A ladder of assertions about abilities of your rival X
1. X can’t do it
2. X can do it, but not as well as us
3. X can do it as well, maybe better, but not innovate
4. X can innovate, but only incremental, not bold leaps
5. X can bold-leap but no moral compass so will fail
Conversation
The interesting is that X = China and X = AI are basically identical arguments. By the time you get to Stage 5, you’re essentially arguing “the gods are on our side”.
There’s a Stage 6 after you’ve already lost:
6. The indomitable _________ spirit
Blank = [human, western] etc
4
32
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
very interesting, I've long been a fan of trying to gain understanding/value from viewing other humans acting as basically AI (G or no G...), e.g. Uber drivers are their proto-#selfdriving cars asf.
1
1
1
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
I had a guest blogchain by James Vanie going on exactly this idea. Sadly he abandoned it. He had a great historical take going back to all Pullman conductors being called George and economic construction of black identities back to slave era and turking. ribbonfarm.com/series/infinit
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Replying to
yeah james got into that angle briefly in his 3rd and last part before he abandoned it
it's like there's 3 layers: the backend which can be algorithmic or human, the middleware which is a legibilizing structure, and the frontend which is a rehumanizing UX
1
1
Show replies

