Peanut

Love this comment. If anyone knows anything about machine learning or brains, this resembles modal limitations in learning.

A lot of our intelligence is shaped around our sensory experience, because we build tools for thinking via the tools we’ve already built, ever since baby motorbabbling to figure how our limbs work. Why Hellen Keller had such trouble learning, but once she got an interface she could engage with for communication, things took off.

We always use different tools, but some people don’t see colour. This doesn’t mean they are stupid when they answer differently in describing a rainbow.

Also why llms struggle with visual/physical concepts if the logic requires information that doesn’t translate through text well. Etc.

Point being, on top of how shitty memorization is as the be all end all, learning and properly framing issues will have similar blindspots like not recognizing the anvil cloud.

This is also why people in informational bubbles can confirm their own model from ‘learning’ over people’s lives experiences.

Like most issues, it doesn’t mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but epistemic humility is important, and it is important not to ignore the possibility of blindspots, even when confidence is high.

Always in context of the robustness of the framing around it, with the same rules applied at that level. Why “nothing about us without us” is important.

But also we gotta stop people giving high confidence to high dissonance problems, and socializing it into law. We should be past the “mmr causes autism” debate by now, but I’m hearing it from the head of health in the USA.

I could see why you’d say that. Stress creates environments of basic survival, which kills cognitive thought. More immediate survival is more salient.

That being said, if you have access to the internet, you have access to countless free educational tools.

Too much privilege brings sycophantic bubbles of delusion, like billionaires.

Having all the time and money also let’s you do a whole thing tank about how to ruin a country to fit your preferences. See the heritage foundation as prime example.

That being said, while it is less easy for the poor, it’s still essential to attempt that open mind and learn, so you don’t get trapped by a socialized category error applied as fact.

This is where we need predictive processing and the Bayesian brain to understand how beliefs are weighted and compared, and the failure states that might being.

Basically, poor weighting or system communication leads to an over affirmation of something that should have been high uncertainty, if measured from other directions.

Instead of seeing high cognitive dissonance as a sign to align low probability, it gets socialized into acceptance to save the energy of trying to worry about our deal with what, to that system, appears intractable.

DKE is at least useful in framing how each expertise eco-niche is filled with complexity that doesn’t Transfer. This is why scientists stict to their expertise, where they have high dimensions of understanding, and low dissonance to uphold.

This can be over-prioritized until no dissonance outside of microscopic niches that act more like data collection than science.

Experts however can work together to find truths that diffuse dissonance generally, to continue building understanding.

If the peasants could socialize that laziness was a lack of meta awareness of the greater dissonance diffusing web of shared expert consensus, instead of laziness being the act of not feeding the socio-economic hierarchy machine, which is famous for maximizing paperclips and crushing orphans.

Pretty sure I got beaten black and blue waiting for library access. Had to protest to keep a library open when I’m gradeschool.

So, growth mindset isn’t a privilege, but general access to affordances, pedigree, time, tools, social connections, etc, are all extra hurdles for growth mindset in impoverished places.

If there’s no internet access at all, then that’s just a disabled system.

Is not static with people, and Issue with growth mindset would just be vulnerability to learning yourself into some information bubble that intentionally cuts off communication, so that you can only use that group as a resource for building your world model, bringing you to where the closed brains go just to save energy, and keeping you there forever.

Groups that are cool with making confident choices fueled by preference in high dissonance spaces. which basically acts like fertile soil for socializing strong cult beliefs and structures.

They also use weird unconscious tools that keep them in the bubble. Listen to almost anyone that’s escaped a cult for good elaboration there. Our brains will do a lot to keep us from becoming a social pariah in our given environment we have grown into.

Pro tip, find and listen to the plethora of historians and other experts on the classification and comparison.

Spoilers, MAGA keep following both the nazi and classic cold war Russian tactics for manipulation.

A lot.

Like, constantly. There are also enablers preventing opposition from gaining any ground.

Are they literal clones of Nazis? No, that’s impossible in a changing environment. That being said, they sure like to follow the nazi playbook in a way that sets alarms off in a way that would be pretty stupid to not have issues with.

At this point it’s “you can’t call them fascist/nazi until we are post-gas chamber,” and even then you will get people saying it’s not the same, for some stupidly specific yet mostly irrelevant differences.

So when the historians all cry “this is some nazi shit,” it might be disingenuous to compare it to more frivolous accusations.

Also there are a lot more valid historical comparisons, because the Nazis aren’t the only ones to do this shit, but they are a good example of the general shape.

edit: emphasis on cold war russian tactics and forward. putin’s russia is not a free democracy, nor a social democratic state. it’s more about how you interact with the oligarchy and fuck over all the out-groups that are convenient for your authoritarian rhetoric.

also nazi’s were textbook authoritarians. my guy, open any textbook ever on fascism, or just got to the wiki

first line "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe.[1][2][3] " next to a picture of hitler.

some of these takes gotta be fakes.

This is how I’ve been addressing it. Category error, because the current framing of sports is… Really dumb

Frankly most global level competition is just people flexing how make affordances people have. Imagine trying to ruin people’s lives to protect the sacred structure of mild eugenics through some social hierarchy or another.

But if ‘fairness’ is the goal, then the wealthy would be a much more deserving population to nerf or exclude.

Not that I think sports and competition are not valid forms of practice and fun, but you’re not as ‘better’ as you think because you had the resources to master an eco-niche that doesn’t actually do anything other than give you monkey hierarchy feelings. You also shouldn’t have the right to exclude people who make it hard to believe in that stupid oversimplified terrain that the preference style was built upon.

But TERFs and other bigots never got anywhere being thoughtful about others or the world they live in.

it sure as hell shouldn’t be making any important choices unilaterally.

and people actively using it for things like… face recognition, knowing it has bias issues leading to false-flagging for people with certain skin tone, should probably be behind bars.

although that stuff often feels more intentional, like the failure is an ‘excuse’ to keep using it. see ‘mind-reading’ tactics that have the same bias issues but still get officially sanctioned for use. (there’s a good rabbit hole there)

it’s also important to note that supporters of AI generally have had to deal with moving goalposts.

like… if linux fixed every problem being complained about, but the fact that something else was missing is now the reason linux is terrible, as if their original issue was just an excuse to hate on linux.

both issues of fanboys and haters are bad, and those who want to address reality, continue to improve linux, while recognizing and addressing the problems have to deal with both of those tribes attacking them for either not believing in the linux god, or not believing in the linux devil.

weirdly, actually understanding intelligent systems is a good way to deal with that issue, but unless you people are willing to accept new information that isn’t just blind tribal affirmation, they will continue to maximize paperclips, like a paperclip maximizer for whatever momentum is socially salient. tribal war and such.

i just want to… not ignore any part of the reality. be it the really cool new tools^ (see genie 3, which resembles what haters have been saying is literally impossible for a long time)^ but also recognizing the environment we live in. (google is pretty evil, rich people are taking over, and modern sciences have a much better framing of the larger picture that is important for us to socially spread.)

really appreciate your take!

“LLMs are not intelligent because they do not know anything. They repeat patterns in observed data.”

we are also predictive systems, but that doesn’t mean we are identical to LLMs. “LLMs are not intelligent because they do not know anything.” is just not true, without saying humans are not intelligent and do not know anything. there are some unaddressed framing issues in how it’s being thought about.

they “know” how to interpret a lot of things in a way that is much more environmentally adaptable than a calculator. language is just a really weird eco-niche, and there is very little active participation, and the base model is not updated as environments change.

this is not saying humans and LLMs are identical, this is saying that instead of the real differences, the particular aspect your are claiming shows LLMs aren’t intelligent… is a normal part of intelligent systems.

this is a spot somewhere in between “human intelligence is the only valid shape of intelligence” and “LLMs are literally humans”

as for vocabulary i’m always willing to help for those that can’t find or figure out tools to self-learn.

when i talk about ‘tribal’ aspects, i refer to the collapsing of complexity towards a binary narrative to fit to fit the preferences of your tribe, for survival reasons. i also refer to this as dumb ape brain, because it’s a simplification of the world to the degree that i would expect from literal apes trying to survive in the jungle, and not people trying to better understand the world around them. which is important when shouting your opinions to each-other in big social movements. this is actually something you can map to first principles and how we use the errors our models experience in order to notice things, and how we contextualize the sensory experience after the fact. what i mean is, we have a good understanding of this, but nobody wants to hear it from the people who actually care.

‘laziness’ should be a lack of epistemic vigilance, not a failure to comply to the existing socio-economic hierarchy and hustle culture. i say this because ignorance in this area is literally killing us all, including the billionaires that don’t care what LLMs are, but will use every tool they can to maximize paperclips. i’d assume that jargon should at least have salience here… since paperclip maximizing is OG anti-AI talk, but turns out is very important for framing issues in human intelligence as well.

please try to think of something wholesome before continuing, because tribal (energy saving) rage is basically a default on social media, but it’s not conducive to learning.

RLHF = reinforcement learning with human feedback. basically upvoting/downvoting to alter future model behaviour, which often leads to sycophantic biases. important if you care about LLMs causing psychotic breaks.

“inter-modal dissonance” is where the different models using different representations make sense of things, but might not match up.

an example is vision = signal saying you are alone in the room

audio signal saying there is someone behind you.

you look behind you, and you collapse the dissonance, confirming with your visual modality whether the audio modality was being reliable. since both are attempting to be accurate, if there is no precision weighting error (think hallucinations) a wider system should be able to resolve whether the audio processing was mistaken, or there is something to address that isn’t being picked up via the visual modality (if ghosts were real, they would fit here i guess.)

this is how different systems work together to be more confident about the environment they are both fairly ignorant of (outside of distribution.)

like cooperative triangulation via predictive sense-making.

i promise complex and new language is used to understand things, not just to hide bullshitting (like jordon peterson)

i’d be stating this to the academics, but they aren’t the ones being confidently wrong about a subject they are unwilling to learn about. i fully encourage going and listening to the academics to better understand what LLMs and humans actually are.

“speak to your target audience.” is literally saying “stay in a confirmation bubble, and don’t mess with other confirmation bubbles.” while partial knowledge can be manipulated to obfuscate, this particular subject revolves around things that help predict and resist manipulation and deception.

frankly this stuff should be in the educational core right now because knowing how intelligence works is… weirdly important for developing intelligence.

because it’s really important for people to generally be more co-constructive in the way they adjust their understanding of things, while resisting a lot of failure states that are actually the opposite of intelligence.

your effort in attempting this communication is appreciated and valuable. sorry that it is very energy consuming, something that is frustrating due to people like jordon peterson or the same creationist cults mired in the current USA fascism problem, who, much like the relevant politicians aren’t trying to understand anything, but to waste your energy so they can do what they want without addressing the dissonance. so they can maximize paperclips.

all of this is important and relevant. shit’s kinda whack by design, so i don’t blame people for having difficulty, but effort to cooperatively learn is appreciated.

cats also suck at analogies and metaphors, but they still have intelligence.

a rock could not accurately interpret and carry out complex adjustments to a document. LLMs can.

if the rock was… travelling through complex information channels and high-dimensional concept spaces to interpret the text i gave it, and accurately performed the requested task being represented within those words, yeah it might be a little intelligent.

but i don’t know any stones that can do that.

or are you referring to the ‘stochastic parrot’ argument which tries to demonize confabulatory properties of the model, as if humans don’t have and use confabulatory processes?

just because we have different tools we use along-side of those confabulatory processes does not mean we are literally the opposite.

or just find some people to be loud with you so you can ignore the context or presented dissonance. this is really popular with certain groups of ‘intelligent’ humans, which i often lovingly refer to as “cults,” which never have to spend energy thinking about the world, cause they can just confabulate their own shared idea of what the world is, and ignore anyone trying to bring that annoying dissonance into view.

also humans are really not that amazingly ‘intelligent’ depending on the context. especially those grown in an environment that does not express a challenging diversity of views from which to collectively reduce shared dissonance.

if people understood this, maybe we could deal with things like the double empathy problem. but the same social-confirmation modes ensure minority views don’t get heard, and the dissonance is just signal that we should collectively get mad at until it’s quiet again.

isn’t that so intelligent of humanity?

but no, let’s all react with aggression to all dissonance that appears, like a body that intelligently recognizes the threat of peanuts, and kills itself. (fun fact, cellular systems are great viewed in this lens. see tufts university and michael levin for some of the coolest empirical results i’ve ever seen in biology.

we need to work together and learn from our shared different perspectives, without giving up to a paperclip maximizing social confirmation bubble, confabulating a detached delusion into social ‘reality.’

to do this, understanding the complex points i’m trying to talk about is very important.

compressing meaning into language is hard when the interpreting models want to confabulate their own version that makes sense, but excludes any of your actual points, and disables further cooperative communication.

i can make great examples, but it doesn’t go far if people don’t have any knowledge of

-current sociology

-current neuro-psych

-current machine learning

-current biology

-cults and confirmation bubbles, and how they co-confirm their own reality within confabulated complexity.

-why am i trying so hard, nobody is actually reading this, they are just going to skim it and downvote me because my response wasn’t “LLMS BAD, LLMS DUMB!”

-i’m tired.

-i appreciate all of you regardless, i just want people to deal with more uncomfortable dissonance around the subject before having such strong opinions.

They’re just like us and smart!

responding like this after i just explained a bunch of the differences between us and LLMs is kind of dishonest. but you have to make me fit into your model, so you can just ignore my actual point, which was…“LLMs are the opposite of intelligence,” which fits the common take in the area that llms are absolutely ‘not intelligent’ and in no way shape or form similar to our form of intelligence.

i wouldn’t say they are “just like us and smart,” because that ignores… the whole point i was making in how they are more similar than being presented, but still a different shape.

like saying “animals are just as smart as humans!” humans are idiots when it comes to interpreting many animals, because they often have a very different shape of intelligence. it’s not about the animals being stupid, but the animals having their own eco-niche fit, and perspective drawn around that. this is also not me saying “animals have the opposite of intelligence” just because they don’t perform human tasks well.

even better once you start talking about the intelligence of cell groups. could you build a functional body with complex co-constructing organs? why are you more stupid than cell cultures? or people just generally have a shitty understanding of what intelligence is.

i disagree with both “LLMs are the opposite of intelligence” and your strawman.

imagine existing outside of tribal binary framing, because you think they don’t properly frame or resemble the truth.

“they only output something that resembles human language based on probability. That’s pretty much the opposite of intelligence.”

intelligence with a different shape =/= the opposite of intelligence. it’s intelligence of a different shape.

and humans also can’t deal with shit outside of distribution, that’s why we rely on social heuristics… that often over-simplify for tribal reasons, where confirmation bubbles can no longer update their models because they are trying to craft an environment that matches the group confabulation, rather than appropriately updating the shared model.

but suggesting AI is actually intelligence of a different shape guarantees downvotes here, because the tribe accepts no deviation, because that would make you an enemy, rather than someone who just… wants a more accurate dialogue around the context.

That’s… Not actually accurate, but it’s an accurate sounding confabulation that you could put out which collapses the energy you need to keep interpreting the problem.

Which IS what llms are doing. The failure comes from the incentive structure and style of intelligence. Very right we shouldn’t blind trust the responses though.

The criticism of “just probability” falls flat as soon as you recognize current expert consensus is that humans minds are… predictive processors, based on scale free principles leading to layered Bayesian predictive models.

Where LLMs struggle adapting to things outside of distribution (not in the training data) they do not have a way to actively update their weights and biases as they contextualize the growing novel context.

Also novel context is basically inevitable when interacting with real life, because our environments and preferences are also growing, so, they lack something very important for correcting weak confabulations that collapsed the predictive process into action. There’s also weird softmax/AI ‘reasoning’ fuzzyness helping to emulate some of the malleability of our more active ruminative, and very very social models.

I usually get downvoted for going against the narrative, but remember we normalize to the tribal opinions around us to socially collapse our group predictive model, because nuance takes energy. But if you can’t communicate, you can’t learn, and you display the same lack of intelligence as confident LLM confabulations.

I wish I heard people talking about this outside of strictly academic spaces, but communication channels need to be open.

Keep your eyes out for AI that is diverse, but good at communication/translation/meditation and actively grows.

Although you might see more like the genie3 stuff that is dealing with intermodal dissonance within a monolithic model perspective, which means always confabulating without using other models to actively balance and grow.

Well, attempts are being made to make up for that, but you can see how RLHF leads to sycophantic models that will confirm your own confabulations so that you can confirm each other into delusion without other systems for grounding

Then why aren’t we going after streaming, which currently is much worse for the environment?

Not that I don’t agree it should be salient, and caps should definitely be put on big companies for this kind of stuff, generally, only doing it for AI is not really doing much, but people don’t seem to care about actually improving thing rather than beating the tribal drum.

I agree with the need for action, my issue is the direction and framing, especially part the socially reified misinformation. Musk is a good target while he is ignoring current standards for generators and the like, but the general dialogue around that is full of made up numbers and claims, and nobody cares because it serves the tribal preference.

Like the idea that ai cuts and pastes existing work to make a new image. That’s not how it works, and artists used to attack artists for the same style “theft” that just doesn’t recognize how brains work, how human social learning works, or how art and styles develop over time.

Also the energy for conversation is being wasted on these moot points, rather than the larger systemic issues.

Also some of AI is being developed to directly counter that problem, but I don’t see much advocating for it in these spaces,

Rather it gets downvoted for “being AI,” completely ignoring why AI was supposed to be a problem in the first place, and void of any active effort to improve things.

Same communication issues affecting the socio-political sphere, which is why it’s good to learn generally about intelligent systems and how they work.

Like, how often do you hear people complain that AI is “just predictions systems” completely vacant of the understanding that we are all predictive systems, and predictive processing is the current general consensus in the nero-psych realm now. Etc.

Basically, like most complex things, it feels impossible to talk about because the simplified social model dominates discourse, and everyone hates scientists for trying to bring annoying reality, and diverse perspectives into the conversation.

I mean, learn about epistemics and you’ll learn more about AI. Although being familiar with diverse perspectives, while appropriately untangling the dissonance of their differences is basically the core of both AI and sociology.

But seeing artists get miffed because the Warner/Disney model of art economy might not be compatible with reality and positive growth of our species.

I hope we can at least both agree, eat the rich and bring back more diverse systems that can check and balance each other.

I’m extremely familiar, and definitely agree that the corpo paperclip maximizer will use any tool dishonestly if it helps them make paperclips. a lot of my critique is in the framing of the public dialogue, and how poorly informed much of it is. like with most things, it’s definitely important to deal with the rich assholes lying, and using functional tools for evil. both are bad, in neither situation are the tools the problem.

good example of elon musk lying about what his cars could do every year for the past decade, which i have heavily critiqued for as long as it’s been happening. definitely a real issue!

All i want is people not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Much like I don’t think uninventing the loom would either help people or solve the issue, AI is similar.

And the “scale only” people I mentioned are the only ones exclusively focused on llms, but nobody out there is just running a basic llm.

Frankly, the AI I’m most excited about is being grown from the opposite end, as diverse distributed collaborative networks that actively adapt to the shape of the context.

Honestly I think one of the most valuable things we will get that nobody talks about is functional mediators that can parse complex perspectival differences, enabling communications that have become difficult for our stupid tribal monkey species.

My issue with AI critique is its usually ungrounded and focused on hating AI, rather than the corpos who do bad stuff with every tool that exists, and lie about everything.

Even in more traditional AI models, they are currently right now doing things that are amazing, but people think they are just simple collage art stealing machines, with some confabulated interpretation of what it is doing.

But that topic also gets into the history of the art industry, who currently owns the larger art market, and how people define art and artists.

But if you actually address the issues, tribal ignorance ensures angry yelling rather than an actual attempt at learning what is being discussed.

To be fair, people like jordon peterson make people think complexity is unlearnable, because they use it to obfuscate rather than elucidate. So there are definitely valid issues to talk about, but outside of “scale is everything,” the focus on critiquing llms ignores every other part of AI, because they are harder to make people angry about. Unless you have a bunch of ignorant people who you can spur into the same stupid aggression that existed during the tumblr “you’re stealing my style!” wars. Because they can’t comprehend how art is all built socially, and nobody painted anime on cave walls.

Complex issues, lot of rabbit holes, but ignorance and tribalism are currently the main shapes of actual critique.

but i think developing functional intelligent systems will hinder bad actors more than they expect. see elon musk fighting to get his shitty llm to lie for him without also losing touch with everything else, picking and choosing where to ignore dissonance is a funny thing that humans are very susceptible to abusing.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Edit: love the downvotes, but could i ever get a reason for what was actually objectionable in my comment? other than requiring you to maybe think differently about something you already had your mind made up about? i’m sorry if i offended defector.com for not properly framing the problem.

blind tribal reaction is the only way i guess.

– Love a good strawman in the morning.

Those feeling a chill in the air are the “scale only” peeps, who were all in on not thinking too hard about the problem. Those focused on more than selling LLMs have a very different framing.

As for why AI agents aren’t functional, we do actually have a better understanding that doesn’t seem to want to leak out of niche academic areas.

The amount we’ve learned about intelligent systems this past half decade feels like a whole new world.

Deskilling is an issue already without AI. To summarize, minimizing energy expenditure is very important due to evolutionary history. No just to people, but to group that creates simplified models that don’t disturb people’s normal trajectory. Cause learning a new model to predict the world takes energy. They do this by making predictable heuristics that are functional enough, but allow the daily scripts to continue unhindered. These simplified heuristics sometimes are too simple, and not robust enough to survive when the environment changes. Think pandas, who got deskilled at staying alive outside of a very specific environment.

So. In the same way humanity needs to learn to become more robust via diverse but communication focused intelligent systems. Anyone in social sciences knows that evidence strongly shows that diversity representation is weirdly good for any intelligent group.

Similarly, the better forms of AI currently being ignored are actually built from that end of things, rather than trying to force all perspectives and preferences to live simultaneously in a single model. It creates informational and contextual choke points.

Also wish i could run into more people who actually study intelligence in these threads.

Clickbait journalism is a scourge on science. At least the public awareness of sycophantic echo chambers enabling delusional spirals is something good for people to think about,

Since any idea can survive in a similar segregated confirmation bubble that mechanically cuts off outside ideas and education to preserve the existing group world model.

And i keep saying laziness should be described by such solipsism, but instead you get called lazy if you aren’t feeding your full life to the machine.

Just wish progressive public discourse was more generally informed in this area, because it’s very important to understanding society, our bodies, and intelligent systems as a whole.

the issue is that this is a lot of assumption on the comment’s intention in their response to OP. i feel the emphasis keeps moving back to how they misinterpreted OP, and their failing in doing so. i’m both recognizing their ‘failing,’ but also suggesting that it is more of an issue on how people are interpreting it as invalid via their own biases and preferences.

not projecting the same preference becomes seen as ‘misreading the room,’ rather than a valid response for a different type of person. it becomes assumed as intentionally, or definitively ‘rude’ rather than just a different, and still valid way of responding to the information provided for some people.

i assume nothing negative was meant by it, even if it wasn’t the implied commiseration op was looking for, this does not make it suddenly antagonistic. the issue is that so many view it immediately as antagonistic or ‘wrong,’ where it could have been entirely valid were i OP, and saying the same thing as OP. we all have many blindspots, and some things aren’t always salient.

if you experience this reaction every time society sees that you interpreted things differently, you get a bunch of autistic people (or other groups in preference/experiential minority) hating life. this is also indicative of many other communication failures due to excess fitting towards homogeneity and unconsciously creating social rules to keep things simple and energy free. if you are a surprising element, you get chastised for making others expend energy interpreting your model, because you haven’t successfully been beaten into being less noticeable, even if it completely denies your lived reality. see gay conversion therapy/ABA (same source) for how that tactic is often applied.

not to escalate, but a constant barrage of these experiences, often without such context being given, leads to many otherwise well-adjusted autistic people hating life, and opting out enitrely. this is why i feel compelled to promote understanding of the different styles of interpretation. i don’t want to lose any more friends.

many autistic people are already trying, but the communication failure isn’t just on their side of the interaction. but it’s easier to tar and feather the person as an easy pariah than to try and consider how the perspective may have had intention less as a slight, and more as a valid recommendation for those who have a different dialect for interpretating “…see a movie.”

i suggest looking up any autistic experiences, because a lot boil down to trauma of escalated antagonism just for existing and not already having the exact preferences of others, which makes predicting them impossible without a doctorate in non-autistic preference modelling, and writing that over your whole existence any time you interact with the public.

also understanding the double empathy problem can help with many other communication difficulties in non homogeneous groups

makes sense. i’m coming to see how people do this, but it’s still baffling to me. by ‘this’ i mean socially affirming each-other, rather than trying to interact with the issue in any way. not just as preferred, but as a forced exclusive.

also legitimately sorry that i can’t compress the whole picture to a quick quip.

but what i meant by my comment was as much asserting that the comment being downvoted to oblivion was possibly more misinterpreted in intent and meaning than their own interaction with OP’s meme.

i see it as low dimensional communication exacerbating the size of blindspots for the whole of what is being communicated, because everyone is trying to reduce the energy consumption of language by socially affirming heuristics built on salient preference. this can be mapped to first principles from friston’s free energy principle, into active inference. MITpress has a good textbook for it, although there’s been a lot of new work since then. those who don’t naturally share that preference become ‘wrong’ for communicating what they could interpret without having that same importance given tothings they might not think about, like social ego stroking over just interacting with the concept sans ego.

more commonly, people are becoming familiar with the ‘double empathy problem’ basically a context and language equivalent to yelling at the autistic kid for not making levels of eye contact that they find painfully intimate and uncomfortable. yes, the local community can think eye contact is ‘just having basic manners’ or ‘just being a decent person,’ but forcing them to do it, and creating a majority salient confirmation bubble chastising them for not doing it constantly and confidently is salt in the wound.

again, thank you for reading this far if you has. none of this is accusatory towards anyone, just an honest attempt at noting current popular communication failures and how to frame them.

the double empathy problem also applies to most predictive models projecting in differently socialized spaces. it’s good for people to comprehend.

As an autistic person who sees information sharing as more valid and respectable than affirming possible ignorant perspectives for the sake of obtuse social saliency, all I see is a fact and a valid question.

Also valid advice for those with money. If you can save money from a theater ticket to another Disney slop live action remake, and donate that money to independent artists trying to survive and simultaneously have a voice despite the Disney/warner types stranglehold over sellable cinema for most public spaces.

People get so upset when anything questions their current trajectory, rather than saying “oh yeah, that’s a valid perspective to avoid the issue in context.”

And gets a lot of autistic people yelled at for doing their job or trying to help, IMO.

Is there a reason the advice and question aren’t valid? To me the only rudeness here is in the framing of the rebuke.

This isn’t trying to one up anyone, this is an attempt to communicate, and improve people’s ability to communicate.

I’ve even seen doctors excuse bullying of autistic children because the child joined discussion of test scores without pandering to the ego of people that were socially affirming how terrible the test must be, due to their performance.

At this point people need to start trying to understand the double empathy problem, because it’s valid for more cases of communication differences than just autism.

Thank you for reading!

read it more as a commentary on passive learning over hands on and thought provoking methods. although this rhetoric is likely often included in the anti academic opinions that seek to damage rather than improve schools, which you refer to.

I wish the Conservatives all understood that their more progressive values are progressive, and when right wing parties will say they are going to ‘change’ things, they just mean regress and destroy in abject ignorance of any actual thought.

The former interpretation of the comic is definitely important, as learning is actually tied to turning your brain on and interacting with the concept, more than no context single fact retrievals, where most of the question is set up, and your actual interaction with it is minimal.

Although I don’t doubt a lack of teachers, schools, or general funding are to blame for the simpler methods. Not that I haven’t had a couple teachers who didn’t care two cents past the booklets they handed you.

So, your point is valid and important, but there is an important “style” of education issues that is also valid.

Be wary of divisive rhetoric. They drum up legitimate grievance on every side and then, pretending to be every side, start pointing fingers.

Like a reverberating snowball that prevents actual communication and gets their enemies working for them, usually due to a semantic or experiential difference between groups. This creates targets who in defending themselves are confused with the actual enemies using defensive or questioning rhetoric to obfuscate.

Wish there were proper places to cooperatively map and respond to these divisive manipulations.

Most attempts get astroturfed using semantic drift to drum up more division, preventing any development.

Same thing happened to discredit BLM, which was the largest target for Russian propaganda. Etc

Why is there nothing about what people were doing with their brains in either state? Is this just correlation? The definition of “sedentary behavior” was even noted as vague in the study. Why are people drawing such strong conclusions? I fucking hate journalism.

It’s the “you stole my style” artists attacking artists all over again. And digital art isn’t real att/cameras are evil/cgi isn’t real art all over with a more organic and intelligent medium.

The issue is the same as it has always been. Anything and everything is funneled to the rich and the poor blame the poor who use technology, because anthropocentric bias makes it easier to vilify than the assholes building our cage around us.

The apple “ecosystem” has done much more damage than AI artists, but people can’t seem to comprehend how. Also Disney and corpos broke copyright so that its just a way for the rich to own words and names and concepts, so that the poor can’t use them to get ahead.

All art is a remix. Disney only became successful using other artists hard work in the Commons. Now the Commons is a century more out of grasp, so only the rich can own the artists and hoard the growth of art.

Also which artists actually have the time and money to litigate? I guess copyright does help some nepo artists.

Nepotism is the main way to earn your right to invest into becoming an artist that isn’t fatiguing towards collapse of life.

But let’s keep yelling at the technology for being evil.