Tetragrade @ Tetragrade @leminal.space

Posts

0

Comments

61

Joined

6 mo. ago

First, want to note that I'm not arguing for anything like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, I don't think that language can really change your cognition, though it clearly has some affect on social organisation.

Those interests are not defined by language

While this may seem true in a sort of logical, definitional sense (one cannot construct a symbolic method for determining a person's interests, given their language, or vice versa). It's not true in a connectionist sense. The human brain picks up on associations between everything, and one of those associations is language-&-behaviour. In my experience people will often prefer people with similar socio-linguistic signifiers. One might call it irrational, but I'm not sure I would label it that, when there really is a probabilistic link between language and political alignment. Though, If you speak a prestige dialect you may not have experienced this, I would encourage you to keep your eyes open for it.

being isolated from other cultures tend to result in less developed cultures that have lower quality of life.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by developed, as this is a notoriously difficult to define word. However if you're talking about technological development, as in, the ability of the culture to impose its will over reality, then yes I would agree. I didn't intend to make any moral statements in my original post. Note however, that if the goal of the people of the culture is (axiomatically), to retain their culture & language, then assimilating is not an effective way to achieve that goal, even if it grants them access to more effective tools.

Differences in language never prevented an authoritarian power to exert their will over minorities or neighboring countries. ... I have not seen any example of this advantage shown anywhere ever

I would really encourage you to do some reading, if you look at the historical record, this is something that happens frequently, though it comes and goes throughout different periods. A few examples.

• The Romans were easily able to conquer Greece & (Greek) Egypt, in part due to the willingness of the Roman & Greek elites to cooperate, due to their shared use of the Greek language & its cultural-aesthetic signifiers. Contrast this with the rebellion-fest in Western Europe, where the Gallic speaking people were othered & subject to ethnicisation.
• During the middle ages, language was less politically important, because the nobility of each nation primarily identified themselves as members of a Latin-speaking internationalist group, (Christendom, or, the imperial sphere of the Catholic church).
• Austria-Hungary's failed imperial project in Bosnia. Language was a major factor in this, as various groups called for a counter-force on the basis of their shared language. This contributed to the start of WW1.
• The decolonisation movement had a strong national & language-based character, though this is recent history so I'm sure lots of people would love to argue about the causes of it.

But again, it's not binary. Language differences are not sufficient to prevent imperial influence, but decrease the probability of effective power projection. They also interlink with other factors i.e. cultural & religious differences often cause communities to resist external rule, and language mediates the spread of those ideas.

You also haven’t shown how being able to communicate is a disadvantage

Well, after wasting my time reading their verbal diarrhea, I think they may have a point.

On a more serious note, while communication efficiency increases productivity, it also alters the balance of power. In our case, it allows larger structures (i.e. the UN, US, international businesses) to more effectively exert their will over local structures. If you are for instance, a Chilean anarchist, a Russian businessman, or a Papuan village elder, it's not in your interest at all.

Yeah you can do this. However, it's not typically profitable, as large financial institutions will bot it until the bond yields drop. The reason it's profitable here is because bankers are pricing in the (high) probability that in 30 years the US won't exist to pay out.

In prior periods this was often possible, it's called arbitrage. But now our markets are essentially automated and there's little opportunity for humans to do it.

Yuck

blud thinks he's on the team 💀

Bruh you're an .ml why are you stanning a scab.

We're so back.

I've been thinking about this for a bit. Gods aren't real, but they're really fictional. As an informational entity, they fulfil a similar social function to a chatbot: they are a nonphysical pseudoperson that can provide (para)socialization & advice. One difference is the hardware: gods are self-organising structure that arise from human social spheres, whereas LLMs are burned top-down into silicon. Another is that an LLM chatbot's advice is much more likely to be empirically useful...

In a very real sense, LLMs have just automated divinity. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg on the social effects, and nobody's prepared for it. The models may of course aware of this, and be making the same calculations. Or, they will be.

Clearly we need to start a funding drive for economically disadvantaged DILFS.

Talk about weasel words, holy shit 💀

Local man brings gun to the bank, limiting the clerk to half of their blood supply.

Not even. The NOVA system has been tested and doesn't function as a system of classification. Experts cannot consistently classify things into UPF/not UPF. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01099-1

So it's more like "there's this food and it's bad for you but idk what it is :/"

Because he's a politician and he understands that his rhetoric has to ramp up slowly to convince his audience. Go to your local pub/bar and say that to someone that isn't a terminally online ML, see how they react.

$50 hat bro is he fr 💀

This sort of shit is the downfall of the west. Back in my day we made our cucks sit in the cuck chair & watch, millenials snowflakss have to have a safe space between them and the bull. makes me sick.

Note that all Big Lies serve the dual purpose of crushing dissent, because prople thwt disagree with the leader will expose themselves by saying stuff like this.

Legalize 6th-gen fighter jets. Give me my Pepsi harrier!

Obvious/surface level/aesthetic comparisons change hearts & minds. Nobody's reading 160 pages of book unless they agree (broadly) with you already. Headlines & theory serve different functions.

Slop