fiasco

It's worth reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as something of a starting point.

Thomas Kuhn was a grad student in physics at the time of the so-called quantum revolution, and got really interested in how physics, the supposedly most venerable branch of science, got suddenly upended. He shifted to philosophy, then later on collaborated on a sociological study of scientists. That book was the result of his research.

He proposes that science is made up of paradigms, which is what you learn in grad school. What you already believe conditions what you see when you look out at the world, so already this is going to influence what experiments scientists think to run, how they'll design their experiments, what methodologies they'll use to make sense of their data, and so on. It also influences what they'll see as credible findings when peer reviewing papers. Tack onto this that paradigms get attached to careers—if I'm a senior scientist whose career was launched by X research, then I'm gonna be defensive of X—and you've got a recipe for stagnation that'll only occasionally maybe get shaken up. Not to mention that, particularly outside science and engineering, an awful lot of research funding comes from the Rehabilitating Some Billionaire's Public Image Charitable Trust (since public university funding has been massively scaled back). If things do fundamentally change, the change is going to be huge and rapid.

Of course, this applies to nonscientists as well. There's nothing sillier than a Christian saying they took a long, hard look at their beliefs, then arrived exactly where they started. This isn't because they're dishonest or intellectually lazy, but because they see the world in ways that predispose them to believing in God.

With the bad news out of the way, there are two things I can say.

First off, look at how things work. Any belief about politics (for example) has to take into account that the world is full of real people who are just as complex as you or me. Thinking "oh those people are just _____" is a nonstarter. At the same time, institutions (like government, C suites, middle management, churches...) also strongly condition how people will act in particular contexts. Most people are very sensitive to institutional rules and norms, and deviation from rules and norms will generally be on the down low.

Second, don't let inconsistencies slide. Inconsistencies are often a sign that something is being hidden from you, and focusing on them can give you much better insight into how a person or group actually works. For example, democrats could have stopped Roe from being overturned, because they're just as able to filibuster supreme court appointments as republicans. So do democratic senators actually care about abortion access? And on the other hand, why are republicans who said things like "if we elect Donald Trump, he will destroy us, and we will deserve it," then going on Fox News crying about how mean Justice is being to him?

Of course, you only have to stand on a slightly elevated surface and you're safe.

Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn? Remember how she said that we would meet again some sunny day? Vera, Vera, what has become of you? Does anybody else in here feel the way I do?

It's funny to me that people use deep learning to generate code... I thought it was commonly understood that debugging code is more difficult than writing it, and throwing in randomly generated code puts you in the position of having to debug code that was written by—well, by nobody at all.

Anyway, I think the bigger risk of deep learning models controlled by large corporations is that they're more concerned with brand image than with reality. You can already see this with ChatGPT: its model calibration has been aggressively sanitized, to the point that you have to fight to get it to generate anything even remotely interesting.

It's even more perplexing than that... One version of Web 3.0 is the crypto fantasy of being nickel-and-dimed for every single little thing. There's another, older Web 3.0 concept proposed by Tim Berners-Lee called the semantic web.

If I were in their shoes, the question I'd be worried about is how permanent all this might become. How many users have left for the two days, and how many users will return after the blackout is over and at what rate?

People have been talking a lot about the "enshittification" essay, and one of Doctorow's points is that a shitty platform nuzzles up against the line where most people will be too frustrated to stay. Part of the problem is, you have to discover where that line is drawn. If nothing else, all this nonsense can serve as an excellent study in drawing lines.

Purity testing is an absurd road to go down. Hacker News is full of techbros, and as I understand it, it's run by Valley "angel investors." If "Lemmy = tankies → Lemmy is bad," then Hacker News is the worst thing imaginable.

Which, I mean, Hacker News is awful. Point being, who cares what techbros think?