Here's @vgr reflecting on the (computational) asymmetry between recognising a valid narrative structure, and generating an interesting story that is so validated. There's a couple recent threads in which I've talked about this in logical/computational terms, so I'll link below.
1. A thread responding to @cstross in which I discuss the how computational asymmetries articulate the aesthetic distinction between taste and inspiration:
3. A brief thread about #Coupanon, considering the sense in which narratives are (ana)logical structures that provide schematics for constructing/validating explanatory/predictive models:
5. And some more concrete thoughts trying to demystify the way in which Hegel uses such (dia)logical structures as narrative schema for building explanatory historical models:
This one is full of absolute bangers. It's all too easy to forget the sheer extent to which Mark *was* the insightful critic of philosophical trends that Harman so desperately wanted to be, but ultimately didn't have the hermeneutic charity or literary creativity to pull off.
Increasingly, I think the true problem of AGI is not really artificial intelligence, but artificial wisdom, insofar as artificial stupidity is the opposite of the latter, rather than the former. Yet 'wisdom' should not connote 'folksy', but something quite mathematically precise.
I think this is really what's going on in @NegarestaniReza's identification of the programme of AGI with philosophy as such in Intelligence & Spirit, beyond my own more modest claim that AGI is transcendental psychology. If you love wisdom, you should build it.
It's also the real content of the distinction between sentience and sapience that we both take from Sellars and Brandom, but which has deeper roots in the tradition of German Idealism. The defining characteristic of Homo sapiens is not brute intelligence, but strategic wisdom.
I suppose that my main takeaway from this is that r/wallstreetbets has enough collective consciousness to constitute something like a loose investment coop, something between a building society and an independent stock traders union. Robinhood have just poked this new beast.
Not saying this is a positive social formation, but it is new, and very interesting indeed. The current conjuncture is defined by private platforms exerting power over their users through network effect monopolies and similar positional niches. Coops are an implicit threat here.
What happens to our explanatory/predictive models of UK politics if we drop the assumption that the Tories are actually committed to preserving the Union, as opposed to say, maximising resource extraction and shoring up their power in a breakaway South-East rump state?
There are obviously plenty of Tories/Tory voters who are avowedly committed to preserving the Union, but the tides of opinion have a tendency to change all at once, when strategic realities involved in other commitments align in ways that cannot be ignored. What else is Brexit?
The Tories as a unitary political force haven't decided to turn the South East into Singapore on Thames, ringed by commuter belts and pocked with internal ghettos from which precarious essential labour can be drawn, but they also haven't been a unitary force for a while now.
The only thing that beats it are Seneca’s letters on suicide (emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2010/01/sen…): “It is criminal to “live by robbery”;[12] but, on the other hand, it is most noble to “die by robbery.” Farewell.”
@NegarestaniReza has done the deep reading on this topic though.
"Conceivably Manchester’s ambitious building programme, which includes for example the Alliance Manchester Business School with attached 19-storey hotel, reduced their ability to absorb the shock of the virus."
To be completely clear, universities were one of the last sectors to be fully infected by the mind-virus of general purpose management, a slow motion crash in which the worst of public and private sectors collided and destroyed the economic base of centuries old institutions.
Everything thats happening to UK universities are delayed consequences of choices made by New Labour in the 90s. Not just fees, but the whole metrics based approach to maximising student enrolment. It's so obvious that one feels a bit strange when it's said out loud in the media.