/lit/ - Literature

>>13737994
>super intelligent ai
No serious person believes in that

>>13653913

>>13261501
>cryptocurrency
>controlled by a central authority
something doesn't add up here

>>13205732
>"It’s smoke and mirrors if anything," said one current Google employee - who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Artificial intelligence is not that artificial; it’s human beings that are doing the work."
Based Baudrillard knew it all along

>>13125210
>Reality is leftist
And reality is dumb. Thus leftism is dumb.
Checkmate Libtard
t.rigthwing postmodernist

This bothered me for a long time. I was intimidated by philosophy because I thought everyone had this shared field of philosophical learning and understanding I would never come to. Then I realized, as Wittgenstein goes to great lengths to elaborate, all communication is miscommunication, even in the simplest of conversations between one person and another the exchange of words is always imprecise and pregnant with ambiguous, unintended, and unseen meanings. Even in giving a term definition - and wherefrom does this definition come and what makes it among the many different definitions authoritative? - ambiguity follows unless that word is used in an explicitly rigid systematic way unproductive to discussing broad and impractical matters like philosophy, because one finds the same ambiguities as words in concepts, and that accepting this these ambiguities of language become preferred. Even in mathematics certainty only goes as far as the bounds of one practical system. As soon as one enters theoretical space you're fucked.

It took me a lot of reading before realizing no philosophers were using words or concepts in exactly the same ways. You have your own unique interpretation of every word as every concept and every philosophy. It's why a philosopher's greatest admirers may still be told they are misinterpreting them. It is not for lack of trying. Wittgenstein told Russell he didn't understand the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Sartre wrote a 500 some page response to Heidegger's Being and Time and is told he misinterpreted it. Nietzsche studies Schopenhauer and anyways becomes Nietzsche. Stirner studies Hegel and anyways because Stirner of very different Spirit.

There is nowhere in life you are going to get clear definitions of things. It's time to grow up anon. You have to make these calls for yourself.

what a shitty thread

>>12610764
based accelerationist Marxist

>The robot is interesting on a number of other counts also. As the mythological end of the object, it gathers unto itself all the phantasies attendant upon our deepest relationships with our environment.
>The robot is a slave, then, but let us not forget that the theme of slavery is always bound up - even in the legend of the sorcerer's apprentice - with the theme of revolt. In one form or another, robots in revolt are by no means rare in science fiction. And that revolt is implicit even when it is not manifest. The robot, like the slave, is both good and perfidious: good as a captive force; perfidious as a force that may break its chains. Like the sorcerer's apprentice, man has every reason to fear the resurrection of this force which he has exorcized and bound to his own image.

>>12408611
you're right about JB also. like Land, it's kind of tell whether or not he is out to deconstruct Marxism or not, sometimes. he's heretical, in many ways, and yet the more heretical he becomes the more he winds up showing how much breadth and depth there is within the Marxist project, in many ways. his whole corpus is this lament for modernity, and yet he winds up being accused of being obscurantist poster boy only because he was seeing things more accurately than anybody else was. he gets called a postmodernist, but really, that is kind of postmodernism that is actually worth reading, the stuff that is genuinely interesting. Land has perhaps carved for himself a similar legacy: it is possible that, as extreme as his thinking often seems, it really is just a man who is seeing things clearly.

as you said,
>It leads both thinkers to the classic dilemma: do you learn to stop worrying and love the Thing or not?
you cannot even *see* the Thing unless, in some sense, you are prepared to volunteer yourself to it. Foucault has a line i like also: 'truth is given to the subject at a price that brings the subject's own being into question.' capital is as infinite as the self is, and writers like Baudrillard seem to have an excess of self to volunteer in these vision quests of theory.

>He sides with the Thing, not in the neoliberal sense of capitulation, but absurdist sense of liberation from the real. Disneyland isn't decay, it's a machine which works to freeze the decay of the real, feeding the lack of real with it's own simulations -- it's imagining Sisyphus happy pushing paradise up a hill.
ayup. this. and very well said. Land is basically operating from a lot of spaces opened by Baudrillard, especially in the later orders of simulation. Land seems to be able to imagine a place that Baudrillard doesn't, which is where his feeling for Lovecraft comes in. Baudrillard doesn't go here, and it shows in his writing. he's also a much greater enthusiast about Nietzsche than Land. and, of course, they would have considerable disagreement also about AI.

heretical Marxists are best Marxists.