ah, here it is! we were trying to remember this: the tweet in which @fchollet eloquently demonstrated their incompetence at understanding how perception works, on a fundamental level.
this mountebank thinks that expectation precedes perception.
to put it more bluntly, @fchollet thinks that perceiving things starts with knowing what you want to perceive first. there's a word for this sort of perception: it's called BIAS. Chollet has, in his tweet, described *perceptual bias*: applying filters to one's perceptions.
(2/x)
why would @fchollet make such an elementary blunder? well, likely Chollet (in common with most #computer professionals these days) is hideously biased about most things. the high-tech field, especially in the higher echelons of management, is sodden with bias and bıgotry.
(3/x)
but there's a technical issue at work here: @fchollet works not with reality but with computers, and computers only do what they're told to do. living organisms have broad-spectrum perceptual apparatus; computerized devices, however, tend towards extreme specialization.
(4/x)
the *reality* of perception is that the perceiving entity may be exposed to _any stimulus_, whether or not it's one that they're conditioned to expect. applying fixed expectations to perception is only a _hindrance_ to effective perception—a *bias*.
(5/x)
the more conditions you place on your perceptions, the less you're able to perceive: your biases screen out anything that doesn't fit preconceived expectations.
how this applies to the likely perceptive ability of @fchollet...I leave as an exercise to the reader.
of *course* @sama's fake ChatGPT miracle relies upon an army of underpaid workers just out of sight! of _course_ it does! this is the work of modern #programmers, people without any known sense of ethics—and people stupid enough to believe their own lies.
the corporate #AI debacle deserves a proper dissection. the situation is appalling: people like @sama and @demishassabis make promises about their marvellous universal thinking machines that are *just shy* of outright fraud. and they program the machines with their own inanity.
that's the real problem here: @sama and @fchollet and all the other computer technicians who make grandiose promises and proclamations about #AI and "intelligence" are, to put the matter bluntly, completely incompetent at judging *anyone's* intellect, least of all their own.
we in the Pnictogen Wing are perhaps nearly alone in thinking that "flat-Earth" people, i.e. human beings who cling to the notion that the Earth is not a spheroid but instead a disc, are not totally pointless.
flat-Earthers are, for most of Western society, safe targets.
(1/x)
for that reason alone, we are drawn to try understanding the phenomenon better, rather than simply discard flat-Earthism and its adherents as worthless and laughable.
what drives a person to endorse such a quixotic worldview, one that insures their permanent ostracism?
(2/x)
there's emotional benefits to belonging in a mostly-despised faction, of course. the faction experiences so much pressure from outside, the society *inside* the bubble is practically forced to be orderly and well-disclipined—a safe haven from an otherwise chaotic world.
#capitalism is essentially *backwards* looking. yes, capitalists attempt to pretend that they're the masters of #innovation and advancement of #technology, the builders of the #future, and all that.
it's lies—mere #marketing. capitalists do not like progress or change.
(1/x)
corporate #management and #executive persons want one thing above all others: guaranteed #money. they want *safe bets*. they don't want #competition or #risk; they want a steady source of "passive income" that always goes up and up.
(yes, I know that #capitalism and the #business community, not to mention all #politics and #journalism these days, blame #inflation on the profligate #consumer—but in reality, inflation occurs because capitalists always want *more #money*; it has to come from somewhere.)
#Christians and #Christianity are infamously *randy* and sex-obsessed, and it's difficult to accept that this fact is widely grasped and understood, yet it's still socially forbidden to bring it up. it's *rude* to point out too loudly that Christians are fixated on sex.
(1/x)
in the #Bible Belt of America, churches exist cheek-by-jowl with porn shops—American #Christians consume more pornography than the rest of America, and engage in enthusiastic commerce for the satisfaction of their sexual pleasures.
and they can't stop talking about it.
(2/x)
one senses that they *speak from experience*. reactionary right-wing #Christians of the @dalepartridge / @MattWalshBlog sort love blithering about the evils of fleshly pleasures in such a way that lets us know, they're thinking about these things a lot. they are *tempted*.
one of the most curious stories that came out during the 2016 campaign, during which the inept candidacy of @HillaryClinton succumbed to the neo-fascıst movement and @mtaibbi's best friend @realDonaldTrump, was this act of petty corporate theft.
Trump, or rather his tax-shelter @TrumpFoundation (every rich #entrepreneur-criminal has a "foundation" of some sort, useful both for tax purposes and as a place to furnish sinecure jobs to cousins and loyal toadies and so on), was accused of fiddling money from a charity.
(2/x)
@realDonaldTrump's @GOP defenders (*not* including @mtaibbi, whose fandom for Trump and the GOP was predictably late in developing) tried to pretend that Trump or his people couldn't have possibly done such a thing: after all, Trump's already rich! on paper, anyway.
none of us in the Pnictogen Wing is an expert in semiotics—that's the academic discipline pertaining to the study and meaning of *symbolism*. but we feel that we've been forced to take an amateur interest in the field mostly because *symbols* are much abused and exploited.
right-wing frauds like @jordanbpeterson and @ConceptualJames have done a land-office business in pretending to be experts in symbolism.
political ideologues, particularly reactionary #conservative ideologues, know that symbols are powerful, and wish to seize that power.
(2/x)
consider that diagram of Peterson's, the one I cited earlier—the concentric circles on a grey field labelled "The Dragon of Chaos". I'll copy it here for convenience.
I perceive that Peterson is consciously imitating the style of a *scientific* or technical diagram.