@planomenon.bsky.social
Hi, I am A, lives in Sweden. English/swedish. Low frequency.
Quantum physics PhD and BFA (fine arts). Critical engineer/artist looking for friends and collaborators. Sometimes activist. Mostly a parent.
Leave Bsky, use Mastodon: @planomenon@assemblag.es
Quantum physics PhD and BFA (fine arts). Critical engineer/artist looking for friends and collaborators. Sometimes activist. Mostly a parent.
Leave Bsky, use Mastodon: @planomenon@assemblag.es
It's interesting that quantitative models can project an aura of complete control while using a totally wrong model with uncontrolled error. Unscientific and I'm not surprised.
October 6, 2025 at 6:31 AM
It's interesting that quantitative models can project an aura of complete control while using a totally wrong model with uncontrolled error. Unscientific and I'm not surprised.
Anyway it's not like we just need a small correction to improve the current vector en-/decoders for LLMs, this research suggests that they need to be replaced completely.
October 6, 2025 at 6:31 AM
Anyway it's not like we just need a small correction to improve the current vector en-/decoders for LLMs, this research suggests that they need to be replaced completely.
One improvement is apparently using hyperbolic spaces? Interesting!
October 6, 2025 at 6:31 AM
One improvement is apparently using hyperbolic spaces? Interesting!
Related to this article by Rovelli: www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24...
He makes clear this is only one step in a tower of abstractions from physical to semantic info. But he's misused and quoted to claim world=information. Useful to some camps of reductionists?
He makes clear this is only one step in a tower of abstractions from physical to semantic info. But he's misused and quoted to claim world=information. Useful to some camps of reductionists?
www.mdpi.com
September 24, 2025 at 12:20 PM
Related to this article by Rovelli: www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24...
He makes clear this is only one step in a tower of abstractions from physical to semantic info. But he's misused and quoted to claim world=information. Useful to some camps of reductionists?
He makes clear this is only one step in a tower of abstractions from physical to semantic info. But he's misused and quoted to claim world=information. Useful to some camps of reductionists?
Related to this great article by Rovelli: www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24...
He makes clear this is only one step in a tower of abstractions from physical to semantic info. But he's misused and quoted to claim world=information. Useful to some camps of reductionists?
He makes clear this is only one step in a tower of abstractions from physical to semantic info. But he's misused and quoted to claim world=information. Useful to some camps of reductionists?
www.mdpi.com
September 24, 2025 at 12:20 PM
Related to this great article by Rovelli: www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24...
He makes clear this is only one step in a tower of abstractions from physical to semantic info. But he's misused and quoted to claim world=information. Useful to some camps of reductionists?
He makes clear this is only one step in a tower of abstractions from physical to semantic info. But he's misused and quoted to claim world=information. Useful to some camps of reductionists?
It reads to me like some "conference jamming" rather than flattening since they acknowledge in the end the limit of perspectives. Based on this interesting paper www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24... where Rovelli makes clear this is just one step in a ladder of abstractions from physical to semantic meaning
doi.org
September 24, 2025 at 12:20 PM
It reads to me like some "conference jamming" rather than flattening since they acknowledge in the end the limit of perspectives. Based on this interesting paper www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24... where Rovelli makes clear this is just one step in a ladder of abstractions from physical to semantic meaning
I have taken the time to read lots of pro AI texts recently and want to highlight this: meaning.systems
Enormous invalidable claims about hard science, sounds like quantum mysticism to me except in the AI guise. However many of the mentioned ideas separately are worth having a look at.
Enormous invalidable claims about hard science, sounds like quantum mysticism to me except in the AI guise. However many of the mentioned ideas separately are worth having a look at.
meaning systems lab
decentralized symbiotic ASI research lab studying the constraints that limit design space for possible and viable ASI paths.
meaning.systems
September 19, 2025 at 7:42 AM
I have taken the time to read lots of pro AI texts recently and want to highlight this: meaning.systems
Enormous invalidable claims about hard science, sounds like quantum mysticism to me except in the AI guise. However many of the mentioned ideas separately are worth having a look at.
Enormous invalidable claims about hard science, sounds like quantum mysticism to me except in the AI guise. However many of the mentioned ideas separately are worth having a look at.
Here Bratton shows his cynicism and loathing, superficially shit talking art and "theory" while praising tech for its clarity (both are in my opinion like porcelain lions roaring against each other in Serres' words)
tank.tv/magazine/iss...
tank.tv/magazine/iss...
Not Right Now — TANKtv
Bejamin Bratton on art's language problem.
tank.tv
September 19, 2025 at 7:42 AM
Here Bratton shows his cynicism and loathing, superficially shit talking art and "theory" while praising tech for its clarity (both are in my opinion like porcelain lions roaring against each other in Serres' words)
tank.tv/magazine/iss...
tank.tv/magazine/iss...
Bratton just reduces everything to computation like Konrad Zeuss - leading to a complete lack of friction.
If you have other good texts on computation I am interested!
If you have other good texts on computation I am interested!
September 19, 2025 at 7:42 AM
Bratton just reduces everything to computation like Konrad Zeuss - leading to a complete lack of friction.
If you have other good texts on computation I am interested!
If you have other good texts on computation I am interested!
It's hard to see a more stark comparison with Bratton's arrogance than AA Cavia - humble yet speculative yet full of analytic & continental philosophy, compsci, type theory - far beyond Bratton's grasp.
September 19, 2025 at 7:42 AM
It's hard to see a more stark comparison with Bratton's arrogance than AA Cavia - humble yet speculative yet full of analytic & continental philosophy, compsci, type theory - far beyond Bratton's grasp.
There is a spectrum of better ideas of computation - from Ed Finn's "What algorithms want" and Pasquinellis "Eye of the master" to the interesting ahumanism of AA Cavias "Logiciel" which has a great constructivist critique of Bratton's position.
September 19, 2025 at 7:42 AM
There is a spectrum of better ideas of computation - from Ed Finn's "What algorithms want" and Pasquinellis "Eye of the master" to the interesting ahumanism of AA Cavias "Logiciel" which has a great constructivist critique of Bratton's position.
Reposted
4/5
There’s nothing radical about turning complexity into spectacle. Real philosophy gets dirty with contradictions. Bratton airbrushes them.
There’s nothing radical about turning complexity into spectacle. Real philosophy gets dirty with contradictions. Bratton airbrushes them.
May 13, 2025 at 7:27 PM
4/5
There’s nothing radical about turning complexity into spectacle. Real philosophy gets dirty with contradictions. Bratton airbrushes them.
There’s nothing radical about turning complexity into spectacle. Real philosophy gets dirty with contradictions. Bratton airbrushes them.