] istewart@awful.systems 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I was reading something David wrote about it at one point, but it seemed like lore too cursed even for the rationalist milieu

[–] istewart@awful.systems 14 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Really starting to get a bit sick of Ars Technica. They're OK for general interest tech stuff, but their editorial line (and some of their commenter base) have been really credulous about AI vendors' PR.

[–] istewart@awful.systems 11 points 5 months ago

Hmm, surely there is no downside to doing all of one's marketing, both personal* and professional, through the false certainty and low signal of short-form social media. The leopard has only licked Sam's face, it will never bite and begin chewing!

*You and I may find the concept of a "personal brand" to be horrifying, but these guys clearly want to become brands more fervently than Bruce Wayne wanted to become a bat

[–] istewart@awful.systems 3 points 5 months ago

This just makes me think of JJ Abrams' self-insert Star Wars character, Babu Frik.

Truly the best part of the sequel movies, there shall be no Babu Frik hate here

[–] istewart@awful.systems 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Single season TV show that came out of the 90s enthusiasm for adapting random comic books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillacs_and_Dinosaurs_(TV_series)

Interestingly, Wikipedia makes it seem like the game made it out the door first

[–] istewart@awful.systems 5 points 5 months ago

I think one thing to understand is that most of his casual audience very likely engages through watching clips, not sitting through whole interviews. The reasonable, mainstreamable stuff gets clipped out and perhaps you run across it sarching for something else, or it's algorithmically fed to you because of your interest in an adjacent topic. Clips of the weirder, creepier manosphere/Alex Jones/Art Bell guests don't get surfaced as readily, at least until you're down the rabbit hole, so Rogan himself ends up having a veneer of reasonability and respectability that he doesn't really deserve.

Same goes for Trump rallies, or probably almost any major political speech now. There's a front line of people who will watch the whole thing, but then they recirculate specific clips based on how they want to portray the subject.

[–] istewart@awful.systems 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Come now, he was always about consing chodes into lists... Given his excessive self-seriousness, I doubt he's taken the time to pick up the skill of juggling them in the years since

[–] istewart@awful.systems 8 points 5 months ago

If you step back and think about it, it is rather absurd that a time-sharing multi-user OS essentially took over for personal devices

[–] istewart@awful.systems 2 points 6 months ago

On the other hand, bombing foreign data centers, likely located in densely populated urban areas, would be justified and morally upstanding if it seems like they might be incarnating the imaginary computer god! I'm glad we have such a nuanced thinker guiding our modern morality.

[–] istewart@awful.systems 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I sharply disagree, but this is a subtlety that's lost on a lot of people. The tech industry's success since at least the 1990s, up until the mid-2010s, was about making technology easier for the individual user, a more accessible and (potentially) more efficient means for accomplishing many routine interactions. Tech devices existed as tools in service of the will of the end user, and if you were really willing to drink the kool-aid, extensions of the user themselves, Jobs' "bicycle for the mind."

The expectations being cultivated for AI now set it up as an entirely separate entity from the end user, and one that is potentially more capable at some point in the ill-defined future. This opens the door toward resources being reallocated towards this nebulously powerful entity, and the allocation of shared resources is at the very core of politics. This is a hard pivot away from how technology was designed before! You and I know it's a load of complete hogwash, but that doesn't prevent the potential bamboozlement of the lagging generation of policy-makers. Even someone as relatively young as Kamala Harris or her likely successor Gavin Newsom could be roped into this bullshit, if only because they know where their biggest donation checks come from.

The future in which the current crop of AI retailers enjoy a successful political program is no longer one where a rising tide lifts all boats. But, for the time being, it can still be pitched as such due to deeply embedded cultural expectations.

view more: ‹ prev next ›