ComputerLars (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Glad the concepts were retainable! Homophily is borrowed from Wendy Chun's research into the genealogies of network science - see e.g. https://mediarep.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c9ca2834-7014-4f93-9f08-35983281c78e/content OR https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/are-friends-electric/289193/homophily-the-urban-history-of-an-algorithm/. It does wonders to think of this as a parallel development within representative kakistocracy :-) / Asker | Glad the concepts were retainable! Homophily is borrowed from Wendy Chun's research into the genealogies of network science - see e.g. https://mediarep.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c9ca2834-7014-4f93-9f08-35983281c78e/content OR https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/are-friends-electric/289193/homophily-the-urban-history-of-an-algorithm/. It does wonders to think of this as a parallel development within representative kakistocracy :-) / Asker | ||
-- | |||
Pierre (26.01): To be honest I was a bit disoriented reading the text. For instance, I interpret "pop politics" as the lowest common denominator for a large group of people, but a quick google search makes it rather sounds like catnip for 24/7 technology news cycle? What does Marcel Proust have to do with any of this? Also I think LLMs do not "occupy every standpoint"? Their whole efficiency (sense-making) is because they are able to focus on local optima, being in a very specific place. Also, did you create that party? | |||
Echoing the comment above, maybe there's a thin line between the weird and the confusing and i'm definitely on the confused side :( | |||
But I do really like the idea of the SDG "Life with Artificials"! | |||
Revision as of 13:17, 26 January 2024
I think the term homophilia is fantastically well chosen. I haven't seen it summarised like that before, but it explains a lot. Could you tell me how it came up in your head? I also love the term kakitocracy <3 Such an elegant way of saying what everybody thinks!
I was not able to understand every meaning in the text. Also I had to ask google what this party is. Everything gives me a very strange feeling. I love it when something gives me this feeling of weirdness. As Mark Fisher said: "Strangeness is an indication that the concepts and frameworks we have previously employed have become obsolete".
--
Glad the concepts were retainable! Homophily is borrowed from Wendy Chun's research into the genealogies of network science - see e.g. https://mediarep.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c9ca2834-7014-4f93-9f08-35983281c78e/content OR https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/are-friends-electric/289193/homophily-the-urban-history-of-an-algorithm/. It does wonders to think of this as a parallel development within representative kakistocracy :-) / Asker
--
Pierre (26.01): To be honest I was a bit disoriented reading the text. For instance, I interpret "pop politics" as the lowest common denominator for a large group of people, but a quick google search makes it rather sounds like catnip for 24/7 technology news cycle? What does Marcel Proust have to do with any of this? Also I think LLMs do not "occupy every standpoint"? Their whole efficiency (sense-making) is because they are able to focus on local optima, being in a very specific place. Also, did you create that party?
Echoing the comment above, maybe there's a thin line between the weird and the confusing and i'm definitely on the confused side :(
But I do really like the idea of the SDG "Life with Artificials"!