Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 5h

should have listened to Aristotle all along realizable.substack.com/p/aristoteli...

Aristotelian Intelligence

Perception is all you need.

realizable.substack.com

1

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 12h

Thank you for reading!

2

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 12h

I also wrote down some thoughts on this: realizable.substack.com/p/how-to-do-...

How to Do Things with Words

From J.L. Austin's speech acts to fuzzy logic, semiotic control theory, and ChatGPT

realizable.substack.com

1 1 7

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 12h

Dijkstra had a spicy take, way before LLMs, and much of what he says there just makes sense, especially when it comes to nondeterminism vs. robustness: www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcr...

E.W.Dijkstra Archive: On the foolishness of "natural language programming". (EWD 667)

www.cs.utexas.edu

3 1 6

Reposted by Maxim Raginsky

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · Jun 28

Through the largely forgettable NYT piece about “the disappearing novel-reading man,” I came across this chemically pure sample of a book critic inventing a new Type of Guy To Get Mad At and then proceeding to get mad at it verbosely. lareviewofbooks.org/article/agai...

Against High Brodernism | Los Angeles Review of Books

Federico Perelmuter considers László Krasznahorkai’s “Herscht 07769,” translated by Ottilie Mulzet.

lareviewofbooks.org

2 8

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 1d

1. Truffle salt with dried truffles.
2. Bring fries home, place in a 200 degree oven in a heat proof bowl for a few minutes while the martini is being made.

1

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 1d

He did, if you know where to look :) realizable.substack.com/p/aristoteli...

Aristotelian Intelligence

Perception is all you need.

realizable.substack.com

1 1 1

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 1d

These two things are simultaneously true:

1. Computer systems, including current AI systems, lack personhood.

2. People that gleefully say "clanker with a hard r" are just setting up a permission structure for themselves to get around Kant's categorical imperative without feelings of guilt.

3

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 2d

I always saw Terry as an English Zhuangzi of sorts.

1

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 3d

McDonald’s fries generously sprinkled with truffle salt, as accompaniment to a bone dry martini.

Faine Greenwood @faineg.bsky.social · 3d

What foods do you love that you fully acknowledge make you a pervert for loving them?

4 8

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 3d

Could use some malört. Enhance! Enhance!

3

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 3d

I’d totally try Swish Swish Fish.

2

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 3d

You can make it cheese-washed.

1 3

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 4d

bsky.app/profile/mrag...

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 12d

Rudolf Kalman put it nicely (and provocatively): link.springer.com/chapter/10.1...

Quote from R. Kalman, "Identification from real data": For an objective outsider, much of the historical development
of statistics is a long series of attempts to dodge the inevitable
implications of uncertainty. Whenever the conventional statistical
treatment of a problem gives a unique (certain) answer, as in
maximum likelihood estimation, in least squares, ... , common sense
should tell us that such a miracle is possible only if additional
assumptions (deus ex machina) are imposed on the data which
somehow succeed in neutralizing the intrinsic uncertainty. We
shall use the technical term "prejudice" for such assumptions.
In other words, statistical methodology has been handicapped
because statisticians have become mesmerized by the deep-seated
hope of giving certain answers to problems where the uncertainty
is intrinsic. This is politics, not science. For example, least
squares is very popular because it always gives a unique answer.
But this is exactly where its fatal weakness lies; when we pose
Nature a question, as in identification problems, we must not
phrase that question in such terms that the answer is
predetermined regardless of the nature of the data.

3

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 4d

🔥

6

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 4d

Your periodic reminder that Mirowski’s _Machine Dreams_ is a phenomenal book:

2 14

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 4d

bsky.app/profile/mrag...

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · Aug 26

Of all people, Chomsky had it right: why is everyone so obsessed with consciousness? Did anyone say anything new about it that wasn't already said in the 18th century?

4

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 5d

Subscribed (of course).

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 5d

Llinás' book is a lot better, imo mitpress.mit.edu/978026262163...

I of the Vortex

In I of the Vortex, Rodolfo Llinas, a founding father of modern brain science, presents an original view of the evolution and nature of mind. According to Ll...

mitpress.mit.edu

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 5d

That was a frustrating book, Clark uses paragraphs of dense prose to get at something a couple of equations would explain a lot better.

1 2

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 6d

The thing is, we don’t know whether it’s the suffering in this sense that hurts or whether it’s some neurochemical correlate of it. And, in some sense (following Varela), it doesn’t matter.

1 4

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 6d

lol bsky.app/profile/mrag...

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 6d

Maybe suffering in the Buddhist sense, as grasping for causality in a feedback loop of codependent origination.

2

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 6d

Maybe suffering in the Buddhist sense, as grasping for causality in a feedback loop of codependent origination.

1 8

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 6d

"But something is happening,
And ya don't know what it is.
Do you, Mister Jones?"

Maxim Raginsky @mraginsky.bsky.social · 6d

Chicago, Minneapolis, Madison

1