Susannah! I did not know you had such a relationship with Harbor School! Both my sons went there (the eldest did CTE in Ocean Engineering at Harbor and has just graduated from St John’s College in Annapolis with first prize for the Senior Essay and is in the slow process of applying to FDNY alongside pursuing other things…), the younger son is a rising Senior at Harbor in CTE Marine Systems Technology and is intending to go to Burke trade school in LIC to become an electrician…
OH MY GOSH Harbor School to St John’s move is the DREAM, and I love the fact that your youngest is sticking with it— we need so many more MST/boatbuilding/marine engineering humans in the world!
I have a collection of genealogical documents on my dads side going as far back as the 1600s! We first came here near New York (or rather, New Amsterdam!). Lots of interesting stories, one of which is documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_Point_Preserve On my moms side, all my great great grandparents came through Ellis Island, so in different ways New York is important on both sides. Makes the fact that I moved here feel appropriate!
You say the bible contains no straightforward limitation on the amount a ruler may tax his subjects. You say the justice needs to be discerned contextually and prudentially. I agree in principle, tentatively. However, certainly you must be able to identify some boundary conditions from the text, for certain contexts (e.g. peace time versus war time). I’m certain that a bible scholar as well versed as yourself would not give the notion of context and prudence the license and free reign to allow a ruler to do whatever he deems fit.
What say you? What are some example boundary conditions of just versus unjust taxation levels? 1st Sam. 8 isn’t shy about naming amounts. I’m sure you could take a stab at it.
“The ease of production with AI has made it possible for lazy, untalented, thoughtless, uncaring, and dishonest people to produce innumerable shallow semblances of things that might once have reliably indicated skill, thought, and care.” You call out the low character of these people as being a priori, and I recoil in disgust from such people, alongside you. “He who is slack in his work is brother to he who destroys.” But, if they came to you with low character a priori, where are you finding instances of their previously skillful, thoughtful, and careful work? People of low character, by definition, don’t do such work. They didn’t do it reliably once in the past, and they don’t do it now. AI did not make it possible. The men of low character made it possible.
It is true that men of low character can theoretically now produce more slop than they were already producing. There are fewer button presses involved. If it’s a particular new quantity about which you’re complaining, you should be clear on the point, and identify the new quantity which passes the bar of criminality. Let’s have practical clarity, and give actionable shape to your theory of justice. If you discover slop, what is the word count over which a man should be given lashes (or name your alternate punishment), and under which he escapes punishment? Or if you don’t like that metric for criminality, pick another one and describe it. Help me understand what you’re after, not intellectually, but judicially. After all, you told me that you don't exonerate people who use AI even if there is no deception or malice. But, affectionately, I don't care whether you exonerate them. I want to know what the vested authority will and should do. Feel free to imagine an instance in which he can exercise all his sapiential prudence, but make it generate something concrete at the end.
Sports is a contrived contest to identify a superior person. Moral economic life isn’t a sport or contrivance to find a superior person. It’s competitive, but not in a contrived way. “Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings, not before common men.” Sloppy use of AI is an excellent sorting mechanism to allow truly skilled men to be recognized. AI may increase the noise to signal ratio, but it allows sloppy people to out themselves. The sluggard burieth his hand in the dish; it wearieth him to bring it again to his mouth.
If that places higher burdens of judgment upon us, who cares? Since when does God owe us easy judgments? Doesn’t God insist, adamantly, that we hone our judicial skills? If we will judge angels someday, learning how to filter out AI seems like a good drill. (N.B. see that I’m implicitly calling for stigma as a mechanism to mark and identify truly lazy people; so I think we are agreed here.)
Re: trophic cascades, saltation, etc: ecology and evolutionary metaphors for human morality or society are so jarring in what I would expect otherwise to be a context of biblical reasoning. Biblical anthropomorphology isn’t about balances. Human systems are not ecosystems. I am really scratching my head on your use of these figures, as it seems to go against Christian humanist thought in general, as men not being a cog in the materialist machine of nature, but by dint of the Imago Dei, rising above it. (A truth shown amply in the falsification of Malthus’s theory).
But, if those are valid analogies and I'm just being pedantic, then why isn't AI just another naturalistic piece of the cycle? Part of the circle of life? Why suddenly get all humanistic on that point?
Please send me a notification when Anthropic’s private military exceeds the size of the military of even Andorra. I very much like to keep abreast of these threats.
Re: the Gresham’s law analogy. Elsewhere you posted an anecdote or research which demonstrated that people intuitively prefer human writing and tend to shun AI writing. That's at odds with any fear that bad comms will drive out good. You may have some quibbles with Adam Smith, but the law that when more is demanded, cost goes up, has immense empirical validation in history. This could actually be good news for purveyors of quality information, if they will only forge ahead, commit their work to God, and trust that AI isn't short-circuiting any of his promises for the reward of human excellence.
The debasement of money is a problem because the minting authority is lying about the assay. If the authority truthfully states the assay, the users can price it in on both sides of the transaction and nobody is robbed.
Likewise, since as you aptly describe, human words have value akin to money, the only thing necessary to avoid robbery is disclosure. That's why I favor disclosure of AI use, not banning. People sensitive to that value may then discount the product to their *own* satisfaction, not the satisfaction of a third party. A judicial authority will be no more competent at setting prices for words than they will be in setting prices for oil or sugar, but they will be eminently competent at prosecuting an instance where a writer promised human words but failed to deliver.
TV trivialized society… and the drunks made songs about David in the streets, and scoffers scoffed in antiquity. An appeal to 20th century intellectual giants isn’t convincing to me if those giants were wrong on a crucial point. Plenty of giants have been professional nostalgists. It's a besetting affliction among certain intellectuals. I'm not particularly moved by arguments from authority.
I am also unmoved by fears of AI popping the university bubble. The academic slop you reference was made by university people. Lindsay pulled the grievance studies hoax before AI. I would be quite happy with university going away. You sound happy, also, given your complaints about it. We could scrap needlessly, but why not join hands and replace it with Christian study centers? Wouldn't that restore whatever it is you liked about old university? Let's get rid of credentialism and all the rest.
A caveat, though. You won't be able to escape markets, even in a dream world of study centers. Anyone wanting to study for personal fulfillment will need to pay for it somehow. Teachers will need to be paid somehow. If you are pursuing knowledge for which nobody is willing to pay, you will need rich patrons. How did patrons get rich? Usually by serving their neighbors with products and services on… the market. I'm a huge fan of people learning things for which there is no immediate market demand... and I'm a big fan of the only thing which can make that indulgence possible-- affluence.
Your concern about the Machine seems selective. The public education system is part of the Machine, yet you worry it could be affected by AI. A house divided against itself cannot stand. How about instead imagining a society where Christian education is amply available and the numbing and suicidal public system consists only of a few poor souls needing rescue? If your arts and crafts movement can make a difference, this wouldn't be a stretch.
I don't know if you keep abreast of American politics-- and I wouldn't blame you if you don't-- but a high concern with private property is something which the American right tossed in the dustbin a while back.
Fun fact about Sayers: she invented the Guinness Toucan.
Also the ‘Guinness is Good For You’ slogan!
Susannah! I did not know you had such a relationship with Harbor School! Both my sons went there (the eldest did CTE in Ocean Engineering at Harbor and has just graduated from St John’s College in Annapolis with first prize for the Senior Essay and is in the slow process of applying to FDNY alongside pursuing other things…), the younger son is a rising Senior at Harbor in CTE Marine Systems Technology and is intending to go to Burke trade school in LIC to become an electrician…
Love Gov Is! Thanks for listening!♥️
OH MY GOSH Harbor School to St John’s move is the DREAM, and I love the fact that your youngest is sticking with it— we need so many more MST/boatbuilding/marine engineering humans in the world!
I have a collection of genealogical documents on my dads side going as far back as the 1600s! We first came here near New York (or rather, New Amsterdam!). Lots of interesting stories, one of which is documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_Point_Preserve On my moms side, all my great great grandparents came through Ellis Island, so in different ways New York is important on both sides. Makes the fact that I moved here feel appropriate!
WE NEED TO COMPARE
Couple of my Rhode Island ancestors ended up in NYC in the 1600s
That really is quite amazing! Have you visited Sam's Point Preserve?
Having been in New York almost five years now, it would be quite embarassing if I haven't!
(i haven't)
You say the bible contains no straightforward limitation on the amount a ruler may tax his subjects. You say the justice needs to be discerned contextually and prudentially. I agree in principle, tentatively. However, certainly you must be able to identify some boundary conditions from the text, for certain contexts (e.g. peace time versus war time). I’m certain that a bible scholar as well versed as yourself would not give the notion of context and prudence the license and free reign to allow a ruler to do whatever he deems fit.
What say you? What are some example boundary conditions of just versus unjust taxation levels? 1st Sam. 8 isn’t shy about naming amounts. I’m sure you could take a stab at it.
“The ease of production with AI has made it possible for lazy, untalented, thoughtless, uncaring, and dishonest people to produce innumerable shallow semblances of things that might once have reliably indicated skill, thought, and care.” You call out the low character of these people as being a priori, and I recoil in disgust from such people, alongside you. “He who is slack in his work is brother to he who destroys.” But, if they came to you with low character a priori, where are you finding instances of their previously skillful, thoughtful, and careful work? People of low character, by definition, don’t do such work. They didn’t do it reliably once in the past, and they don’t do it now. AI did not make it possible. The men of low character made it possible.
It is true that men of low character can theoretically now produce more slop than they were already producing. There are fewer button presses involved. If it’s a particular new quantity about which you’re complaining, you should be clear on the point, and identify the new quantity which passes the bar of criminality. Let’s have practical clarity, and give actionable shape to your theory of justice. If you discover slop, what is the word count over which a man should be given lashes (or name your alternate punishment), and under which he escapes punishment? Or if you don’t like that metric for criminality, pick another one and describe it. Help me understand what you’re after, not intellectually, but judicially. After all, you told me that you don't exonerate people who use AI even if there is no deception or malice. But, affectionately, I don't care whether you exonerate them. I want to know what the vested authority will and should do. Feel free to imagine an instance in which he can exercise all his sapiential prudence, but make it generate something concrete at the end.
Sports is a contrived contest to identify a superior person. Moral economic life isn’t a sport or contrivance to find a superior person. It’s competitive, but not in a contrived way. “Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings, not before common men.” Sloppy use of AI is an excellent sorting mechanism to allow truly skilled men to be recognized. AI may increase the noise to signal ratio, but it allows sloppy people to out themselves. The sluggard burieth his hand in the dish; it wearieth him to bring it again to his mouth.
If that places higher burdens of judgment upon us, who cares? Since when does God owe us easy judgments? Doesn’t God insist, adamantly, that we hone our judicial skills? If we will judge angels someday, learning how to filter out AI seems like a good drill. (N.B. see that I’m implicitly calling for stigma as a mechanism to mark and identify truly lazy people; so I think we are agreed here.)
Re: trophic cascades, saltation, etc: ecology and evolutionary metaphors for human morality or society are so jarring in what I would expect otherwise to be a context of biblical reasoning. Biblical anthropomorphology isn’t about balances. Human systems are not ecosystems. I am really scratching my head on your use of these figures, as it seems to go against Christian humanist thought in general, as men not being a cog in the materialist machine of nature, but by dint of the Imago Dei, rising above it. (A truth shown amply in the falsification of Malthus’s theory).
But, if those are valid analogies and I'm just being pedantic, then why isn't AI just another naturalistic piece of the cycle? Part of the circle of life? Why suddenly get all humanistic on that point?
Please send me a notification when Anthropic’s private military exceeds the size of the military of even Andorra. I very much like to keep abreast of these threats.
Re: the Gresham’s law analogy. Elsewhere you posted an anecdote or research which demonstrated that people intuitively prefer human writing and tend to shun AI writing. That's at odds with any fear that bad comms will drive out good. You may have some quibbles with Adam Smith, but the law that when more is demanded, cost goes up, has immense empirical validation in history. This could actually be good news for purveyors of quality information, if they will only forge ahead, commit their work to God, and trust that AI isn't short-circuiting any of his promises for the reward of human excellence.
The debasement of money is a problem because the minting authority is lying about the assay. If the authority truthfully states the assay, the users can price it in on both sides of the transaction and nobody is robbed.
Likewise, since as you aptly describe, human words have value akin to money, the only thing necessary to avoid robbery is disclosure. That's why I favor disclosure of AI use, not banning. People sensitive to that value may then discount the product to their *own* satisfaction, not the satisfaction of a third party. A judicial authority will be no more competent at setting prices for words than they will be in setting prices for oil or sugar, but they will be eminently competent at prosecuting an instance where a writer promised human words but failed to deliver.
TV trivialized society… and the drunks made songs about David in the streets, and scoffers scoffed in antiquity. An appeal to 20th century intellectual giants isn’t convincing to me if those giants were wrong on a crucial point. Plenty of giants have been professional nostalgists. It's a besetting affliction among certain intellectuals. I'm not particularly moved by arguments from authority.
I am also unmoved by fears of AI popping the university bubble. The academic slop you reference was made by university people. Lindsay pulled the grievance studies hoax before AI. I would be quite happy with university going away. You sound happy, also, given your complaints about it. We could scrap needlessly, but why not join hands and replace it with Christian study centers? Wouldn't that restore whatever it is you liked about old university? Let's get rid of credentialism and all the rest.
A caveat, though. You won't be able to escape markets, even in a dream world of study centers. Anyone wanting to study for personal fulfillment will need to pay for it somehow. Teachers will need to be paid somehow. If you are pursuing knowledge for which nobody is willing to pay, you will need rich patrons. How did patrons get rich? Usually by serving their neighbors with products and services on… the market. I'm a huge fan of people learning things for which there is no immediate market demand... and I'm a big fan of the only thing which can make that indulgence possible-- affluence.
Your concern about the Machine seems selective. The public education system is part of the Machine, yet you worry it could be affected by AI. A house divided against itself cannot stand. How about instead imagining a society where Christian education is amply available and the numbing and suicidal public system consists only of a few poor souls needing rescue? If your arts and crafts movement can make a difference, this wouldn't be a stretch.
I don't know if you keep abreast of American politics-- and I wouldn't blame you if you don't-- but a high concern with private property is something which the American right tossed in the dustbin a while back.