Gregory Convertito
@gregconvertito.bsky.social
Philosophy adjunct. Political philosophy, Marx, Latin America, and some other stuff. he/him
https://gregoryconvertito.wordpress.com/
Series editor of @apaphilosophy.bsky.social Teaching and Learning Video Series.
Not expressing the views of my employer.
https://gregoryconvertito.wordpress.com/
Series editor of @apaphilosophy.bsky.social Teaching and Learning Video Series.
Not expressing the views of my employer.
Reposted by Gregory Convertito
Barnett and Wurman are both liars trying to give the imprimatur of “scholarship” to an argument with *no* scholarly support in the record.
December 7, 2025 at 7:14 PM
Barnett and Wurman are both liars trying to give the imprimatur of “scholarship” to an argument with *no* scholarly support in the record.
Reposted by Gregory Convertito
“No evidence the intent went beyond freeing slaves” — the framers of the amendment openly stated that it would grant citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants. It’s in the Congressional record. Cited extensively in Wong Kim Ark. These aren’t obscure sources, especially for law professors.
December 7, 2025 at 7:13 PM
“No evidence the intent went beyond freeing slaves” — the framers of the amendment openly stated that it would grant citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants. It’s in the Congressional record. Cited extensively in Wong Kim Ark. These aren’t obscure sources, especially for law professors.
h/t @robertfreundlaw.bsky.social
holy shit, an accurate legal critique of LLMs. LLMs don't reason because they're just stitching together plausible-looking sentences indifferent to the content
holy shit, an accurate legal critique of LLMs. LLMs don't reason because they're just stitching together plausible-looking sentences indifferent to the content
December 4, 2025 at 1:10 AM
Reposted by Gregory Convertito
"They're trying to change our habits, because all of the projections rely on people becoming truly dependent on the technology. Whether or not it's actually a good thing for society isn't considered to be a factor."
Analysis: OpenAI is a loss-making machine, how can it survive?
Don't call it a bubble! Loss-making monster OpenAI is on the hook for $1.4 trillion (with a T) in compute commitments. How can this go on?
www.windowscentral.com
November 29, 2025 at 11:30 PM
"They're trying to change our habits, because all of the projections rely on people becoming truly dependent on the technology. Whether or not it's actually a good thing for society isn't considered to be a factor."