Copy and cut are just redundant steps anyway. In Linux (generally), you can simply middle click to copy the current selection. Maybe we could add shift+middle click (or something) to do a move instead of copy.
The deeper underlying problem is that we treat arbitrary UI/UX implementations as objective truth. There is one decided way your computer can be interacted with, and you the user must accommodate it. This is what I want to change.
Unfortunately that isn't a solution. When you keep separate identities, the only thing that can exist across platforms is your own participation. Everything you say and do is isolated to whichever identity and platform you are using in that moment. You still don't have the opportunity to exist completely, because your self has been fragmented. Even if you did manage to create a cross-platform identity, the product of your participation is fragmented, and every story you tell is objective to that platform's context. Even if you tell a story that links across platforms, you are still isolated to that specific cross-platform context.
I think this misses the point. As the article points out, people could and would act differently in different contexts: Home, the Church, the Bar. They weren't lacking opportunity to "exist completely".
The whole point of the omni-context is that you are putting yourself in a space where you have to act in a way that is appropriate to all of those places.
I would say things in the Bar that I would not want the reverend, my grandmother or my children to hear - but in the uni-context I have to mediate my speech to what is appropriate to all of those audiences or risk judgement for it.
The uni-context discourages expression. It's like a dystopia where everything you say and do is recorded and can be recalled for judgement at any time. And yet people sign up for it.
Trying to maintain separate context, different identities across platforms is an attempt to fight against that and to limit the risk that something I say on one plaform is not going to destroy my social credit in every other platform where I participate.
Yes, but the context itself is still omnipotent to everyone who participates with it. It's not a bar if it's everywhere. Wearing a mask to the everybar is a way to compensate for the fact you can't leave. You must fragment your self to compensate for the global scope of the bar, just like using a struct to reinvent lexical scope in a globally scoped program. The problem isn't really solved, it's just semantically moved.
What we are really missing is the ability for expression to be subjective by default. When we participate in socially global contexts, everything we read and write must be coherent to the generalized expectations of the entire group of people who are participating in that context. Instead of your words being taken out of context, they are constantly assumed into the context, implying your own interpretation is objectively wrong. The meaning of every expression is decided and relevant, even when it shouldn't be.
> The uni-context discourages expression. It's like a dystopia where everything you say and do is recorded and can be recalled for judgement at any time. And yet people sign up for it.
It's a panopticon, where we self-censor because we fear unknown future reprisals. Did we really sign up for it? Or has Our (collective our) ability to reason and push back against it been curtailed by financial incentives to build it?
It's a shame the title doesn't just include the word: "uni-context". It's a really useful and interesting perspective.
The other relevant word is "objectivity". There so many systems in our society whose context we surround ourselves with, it starts to feel like every subject is objective. The reality is that every subject is subjective.
I think one of the big drivers for this dynamic is that our social systems are facilitated with software, and we always make software as a uni-context. An application is a fixed context.
If we can figure out how to introduce subjectivity into software, that would be extremely useful for both computing and society.
A random factoid that will always stick in my brain is that the damage a vehicle does to a road is proportional to the weight on an axel...to the fourth power. I suspect rerouting semis to the roadway is by far the greatest factor.
Another random fact is that Norman Mailer coined ‘factoid’ to refer to a fabrication presented as fact, but now means the opposite (as in, a fact presented as a fact, not a fact presented as fabrication).
So it’s now one of those words like ‘literally’ which can be its own antonym.
My pet peeve is people claiming "literally" is now being used to mean the opposite. It is never used that way. When people use "literally" in the weakened and figurative way, they are not using it to mean "figuratively". They are using it to mean "very much".
I'm actually a fan. It's an excellent exploration of sarcasm: what you literally say in a sarcastic tone might have a metaphorical meaning, or it might be a twice application of sarcasm that loops back to literal meaning, like in deadpan comedy.
I think it's a good distinction to make between having and being, which seems to be what the whole "stochastic parrots" bit was intended to make all along.
It doesn't make sense to say a model is in possession of its self. That's exactly the sort of poetic anthropomorphization that Bender was criticising here, and a good reason to not refer to an LLM as "an AI".
How can you articulate a criticism without a repetition of your criticism becoming "inherently pejorative"?
You can't. That's just the way the news goes.
Essentially, what you are saying is that because some people somewhere frame a statement as pejorative, the statement itself is inherently pejorative. By that logic, every criticism ever articulated is inherently an insult.
reply