Interesting articles thread

[dot]

Romance Novels, Generated by Artificial Intelligence

Oh my.. recently went to an AI event and they said that some soccer articles from lower leagues are already written by robotics.. one should look if they sound like your go-to generic summary.

[Pallas]

Romance Novels, Generated by Artificial Intelligence

I hope you’ve enjoyed computer-generated romance novel titles half as much as I have. Maybe someone out there can write about the Virgin Viking, or the Consultant Count, or the Baby Surgeon Seduction. I’d buy it.

I want to write about Private Part and His Pregnant Prince.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

The Onion: Dazed Jeff Bezos Realizes He Spent Entire Conversation Thinking About How To Automate Person Talking To Him

[FarDraft]

^One thing that flabbergasts me is how closed and separate - how specialized people are becoming earlier and earlier, and it's very noticeable that they are failing to make connections between different fields of knowledge and ideas because of it. Even simple analogies fail to reach a lot of people because of the narrowness of their focus. Deep, cross-disciplinary learning, enhancement of creativity, and problem-solving bring true value to the world and the person themselves imo. And I don't mean being a dilettante, just dabbling in this and that, I mean really bringing things together with understanding and depth.

-And of course I've always agreed that the physical cannot be divorced from the mental, that we are whole people and each aspect works together.

At the very high levels, it makes a lot of sense as to why this is occurring. In pure math, for example, to even understand a single paper in a field you need to understand an immense amount of literature that came before it. Undergraduate degrees don't even begin to cover all this specialized material since the field has gotten to the level of depth to where analogies are so hard. Grothendieck was known for his ability to "see analogies between analogies", allowing him to make such deep reformulations of old fields and develop completely new ones. While I'm no where near the upper echelon's of these subjects, I can see the immense difficulty that is to come with the attempt.

At low levels, I agree that this is a big problem. I think it's partially because students are taught to memorize in most institutions rather than deduce from principles or use their imagination. They're given the same physics problems rather than being forced to imagine the physical circumstance and then apply their knowledge of formulas by figuring out the useful parameters of the system. Or they're given the same style essay topics instead of actually being allowed to develop their own ideas and interpretations of the story, which would force them to read critically and interpret substructures, which develops logical and imaginative thinking skills.

My high school physics teacher forced us to do this and I can testify that I learned a lot about physics, and about myself, in the process, and so I think you nailed that aspect. For instance, I realized that my thinking style is incredibly visual. If I can visualize it, then I can solve it - and it doesn't have to be a concrete visualization. For subjects like economics or mathematics, using analogies to visualize often makes things much easier for me. But naturally, my interests stray towards visual subjects like physics, engineering, and computer science, which helped me figure out possible career prospects. Moreover, giving students challenging problems makes them appreciate the subject more since it isn't just about passing a class but realizing the depth of knowledge humans have uncovered. Learning how things work and what it can be used for at a principle level teaches students how to think.

Of course the problem is feasibility for this. How do we change the education system properly? I haven't investigated that system enough to tell, but I think it's important to reform that system for a number of reasons.

[Adam Strange]

The Day I Stopped Believing in American Democracy

One, it is nice that he finally woke up. Two, America was never a democracy. It is a Republic.

[squark]

One, it is nice that he finally woke up. Two, America was never a democracy. It is a Republic.

democratic republic, yes, but that doesn't really take away from the main point, nor the people like Tocqueville that he quotes who is specifically referring to our system of governance. The issue is of turning it from a democratic republic where presumably elected officials represent the will of the people at large, into an oligarchic republic controlled solely by the wealthy elite - much simpler and clearer to focus on the shifts and changes than to get super nitpicky about terms. To be fair, it's doubtful (to me) that it was ever truly a democratic republic considering only "the right people" were allowed to vote etc.

[Adam Strange]

I never really got why anyone would want to memorize a bunch of philosophies other people came up with and debate them. What's the point? Imo, if you can't think on your own, with your own ideas, you probably can't think at all.

Edit: ILIs seem to often be really into this kind of thing, also some IEIs . . . Ni trying to make sense of Ti? idk

Philosophy has always seemed to me to be a lot of BS attempting to justify a personal, individual bias.

I think that the only things I've encountered which I would never have thought of myself are:

1. The concept of geometric "proofs". If you create some carefully constructed definitions, then you can "prove" some things.
2. The fact that you can use math to predict the future to some degree of accuracy: Newton's laws, statistical mechanics.
3. Many systems can be treated as if they are actually made of information.
4. You can use the method of "reverse entropy deconvolution" to accurately predict the details of an image that are blurred by turbulent clouds.
5. The fact that you can group people into behavior-predictive categories by their faces. (Socionics)

I think that all of these things heavily involve Ti and I, apparently, am Ti-Ignoring.

[Singu]

@Adam Strange
I do think arguing philosophy is often just done to justify personal bias. The very very little I looked into it, I saw Ti-based philosophies, Te-based philosophies and I imagine there are Fi-based and Fe-based and etc and so on. So, the arguments are often simply arguments of value.

Or... why do you not think that Socionics is just categorization of already-existing philosophies and philosophies that existed before?

People change their philosophies over time, you know. They go from "Te-based philosophy" to "Ti-based philosophies" or whatever that you wish to categorize as.

Edit: I don't think philosophy itself is BS necessarily, as it underscores how we approach various topics, but the devoting oneself to studying and debating it without applying it at all, does seem rather pointless to me.

Sure, I used to have the same view of philosophy as being pointless and a waste of time, but again my view of philosophy changed over time.

[Metamorph]

Sure, I used to have the same view of philosophy as being pointless and a waste of time, but again my view of philosophy changed over time.

She said she only thinks it's a waste if you never use it. I agree with her position over yours and over Adam Strange's (former?) position that philosophy sucks.

These forums are absolutely contaminated with postmodernism though. Also, wake up because I've done more to fight it off than you have.

[Singu]

She said she only thinks it's a waste if you never use it. I agree with her position over yours and over Adam Strange's (former?) position that philosophy sucks.

Well actually I don't really care much for philosophy, just epistemology. And you apply epistemology to science or when you come up with scientific theories, or even any kind of theories. It improves your overall thoughts on things.

These forums are absolutely contaminated with postmodernism though. Also, wake up because I've done more to fight it off than you have.

The problem is much bigger than this forum. Postmodernism isn't that big of a problem in say, the US because most people don't care much for it.

But really the biggest beef that I have with is people who just want to blindly defend whatever it is that they want to defend, usually some authority or pet theories or governments or corporations or nations.

[Metamorph]

Well actually I don't really care much for philosophy, just epistemology. And you apply epistemology to science or when you come up with scientific theories, or even any kind of theories. It improves your overall thoughts on things.

Epistemology being useful is an argument for philosophy being useful. Of course, most people mentally think of philosophy exclusively as ethics and then think it's for bad people who reject religion which is not even true of ethics, never mind epistemology, metaphysics, etc.

The problem is much bigger than this forum. Postmodernism isn't that big of a problem in say, the US because most people don't care much for it.

But really the biggest beef that I have with is people who just want to blindly defend whatever it is that they want to defend, usually some authority or pet theories or governments or corporations or nations.

Postmodernism in the US is a lot like Rumpelstiltskin in Grimm's Fairy Tales: it follows you everywhere you go, is hideous and annoying, has completely overstayed its welcome, and wants your first-born child in exchange for spinning straw into gold, but no one can even say its name to make it go away.

[Singu]

Epistemology being useful is an argument for philosophy being useful. Of course, most people mentally think of philosophy exclusively as ethics and then think it's for bad people who reject religion which is not even true of ethics, never mind epistemology, metaphysics, etc.

I don't think all of philosophy is useless, just most of it. Epistemology is immensely useful in both sciences and non-sciences. And anyway, I don't think using the criterion as "usefulness" is a good one, and that's just utilitarianism. Mathematicians come up with a lot of "useless" theorems with apparently no real-world application, but we don't ask them "What's the point if you can't use if?".

Anyway, people ask questions like, "How can we make Socionics scientific?" or "How do we know that Socionics is valid or not?".

How do we even know that its very approach is the right one? If the premise is wrong, then the entire conclusion is going to be wrong. If you want to answer those questions, then I think answering the questions of epistemology is going to be unavoidable.

[Singu]

Reverting to the relativist "Well that's just your own personal bias of your culture/group" is just Postmodernism, but people here call it "Socionics".

Making a rational, objective argument is impossible, because it could simply be referred to as "Ti bias" or "Te bias" or "Fi bias" or whatever.

Is there a such thing as a bias? Yes, but there is also a such thing as an objective argument that anyone can make and anyone can understand.

[Singu]

@Singu I never said any of the things you claim that I said. I told you to look into philosophy last time I actually bothered to address you. I told you that it would be better at answering the questions you were asking, and provided you a link to read.


But go ahead, create whatever story you want to believe. I won't explain myself further, because the more words I use, the more opportunity I give you to twist them into a different meaning.

I didn't claim that you said anything. I'm merely alluding to the fact that if people were to conclude that you and Adam Strange said the things (or their equivalent typical opinions concerning philosophies) due to being certain "types", then it leads to absurdities.

I would say that such typical opinions are more reflective of Logical Positivism (whether they're aware of such a philosophy or not, it still has background cultural influence), not types. Basically, if philosophy is useless (I'm not necessarily saying that you've said it), then what's the alternative? The alternative is something that's even MORE useless than philosophy. So what would make of those "practical" types...?

But you did say it was due to "Ni trying to make sense out of Ti" and "ILIs seem to often be really into this kind of thing". So you're also saying that it's due to certain types being this way or that.

Anyway, this is hardly about you, so no need to get defensive. It's just an example, since "Te" and "ST" types are stereotypically seen as the "practical" types.