We have to challenge our assumptions. We think we are feeding people better because we can produce nitrogen at scale instead of scraping bird shit off of Pacific reefs. But we fail to understand that organic life is complex and interdependent, and yields poorly to engineering.
We have to challenge our assumptions. We think we are feeding people better because we can produce nitrogen at scale instead of scraping bird shit off of Pacific reefs. But we fail to understand that organic life is complex and interdependent, and yields poorly to engineering.
Yes we can juice yields, but we kill adjacent systems, deplete water systems, and rob the soil of other minerals and nutrients, resulting in lower quality food and sterilized land.
We need to understand that generative AI is a compression algorithm, so it is by definition lossy. It cannot contain the world because the lossless map of the world is the world. A compression of a compression of a compression will always enshittify, especially when we forget we are compressing.
This is the same reason grand political schemes fail. They compress a complex system into simple armatures and algorithms then forget they are a compression. Over time the system is so divorced from the world that it is held together by habit and force not utility.
In any case, this is a super fun topic and I thank you for the opportunity to discuss!!!
Yeah, I certainly agree that any worthy debate about technology as a whole is way more complex than I showed here. I read recently Pinker's Enlightenment Now and it influenced my thinking on this a lot. But I've had other influences that sent me in quite different directions so again, I agree it's a complex topic.
I just saw this. I would strongly recommend that you read "Seeing Like a State" by James Scott
Pinker is very smart, but extremely reductive. He does not see the world as fundamentally complex, preferring simple reduction to dependent variables. There is value in it, but it is quite limited.
Great response, and thank you.
We have to challenge our assumptions. We think we are feeding people better because we can produce nitrogen at scale instead of scraping bird shit off of Pacific reefs. But we fail to understand that organic life is complex and interdependent, and yields poorly to engineering.
Yes we can juice yields, but we kill adjacent systems, deplete water systems, and rob the soil of other minerals and nutrients, resulting in lower quality food and sterilized land.
We need to understand that generative AI is a compression algorithm, so it is by definition lossy. It cannot contain the world because the lossless map of the world is the world. A compression of a compression of a compression will always enshittify, especially when we forget we are compressing.
This is the same reason grand political schemes fail. They compress a complex system into simple armatures and algorithms then forget they are a compression. Over time the system is so divorced from the world that it is held together by habit and force not utility.
In any case, this is a super fun topic and I thank you for the opportunity to discuss!!!
Yeah, I certainly agree that any worthy debate about technology as a whole is way more complex than I showed here. I read recently Pinker's Enlightenment Now and it influenced my thinking on this a lot. But I've had other influences that sent me in quite different directions so again, I agree it's a complex topic.
I just saw this. I would strongly recommend that you read "Seeing Like a State" by James Scott
Pinker is very smart, but extremely reductive. He does not see the world as fundamentally complex, preferring simple reduction to dependent variables. There is value in it, but it is quite limited.