“Firstly, the deconstruction of false problems (problematizations) that emerge under the computational paradigm: ‘How long before we can model human consciousness?’, ‘When will we be able simulate/replicate human experience?’, ‘How long before we ‘decipher’ the (allegedly) mathematical nature of the universe?’, ‘Is Artificial Sentience possible?’ ‘Will AI take over?’ etc. Throwing these into the trash bin of ideology.” Feels good to read something that applies the “deconstruction through vibes” of French inspired philosophy to the #AI stuff (2024, so much has changed), I’m so tired of the anti/pro AI that is ultimately the same discourse, just from two opposites fronts, each reinforcing each other. There’s a frame to be broken here when talking about word and image machines being able to replicate so much of what we thought was human, and what the role of that “stringing patterns together as human labor” is (or increasingly, was). Climate impact or not, sv driven tech bubble or not, this is a fundamental question that cannot be put back in the box, and that IMO has no real precedent. Social and political implications, sure, there’s lots of parallels to be drawn and a lot of theory and history to look at. The impact of a word machine on our identities, especially the identity of programmers, whose labor for the most part was stringing well known patterns together and hoping to not fuck it up, is profound and deeply unsettling. We now have to strip out all the layers of pattern matching to get at the core of what makes us human. IMO hiding and rejecting “ai slop code” is akin to “I want to do sudoku and get recognition/payment for it”, which would be awesome, and it was kind of awesome while it lasted, but very different from what software engineering is becoming. #llms #llm