What do you mean when you say “political”?

That’s a historical text interpretation of the Bible, which is legit to me. However I’d say only a minority of practicing Christians regard it that way. With the rest, you have more fundamentalist views of the Bible as the literal word of God and the flexible view of it as metaogorical teachings inspired by God. Therefore these views treat the Bible specifically as authoritative, timeless, and divine, elevating it above a mere human document and transcendent of historical context. Timothy 3:17 seems to reflect the common idea that “the Bible is the only book you need”.

I do agree that one can make a historical argument for an interpretation of scripture, and maybe even do so in a way that reifies one’s personal relationship with God. However it doesn’t engage with the Bible the way most Christians do and therefore is not likely to be all that persuasive.

Exactly. People need to take in the full context. Here is the full chapter, with the quote in the final paragraph, which… Makes the quote even worse?

Instructions on Worship

2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Are trying to say Timothy 2:12 is old testament?

Sit the fuck down.

Yes, people keep finding ways to put others down in order to feel superior. It’s called being a bully. When everything was “blame and shame millenials for this”, there was a section of us millenials that swore we’d break the cycle of generational blaming. Now it’s all about blaming and shaming Gen-Z, because that shit gets clicks. Apparently being a bully never really goes out of style.

Fuck AI, it’s a bubble, etc. But I do wonder how much of the spending is actual revenue-generating operating costs and how much is further investment/R&D. I doubt Sam Altman sees spending Microsoft’s billions on whatever tf he wants as a loss.

I suspect survivability bias plays into it, as I imagine an empathetic and self-reflective anti-war film in the is more likely than a straight “US are the villains” film to be funded and see financial, and therefore popular, success in the US. It makes sense why domestic industries will tend to tell domestic-facing stories. I’d say the size of the US film industry means you actually get more diversity in war films compared to ones you see in places like Japan or Germany.

Oof don’t get me started. He read that line from Hawking and stuck to it. I had a blast watching nuCosmos when it came out and he’s done plenty good science communication, but Carl Sagan he is not.

It’s not a new thing. The same issues were the case for television, radio, and newspapers. They had to teach media literacy before the internet too. You go back into the archives and you’ll see some wild misinformation that’s very reminiscent of what we see on the internet. We did have a brief few decades where we had a more consistent and adhered to set of standards, but these were by no means universal. The perception of reliable information is also skewed the combination of being less aware of misinformation when younger and by a unique period where mass reputable media were all saying the same thing… But that also meant they were leaving the same things out.

But the internet did change things. Standards have been blown up, misinformation is much faster and the volume of it is much higher. Our brains couldn’t keep up with 24hr news channels, let alone the cesspools of social media we have now.

Here’s a psychological discussion that expands on that idea: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22000719

That’s why you teach philosophy and critical thinking. Science will follow if that’s the kid’s interest. But learning to be being self-aware of your own position amongst others, including the position of Science, is key.

I am sympathetic to the frustration with and resistance to feeling marketed to, but this person just seems to lack self-awareness… And lack of awareness in general. Not a good look.

I won’t assume he’s representative of large swathes of developers 👀👀👀

XD

Sure, but that true AI won’t just involve an LLM, it will be a complex of multi-modal models with specialization and hierarchy–thats basically what big AIs like GPT-5 are doing.

Lol the point about “don’t dehumanize” has nothing to do about them or feeling bad for them. They can fuck right off. It’s about us not pretending these aren’t human monsters, as if being human makes us inherently good, as if our humanity somehow makes us inherently above doing monstrous things. No, to be human is to have the capacity for doing great good and for doing the monstrously terrible.

Nazis aren’t monsters because they’re inhuman, they’re monsters because of it. Other species on the planet might overhunt, displace, or cause depopulation through inadvertent ecological change, but only humanity commits genocide.

This is closer to what I mean by strategy and decisions: https://matthewdwhite.medium.com/i-think-therefore-i-am-no-llms-cannot-reason-a89e9b00754f

LLMs can be helpful for informing strategy, and simulating strings of words that may can be perceived as a strategic choice, but it doesn’t have it’s own goal-oriented vision.

Buddam tsssss! I too enjoy making fun of big business CEOs as mindless trend-followers. But even “following a trend” is a strategy attributable to a mind with reasoning ability that makes a choice. Now the quality of that reasoning or the effectiveness of that choice is another matter.

As tempting as it is, dehumanizing people we find horrible also risks blinding us to our own capacity for such horror as humans.

No, it’s not paradoxical. You are conflating time points.

I won’t debate the “value” of CEOs, but in this system, their value is subject to market conditions like any other. Human computers were valued much more before electrical computers were created. Aluminum was worth more than gold before a fast and cheap extraction process was invented.

You could not replace a CEO with a Palm pilot 10 years ago.

They… don’t make strategic decisions… That’s part of why we hate them no? And we lambast AI proponents because they pretend they do.