Consider further a world in which there are many minds for whom sensitivity to being wrong is such a high priority, as you seem to want it to be, that they may try and avoid formulating stances or taking positions at all. Lest they be wrong.

Sometimes it can be helpful to have someone explain to you how you have to have some confidence in your own capacity for intuition, your own ability make decisions, in order to make anything happen.

I certainly won't argue that there are probably a lot of ineffective practitioners out there, but to me that speaks to the difficulty of the task, of tuning between insecurity and confidence and arrogance. It doesn't suggest to me the task, or the institution that is still in its earliest years of trying to formally study it, is fundamentally flawed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

It is as much a real object of specific concern as it is shorthand for "oppressive wage slavery in poor conditions" in the general sense.

I say that because it's not like the pattern is unique to journalism.

http://www.biomolecular-archaeology.com/?page_id=143

https://www.dogfish.com/brewery/beer/midas-touch

Though more reconstruction of ingredients from residue than linguistic reconstruction I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

And an admonishment against the hubris of just casually dropping deeply loaded positions like "Europe has more important things to worry about" than Africa or Ukraine. Hell even casual the separation of Ukraine as something outside of Europe.

If you took it as a personal attack, then perhaps it is just because a hit dog will holler.

Conservationists often leverage the concept of "Charismatic Megafauna"[0] to serve as splashy poster children for broader, more practical efforts.

---

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_megafauna

I would put it even more simply:

My view is that this valuable resource is mine. Your view is that this resource is yours.

How do we reconcile this?

edit: just in the interest of not seeming antagonistic, I'll elaborate further.

I assert that resolving conflicts like this requires either direct violence, or deference to some external framework. That external framework often defines terms like "just" and "right" and "good" and "true". These terms are kind of "meaning flywheels" since they don't have direct correlation to physical things. You spin them up by giving them continuous impulses of examples and then they carry the abstracted sense of meaning in themselves, becoming almost qualia-like. You don't know all the examples anymore you just know more or less what is "just".

This process is an act of mystification; you separate the meaning from the direct examples, and push it into a layer of linguistic abstraction.

Any measurement against those ideas then becomes a engagement with the mystic. You simply know "what is just". Any perception that these things can be rationally defined or deduced is simply the hangover from the older, mystical systems that impelled the original flywheels of meaning.

What is the process for reconciliation?

These "nonsense questions" are usually derived from an effort to find a common denominator of things which a society may agree on, beyond its component individuals.

I feel like they looked in the mirror, saw only themselves, and decided what was needed was a better mirror, because there must be something else there.

I've always enjoyed the lighthearted analysis of the Nietzchean "God is Dead" moment as asking:

"Yes, God is Dead. Congratulations; that was the easy part. Now what?".

He had is own answer of course, but, as the characters in this piece have discovered, it's not necessarily an effective one.

edit: ah they mention the book in the postscript of course.

I'd hesitate to be flippant about the complexities and difficulties in the generation of food, and the market forces that it drives. And I'd certainly hesitate to claim that anyone has "better things to do".

"So, you've thought about eternity for an afternoon, and think you've come to some interesting conclusions?"

I'm all for villainizing the figureheads of the current generation of this movement. The politics of this sea-change are fascinating and worthy of discussion.

But out-of-hand dismissal of what has been accomplished smacks more to me of lack of awareness of the history of the study of the brain, cognition, language, and computers, than it does of a sound debate position.

What I feel has changed, and what drives a lot of the fear and anxiety you see, is a sudden perception of possibility, of accessibility.

A lot of us (read: people) are implicit dualists, even if we say otherwise. It seems to be a sticky bias in the human mind (see: the vanishing problem of AI). Indeed, you can see a whole lot of dualism in this thread!

And even if you don't believe that LLMs themselves are "intelligent" (by whatever metric you define that to be...), you can still experience an exposing and unseating of some of the foundations of that dualism.

LLMs may not be a destination, but their unprecedented capabilities open up the potential for a road to something much more humanlike in ways that perhaps did not feel possible before, or at least not possible any time soon.

They are powerful enough to change the priors of one's internal understanding of what can be done and how quickly. Which is an uncomfortable process for those of us experiencing it.

Until a model of human sentience and awareness is established (note: one of the oldest problems out there alongside the movements of the stars. This is an ancient debate, still open-ended, and nothing anyone is saying in these threads is new), philosophy is all we have and ideas are debated on their merits within that space.