Agency Is the Antidote to Stupidity

Is computer science dead?

- No

It's like saying math is dead because calculus was invented such a long time ago.

But sure, math is dead too, let's go with that. The entirety of science is pretty much dead and in a state of horrendous crisis with nowhere to go. A true dead end. That's because you already understand it and have no new ideas. Plus, you don't really collaborate with anyone or do anything interesting with it anyway. Isn't that right?

It's a maelstrom of the purest, blackest depression injected right into your brain as the understanding hits you: everything has been done, and this is unnecessary. And everything you could do is basically to lie: lie about the importance of the things you do, and lie about how important you really are. Because you're only as valuable as your results, only as impactful. So dwell in it, you pathetic worm.

But the really deep question you want is: have there really been any new ideas in the last thousand years of human history anyway?

Is the burning of books a good idea after all?

Can you be sure some Mesopotamian dude didn't just invent every single mathematical idea at his campfire thousands of years ago, but just didn't record it anywhere? Or maybe he did and a jealous mathematical adversary destroyed his records.

Because of course, the only relevant thing is to figure out who is "the best", and who are the losers. Because all we humans want is a scapegoat to humiliate and ultimately kill in exchange for our sins, as though they all went away in the process.

In other words, people can't shake their stupid religion, no matter what. Even if it was all a gross misunderstanding.

The thing I've been contemplating recently (as in the last two to three years) is the question of "are we living the end times", or a variation thereof. "Is this the end of work" or "will we automate absolutely everything and then kill ourselves", and so on. You know someone has to be butchered on the eve of the rebirth of Christ, so it might as well be humanity itself.

I watched a video recently about how physical discs, DVDs and Blu-rays are dead and that "we are so very helpless to stop it". Here's the truth though: no we're not.

If you can scrounge up the money and make it profitable and desirable, physical discs are to be preferred. Did you know that? A simple solution to a simple problem: just market a new gaming console that only accepts discs and has no internet connection. Literally the only threat to that would be an emulator.

A key to understanding here is that there's a limit to how convenient things can realistically get. There is a concept called "diminishing returns". In fact, most things in life are exactly like that: you must redouble your efforts for the same amount of further gain. After a while you seriously have to reassess whether it's worth it to continue.

You see, prestige is bullshit. Prestige makes simple things difficult because "you wouldn't understand" or "this isn't really my area of expertise, but". I've heard it so many times. "You'd have to be so good that you'd be practically one of the best to even try to do it", which is why you can't really do anything. You can't have a seat at the table and we'll all just wait for you to go away somewhere.

People used to talk about will and agency when it was popular. Now they like listening to prestigious men with their self-serving, fatalistic ideas and their influencer minions. That's how you know attention has been gamed.

Do you think you have agency? On a slightly more philosophical level, I think I do. And I think it's because I'm a limited being: I have a limited amount of attention and memory, and so I don't see the results of my actions yet. Knowing more means there's less freedom, literally. In other words, in an intellectually honest world, freedom exists, but neither universally nor unconditionally. Is that such a hard thing to believe? The conscious part of you requires the experience of being able to steer.

Because the things you're not conscious of are the things that have been automated away.

Besides, if you don't believe in your agency, that belief could influence your psychology in a way that rigs the results. Self-fulfilling prophecy, they call it.

A million people thinking alike doesn't mean you should too.

Do you ever get even a bit paranoid about why they say kids should lay off social media until they've grown up a bit? How about asking what would make the internet healthy and engaging? That would be the ethical thing to do.

How to actually make money off it without lying is the question.

People market things by saying stuff like "this allows you this and that". But why doesn't it really enable you?

And if no one tells you anything, then it's all up to chance. So it's the old question of "how many times do you have to throw the dice to get this result?"

I mean, haven't you ever asked the question yourself? Haven't you asked whether fairness is randomness? Or is it that you're allowed to throw the dice again and again until you win? Is that fair? Because in the latter case, everyone wins eventually. Just not usually at the same time, or there wouldn't be any meaning to winning.

And so you ask: do you always have to have losers? And does the ability to throw dice again and again somehow redeem the injustice of it all? "Responsibility redeems it", they say. So what's the functional difference between responsibility and blame then?

You wouldn't leave an undesirable outcome to chance, because no one would. And that right there happens to be the only problem I have with popular AI, incidentally. I'll just spell it out here: because it's not really fair.

Increasing agency means more dice throws, and maximum dice throws means you know you'll win. Of course everything is ultimately predictable and therefore meaningless, at least for everyone else but you. But that's only because you're basing your conclusions on something you already know about them, and you're willing to average out the inaccuracies in your model of the world.

Coming back around, I've noticed some people like to concern themselves with what's dead and what's the hot new thing. Or how useless most things are. I guess my biggest fear in life is that such opinions might truly have an effect on people. My biggest fear is that marketing works.

I say marketing but I really mean marketing + influencing, because in my mind, they're the same thing.

Indeed, there are two extremely weird, suspicious things that have happened over the last decade or two.

The first is that now there's really no difference between marketing a product and promoting an opinion that might not even have anything to do with business. People use the exact same strategies for both, and they do it all the time, even when there's hardly anything to be gained, as though there was something special in behaving a certain way or using a thing, despite no money involved.

The second is that now young people dream about becoming what are effectively salespeople. Which is, by the way, yet another reason to remain skeptical about the effects popular AI is going to have.

The reason is that when everyone has the same tools, everyone's going to checkmate each other, and so no one is going to experience increased agency. You just constantly need to throw the dice more times relative to how many times it takes to actually be successful.

I wouldn't care except I do like predictability. I do like to eat. I have trouble holding cynicism at bay. It's to be expected.

On a meta level, this was really a psychological account of why it's really difficult to monetize AI tools as an honest person. The real use for them is to replace documentation, so you don't have to read. And sometimes so you don't have to type either. Presuming there was any legible documentation available to begin with.

Computer science is not dead. Computer science is cynical after too many "revolutions". Not the same thing.

That, and there's a danger of industrializing, which I've heard means: you can't do anything without knowing the right people or having some license or a permit for it.

Completely Unrelated Political Interpretations Bonus Round

The U.S. wants Greenland because it wants security against Russian nukes, missiles and things. Europe doesn't want to give it because there's a chance the U.S. would then be better protected than the rest of NATO. That can't fucking happen. The U.S. needs to die approximately as efficiently as Europe will, in the event of a large conflict. The U.S. needs to give Europe money and security, and the security posture needs to look even, as in even-steven; European countries are not U.S. proxy states.

People talk about whether Europe is capable of defending itself at all. That's somewhat misleading. The U.S. complains about how clear it is whether Europe would actually come to its aid or not. That's somewhat misleading as well. Ironically, both sides mislead to their own advantage in line with their respective agendas. But notice too: if Russia were really destroyed, then what would prevent the U.S. from controlling the entire planet under their iron fist, eh? China? There's some uncertainty about that. That uncertainty needs to go the fuck away, and so the U.S. and Europe pretty much scheme together to influence market results with regard to China. But here's an idea: the thing wouldn't look half as bad if China was forced to share winnings with India, and thus neither would become too powerful next to the U.S. and Europe. That way, both the U.S. and Europe get to continue having their cheap labor off the backs of weaker economies. Because that's literally how the world works it looks like, that everything prestigious is off the backs of the citizens living in a weaker economy. Just don't ask me what the hell "prestigious" even means. I already told you.

Meanwhile in Finland, it's of course true that Russia constitutes a threat. But how large a threat, and who orchestrates it? It's all about preemption really: Finland is more a launching pad to attack the Russian northern naval facilities than anything else, which means the Russians might care. As a Finn, I admit I'm not even all that convinced that joining NATO was 100% a great idea. But perhaps I just lack the required insider knowledge about that, and so I can't really tell. Let's say I'm 55% there. That's because you'd have to seriously ask the question of what would happen in the event Russia would attack this place specifically for some weird-ass reason and NATO would indeed come to our aid, like we suppose it would. As a citizen, you of course consider your own safety, juxtaposed with the law of diminishing returns. You have to weigh things carefully. And, if you had read Sanna Marin's book and looked at her social media, maybe you'd have a certain point of view into these things.

But now we're invested, you see. And so if NATO would crack now, Russia or its sympathizers would almost certainly attack in some way. That can't happen, so we have to give the U.S. what they want and maybe perform a little arctic warfare practice dance for them, just to make sure they're happy and preferably either keeping their mouths shut about Russia or putting the screws on to broker peace in Ukraine.

And all the while Russia is applying pressure through Ukraine, though I admit, I'm uncertain as to why. It could be because Ukraine is a breadbasket, sure. Or it could be about those rare earths people have been talking about. Or maybe the great powers just wanted a testbed to see how drones really perform, because then you're able to estimate how old-fashioned a person sitting behind a turret really is. This kind of knowledge affects the speed at which anyone can build up a credible defense.

Or maybe Russia is actually such a mess that they weren't really in control of starting their "military operation" in the first place, and everything since has been a desperate and failed attempt to save face. Not that the rich Russians in Moscow care, because they have orgies to think about.

But I know what's going to happen. There'll be secret deals with Russia that nobody is going to talk about, and it's going to be extremely awkward when Ukraine is so much indebted to all the players surrounding it: the U.S., Europe, and Russia – which is something I'm sure President Trump is drilling hard into the minds of the Ukrainians, or at least trying to, despite it looking like embarrassingly juvenile antics. It's rather likely he's failing of course, because no one wants to be pushed around.

So it's like Game of Thrones except not fantasy. Absolute arbitrary nonsense.

No but it's rather weird: regular-looking Americans say on YouTube that America's lost international prestige because of Trump. No, no. That's not the reason at all. Although of course, the president should naturally take some responsibility. No, the real reason for any such thing would be that other people's agency was not respected. You have to think about what practically gives one agency.