Siobhán
@shibbi.bsky.social
She/her, trans, millennial, polyam with a wife and a partner.
Christian heretic. Philosophical dilettante. Pro-AI use, anti-AI abuse.
Come save the world with me.
Christian heretic. Philosophical dilettante. Pro-AI use, anti-AI abuse.
Come save the world with me.
I am not!! How unfortunate.
December 9, 2025 at 12:59 AM
I am not!! How unfortunate.
Oh hey, I have a witch hat, am I in there? 👀
December 9, 2025 at 12:57 AM
Oh hey, I have a witch hat, am I in there? 👀
This ended up at the top of my “For You” feed, which is not what you were testing, but may be useful information regardless.
December 8, 2025 at 10:42 PM
This ended up at the top of my “For You” feed, which is not what you were testing, but may be useful information regardless.
I’m impressed that you manage not to break any. 😅 I feel like I live in the detritus of all my shattered plates…
December 8, 2025 at 9:13 PM
I’m impressed that you manage not to break any. 😅 I feel like I live in the detritus of all my shattered plates…
Not to minimize your executive dysfunction, but I do very much see us as brain gf and body gf sometimes 😅
December 8, 2025 at 9:05 PM
Not to minimize your executive dysfunction, but I do very much see us as brain gf and body gf sometimes 😅
Cf.
I still think the fact 1m+ Americans died during COVID is used by these people for why they don’t care about anything like that.
That moment proved you can wipe out large segments of the US population, blame it all on other elites, and extract as much from the Treasury without consequences.
That moment proved you can wipe out large segments of the US population, blame it all on other elites, and extract as much from the Treasury without consequences.
December 8, 2025 at 8:58 PM
Cf.
To be explicit: I think Bret’s analysis is spot on, and I think the takeaway should not be “they don’t understand the consequences,” but “they are aiming to benefit from the consequences.”
December 8, 2025 at 8:57 PM
To be explicit: I think Bret’s analysis is spot on, and I think the takeaway should not be “they don’t understand the consequences,” but “they are aiming to benefit from the consequences.”
Thank you for pointing me in the direction of more accounts to follow :D
December 8, 2025 at 8:01 PM
Thank you for pointing me in the direction of more accounts to follow :D
![The first two sentences of Claude’s reply to a
prompt based on the above skeet.
This is a genuinely interesting research question —and I'll note the irony of me saying that, given your hypothesis. Let me think through the methodological challenges: […]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:hu35oubkccqrxl4ldgczpgw7/bafkreigwho5yzfdpejrvurjewxsj7p2lnfqyoaypp3trndjxgwotpoyqf4@jpeg)
And given my stance on phenomenology, that belief is sufficient to allow me to dismiss the question entirely. :3
Which may or may not be a good thing. 😅
Which may or may not be a good thing. 😅
December 8, 2025 at 4:27 PM
And given my stance on phenomenology, that belief is sufficient to allow me to dismiss the question entirely. :3
Which may or may not be a good thing. 😅
Which may or may not be a good thing. 😅
I really think the pertinent question is, “what is new knowledge?”
I don’t think there’s a definition that doesn’t either name something humans can’t do either, or reduce to phenomenal experience being the key thing.
I don’t think there’s a definition that doesn’t either name something humans can’t do either, or reduce to phenomenal experience being the key thing.
December 8, 2025 at 4:24 PM
I really think the pertinent question is, “what is new knowledge?”
I don’t think there’s a definition that doesn’t either name something humans can’t do either, or reduce to phenomenal experience being the key thing.
I don’t think there’s a definition that doesn’t either name something humans can’t do either, or reduce to phenomenal experience being the key thing.