On one hand, I think that this is bullshit on both counts. As illustratory proof, take the recent attempts at "scaling", i.e. at feeding resources into datacenters made up of hundreds of thousands of accelerator units to train models on even more parameters. The corporations that did this haven't been able to demonstrate any fundamental change in behaviour for the items in question; but they have been able to make them better at that which they were able to do in the first place, i.e. rote, or more precisely, holding more tokens in their artificial neural memories. So in some sense, they'll just spew better-quality garbage.

On the other hand, this says quite a lot about the magical thinking of AI believers, which does a great job at validating my theory: that the stupid apes duking it on a ball(tm) will do anything to create their Saviour, which is how I suppose the whole "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" came into being -- which means that yes, this bullshit reality TV show occurred before in human history, it just wasn't very well documented. And indeed, some may twist this simple observation into something such as "AI is a political agent", but in truth, it only has as much political agency as that rock you stumbled upon at some point. The only question remaining being: how in the name of FSM did you react properly then and you're reacting this stupid way now?

So in discussing:

what could be more dangerous than attempting to create and at the same time become God? What more literal meaning can the expression "the world at the tip of a finger" have, when the tip of one's finger has a button specially created just for it?

I will admit that I really don't know if technology is dangerous or any such thing, but I will observe that it may and probably will be handled in a dangerously stupid manner. Technology itself won't destroy any civilization, as it really doesn't have any agency, but humans' belief that it does, stemming from any lack of a metaphysical basis to judge such beliefs, will definitely get them to fuck themselves over and over, again and again, for another century or so.

This is a sad conclusion, but what can you do.

And meanwhile, even Romanian academics over at ye olde UPB have begun stating that "technology has the potential to enslave us", what with the new AI fads around the corner. As usual, the reality TV show absorbs this narrative just as well as it does all the others.

First of all, let's make it clear that I'm not any sort of authority on matters pertaining philosophy. For example, I haven't actually read either Nietzsche or Heidegger in their original tongue, so far from me the thought of questioning Liiceanu's competence in his practiced field of training. I'm not even interested in that -- philosophy being as much a field as it is a way of life, I'm actually questioning something more fundamental, that is, Liiceanu's value as a human being.

I'm not even going to start explaining myself on that matter -- go read on Romania's "civil society", on Silviu Brucan's involvement and on the so-called Group for Social Dialogue. Understand their impact on Romanian society on multiple planes and then maybe you will see my point, even if you do not agree with it. I cannot and thus do not believe that the text may be decoupled from its author; and thus I feel kinda sorry that Heidegger in Romanian is Liiceanu's of all people; as much as I'll take Bezdechi's translations of Aristotle over Cornea's any time. Yes, on those grounds alone, since the so-called grounds are more grounded than simple competence in interpretation.

If you will, take this as an exercise in stoicism (and cynicism, maybe): the mere study of philosophy cannot be decoupled from its daily practice, the substance of any study being conditioned by the daily practice. And on that side, there are many matters which I find questionable in most members of the so-called GDS.