I guess the point is that will only know in retrospect. A majority of teenagers are using AI for life advice, almost all teenage boys go on porn, so it’s just about how much crossover there will be with AI companions

Them for months after he was getting TV spots to moan about it and still they find a way to sneak him in. Same as Zack Goldsmith

I also feel like the other axes (arousal / intensity) accounts for possible “neutrality”

I’m with appraisal theorists that emotions are evaluative at multiple levels / moments in a process. Of course emotivism in moral philosophy argues from the opposite pole. I’m dubious about the split because we only have one nervous system for the affective grounding of the valence

One of humanity’s greatest achievements is being able to tell how many times “t” appears in this sentence.

Delighted that my contribution and the submission with Kate Milner, Martin Parker, @kyrill.bsky.social, Anna-Maria Sichani and @paulawest.bsky.social as part of @braiduk.bsky.social are cited in the report on AI and creativity of the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights.
🔗 tinyurl.com/mr27r6h2

Yes that’s true. I guess the drive to do conferences in HCI is much greater. I’ve been lucky to have had good reviews but am pretty early career. As CHI AC everyone seemed to try their hardest… except for one 2AC whose review just copied the other two reviewers.

It’s so so much better than many other fields. You just happen to be doing very technical stuff where people can give technical reviews. I assure the process and content of social psychology or philosophy conference reviews is worse and often semi improvised.

Hjelmslev’s “Prolegomena to a Theory of language” is mathsy but obscure. Vladimir Propp or Eleazar Meletinsky maybe.

50 years of USSR and badge for category winner in a race

I got your book for UCL. Annoyingly I have to use the Adobe ebook reader to read it but look forward to it

Just to say I was premature in my judgement. The last chapter is impressive and original. I’m still puzzled why he started with Arendt but otherwise it’s worth reading

No assumptions. I’ve read the book. I just misremembered your use of Harari. No problem with you not engaging further

doi.org/10.56063/MS....

If we put it through Marx's value theory then we would need to hold in view the full valorisation process, including the ways in which value relates to our reproduction of our life activity. You seem to be saying "Well of course Bengio etc. are the experts so LTV is outdated".

Apologies, I seemed to remember you endorsing his "Homo Deus" concept

What other beings? What makes AI a being other than that Silicon Valley people read SciFi where it is?

The whole discussion of infrastructure and particularization of dead labour in Chapter 1 is great - but what kind of "being" is this AI other than a vampire sucking living labour?

But you have the causality backwards here - as masterfully laid out in 'The Eye of the Master'. Nothing remarkable about it

Interesting! Thanks

Don’t know who Slobodan is and only know limited stuff about Hayek’s use of neural nets for modelling stuff but definitely want to find out about it

So many people think Harari is some kind of genius prophet. Look forward to reading it

From a Marxist perspective, this is, to borrow Wittgenstein’s metaphor, like the right hand paying the left

Your thesis is that cognition is a series of heuristics performed by modules of the brain, which is what an AI does too. Where is the critique of transhumanism?

I don’t say you say it’s better but you’re keen on people like Yuval Harari who see this future God as inevitable

You are Landian, or at the very least opposing foundations of Marxism, for accepting that there can be “capitalism that happens without humans”. There can’t be Capitalism without labour power - the power to withhold labour and a metabolism that must be sustained by it

You very much do have an opinion on what the mind is. You think it’s a series of mechanisms the brain performs. More importantly, you believe these are algorithmically formalisable. You seem to go much of the way to agreeing with Timothy Morton in fact

Great thanks I’ll check it out!

I heard Steinhoff at the last Historical Materialism. He gave a good general overview of AI there too. I don’t agree with his views on psychology/cognitive science though. I’ll try to find the book you mention.

Yeah it’s fundamentally Landian in that the overall thesis is that a) the mind is a set of mechanical functions b) capitalism + tech can perform these functions better than us c) capitalism will go on much better without humans. What’s your book? Certainly interested to check it out