It's a product of hyper capitalism that all things must be quantifiable to be allowed to exist in our shortening attention spans. I appreciate your work and being one of the people not making everything dumber for fear of SEO. Thanks for putting into words why we need artistry, even in the face of this lie that chatgbt will make all obsolete and tge fear that the only valuable pursuit is becoming a prompt engineer.
I was at the future of free speech summit a couple weeks ago and Tyler cowen said stop writing for humans because it's more likely AI will read your work. That hit me pretty hard. So I thought well fuck it, I'm not writing for ai or some random humans, imma write for me bc I will probably be the person who spends the most time with my work.
That's hitting me pretty hard too. Like part of the magic of art is creating something for other random humans and it resonating with them. So depressing on the other side that load of random humans are resonating with Claude now.
That's an interesting perspective because Chekhov definitely lives between the two. On more than one occasion. He's questioning one or both of them... Externalization of what I'm saying here I think.
I wonder if this is your way of distancing yourself from having to make moral decisions. It's rather academic, and puts you in a position of the engineer rather than the one steering the ship or making reasoned mapped choices.
I mean, if we want to run the analogy into the ground, Chekov not only questioned both of them, he filled in for both of them at different times. So it's not like he rejected either of their perspectives, he just brought attention to when Kirk was getting too irrational and when Spock had lost all perspective.
So I don't see it as a way of avoiding anything, I see it more as a bridge that accepts both roles but also sees value in checking (chekoving?) both of them when they threaten to become overwhelming or all-encompassing.
It's always a balance between what should and shouldn't be focused on for sure. People have called some of my fiction work a "philosophy text book in narrative form". It's not easy to balance.
Yes brudder. It's really difficult. And people will hate it. But sometimes I think doing things that people will hate us important, especially if you love it.
Well in my case it was a compliment but I recognize that it's not always going to be a compliment from other people. For sure, being able to say things people won't necessarily want to hear is better than not saying it at all.
Beautifully argued and deeply resonant. This piece captures the quiet tension between intellect and artistry with clarity and humility. The reflection on inquiry as both moral and creative is especially strong, it reads like a manifesto for those who think and feel in equal measure.
Thank you. Good stuff for sure. But it doesn't fail because a) it ain't finished (ever. the pursuit is the point) and b) because being between means not being able to touch everything.
Thank you for this.
It's a product of hyper capitalism that all things must be quantifiable to be allowed to exist in our shortening attention spans. I appreciate your work and being one of the people not making everything dumber for fear of SEO. Thanks for putting into words why we need artistry, even in the face of this lie that chatgbt will make all obsolete and tge fear that the only valuable pursuit is becoming a prompt engineer.
I was at the future of free speech summit a couple weeks ago and Tyler cowen said stop writing for humans because it's more likely AI will read your work. That hit me pretty hard. So I thought well fuck it, I'm not writing for ai or some random humans, imma write for me bc I will probably be the person who spends the most time with my work.
That's hitting me pretty hard too. Like part of the magic of art is creating something for other random humans and it resonating with them. So depressing on the other side that load of random humans are resonating with Claude now.
I think I'm locked into a permanent, Chekovian, "WTF did you just say, Captain?" mode...
That's an interesting perspective because Chekhov definitely lives between the two. On more than one occasion. He's questioning one or both of them... Externalization of what I'm saying here I think.
I wonder if this is your way of distancing yourself from having to make moral decisions. It's rather academic, and puts you in a position of the engineer rather than the one steering the ship or making reasoned mapped choices.
I mean, if we want to run the analogy into the ground, Chekov not only questioned both of them, he filled in for both of them at different times. So it's not like he rejected either of their perspectives, he just brought attention to when Kirk was getting too irrational and when Spock had lost all perspective.
So I don't see it as a way of avoiding anything, I see it more as a bridge that accepts both roles but also sees value in checking (chekoving?) both of them when they threaten to become overwhelming or all-encompassing.
Hell yeah. Affirm that shit. I'm just trying to poke you a bit and see what you say of course. 😆
I would expect nothing less. Besides, any chance to go full Trekkie is always worth the time!
It's always a balance between what should and shouldn't be focused on for sure. People have called some of my fiction work a "philosophy text book in narrative form". It's not easy to balance.
Yes brudder. It's really difficult. And people will hate it. But sometimes I think doing things that people will hate us important, especially if you love it.
Well in my case it was a compliment but I recognize that it's not always going to be a compliment from other people. For sure, being able to say things people won't necessarily want to hear is better than not saying it at all.
Beautifully argued and deeply resonant. This piece captures the quiet tension between intellect and artistry with clarity and humility. The reflection on inquiry as both moral and creative is especially strong, it reads like a manifesto for those who think and feel in equal measure.
We’ll written and argued but
it falls at not recognising the writings of eg Maturana, Varela & Capra on embodied complex autopoietic systems which cover this ground and much more.
Thank you. Good stuff for sure. But it doesn't fail because a) it ain't finished (ever. the pursuit is the point) and b) because being between means not being able to touch everything.
That’s a gracious reply. Thank you.
I once linked embodied autopoietic complex systems with Aristotle (phronesis) in a movement towards the good.
I got a little mileage from that embodied ethic but you’ll go further with your unfinished work
I'd like to read that!
Flattering but it’s a long winded read which I wrote before my PhD. Sid Lowe was my supervisor: Chapter 6. Perplexity and ethics.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Managing-Changing-Times-Perplexed-Manager/dp/8132102339