On 9/11/26 2:06 pm, glen wrote:
I like that you put a question mark at the end of "But the rate of
change or rate of change of change is acutely steeper and kicking us
even further out of our natural time-to-change scale?" Is it?
Yes, that is the fundamental question... Is it *really* and in *which
dimension* and *for whom*?
I've always felt like there's some kind of observation bias at work,
here. First off, *what* is changing? If we think "it" is changing
faster, then what is it, the thing that's changing? My guess is that
whatever "it" is, there was something like it back in the day. And
"it" was changing just as fast as "it" is changing today. Is "it"
changing faster now than during the Cambrian explosion? Or the Great
Oxidation? Or the growth of the Mongol Empire?
For the kids outside (or inside) the castle wall as a horde rolled in on
their Harleys (erh... horses) *it* was a very big deal and it happened
very fast (minutes, hours, days), even if their parents died immediately
or holed up behind castle walls until they died of hunger, thirst, or
typhoid.
I doubt Great Oxygenation happened quite that fast... but it was
interesting to discover that in the Jurassic (or some Age-O-Dinos) the
O2 percentage was several points higher than it is today and that
vegetation was significantly more likely to catch and carry combustion?
Of course what we like looking at, do/must focus on, whatever that is,
seems to be changing faster. But I'm not convinced our lenses are at
all objective.
Until a few years ago I was very much feeling as if the semiotic
numerator and the denominator were changing at roughly the same rate,
even if we tend to be more focused on the numerator. Maybe my finger
on the pulse of the denominator slipped, but I am feeling it as if there
is a rapid ratio change. It could well be the aging/post-career
position I am in? I have more time to dump this stuff in my navel and
swirl it around with the lint and other gak trapped there while gazing
into it, but I'm not out in the world the same way gathering lint/gak
species from as many places?
Maybe it is true that after enzymes emerged, chemistry happens faster
than before enzymes. IDK; my chemistry is non-existent. And,
similarly, after the internet, Sick Memes happen faster, of which I'm
equally ignorant. But without cordoning off the "it", I'm worried
we're talking nonsense.
Of course we are talking nonsense, just as all LLMs generate slop? But
like models, some nonsense/slop is useful?
I think the key point isnt anhything about the *absolute* rate of change
but the ratio of the rate of change to the speed at which we can
assimilate such?
Many here are here because we are somewhat addicted to
tracking/predicting/analyzing/predicting/pontificating on *technological
and scientific and mathematical 'progress'" and the adjacent
consequences thereof, so many of us are likely to have a less acute
sense of the (rate of) change being out of our scale to assimilate?
Youse guys who are more motivated/engaged in CS domains have jargon and
names I can't look up fast enough. You are using LLMs and tools
adjacent to them I haven't even heard of in ways I haven't even thought
of. And that is mostly just in the last year? Though such has been
true by some measure since the beginning of FriamTime (2003?)
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
