• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 28th, 2026

help-circle




  • Language is an evolving, organic tool, and attempting to police it usually says more about the person doing the policing than the person speaking. When we start labeling certain verbiage as “correct” or “incorrect,” we aren’t actually protecting the language; we are just enforcing a personal or social preference.

    Communication is about the transmission of ideas. If the message was received, the language did its job. Whether it was delivered with a academic precision or through “crass” slang is irrelevant to its functional success. Demanding that everyone adhere to a specific aesthetic or moral standard of speech is just a subtle way of trying to control how others express their reality. If you make certain words the enemy, you’re essentially arguing for a narrow, sterilized version of expression that leaves no room for the raw or the unconventional. It’s better to engage with the actual argument being made rather than retreating into the safety of tone policing.




  • a fanciful answer i heard was that “humans are how the universe perceives itself,” and a person could be forgiven for thinking that the point of humans is to do science. closer to the ground, the point of humans seems to be to alter our surroundings to suit our society: kind of like ants. we build, we live, we reproduce, we spread. it’s not a good thing or a bad thing, it just is what it is.


  • utility has several virtues, but i agree that it’s not the end-all/be-all. strictly speaking the “point” of any living thing is to pass it’s genes by reproduction, but in a complex and evolving world there are lots of animals that have a “point” in existing. oysters filter water, worms enrich soil, birds spread seeds, bees pollinate flowers, there are primary decomposers and secondary decomposers and tertiary decomposers and some birds build nests in trees and squirrels hide nuts and, you get the picture?

    then there are other animals that we have changed for their utility. cows, pigs, chickens, and sheep are delicious and they would not make up such a share of modern biomass if we didn’t industrialize their slaughter. in some cases the point of an animal is that we’re gonna eat it.

    if you’re an emotion-forward person you might think “oh, no, that’s terrible!” and you’re allowed to feel that way but usually things are the way they are for a bunch of reasons. feelings are great but food security is better. utility also has a role to play in conservation: we’re having a great time with industry but if the earth suffers catastrophic ecological collapse, the whole party stops.





  • hi, i have strong feelings about the use of genai but i come at it from a very different direction (story writing). it’s possible for someone to throw together a 300 page story book in an afternoon - in the style of lovecraft if they want, or brandon sanderson, or dan brown (dan brown always sounds the same and so we might not even notice). now, the assumption that i have about said 300 pager is that it will be dogshit, but art is subjective and someone out there has been beside themselves pining for it.

    but this has always been true. there have always been people churning out trash hoping to turn a buck. the fact that they can do it faster now doesn’t change that they’re still in the trash market.

    so: i keep writing. i know that my projects will be plagiarized by tech companies. i tell myself that my work is “better” than ai slop.

    for you, things are different. writing code is a goal-oriented creative endeavor, but the bar for literature is enjoyment, and the bar for code is functionality. with that in mind, i have some questions:

    if someone used genai to generate code snippets and they were able to verify the output, what’s the problem? they used an ersatz gnome to save them some typing. if generated code is indistinguishable from human code, how does this policy work?

    for code that’s been flagged as ai generated- and let’s assume it’s obvious, they left a bunch of GPT comments all over the place- is the code bad because it’s genai or is it bad because it doesn’t work?

    i’m interested to hear your thoughts







  • i didn’t like ∆V, but i almost loved it. i thought it was neat that you could hire crew that gave different bonuses depending upon their specialty and experience. i thought it was neat that your crew can recognize other folks you come across in the rings. i thought it was really neat when one of those strangers told my crewmate about an anomalous lidar contact they made further in.

    as i got closer to coordinates they shared, tracking this enormous lidar contact: it occured to me that if the developers had seized upon this moment with eldritch horror that it would be my favorite game ever. i felt scared, if that rock turned around and had an eye and then a dozen rock tentacles busted into my ship and squeezed all the blood out of my crew – it would have been my favorite game.


  • there are many use-cases, and you’ve neglected one: linguistic analysis can be used to identify a person and to link them to other accounts. i’m not saying it’s likely or apocalyptic, but it is true and present. using an LLM to “sanitize” your outputs can prevent this.

    from a privacy perspective, everyone should do this using a locally hosted LLM. from a person-that-uses-the-internet perspective, i would absolutely hate it if every article and every comment looked like an identical brand of ai slop.