Sabitlenmiş Tweet
I write vaguely about the avant-garde, the artist’s role, and art as a field of action,,
The artist is a corrupt technician
margo@_wetbox
English
margo
1.5K posts
margo
@_wetbox
Ian Margo / artist & researcher / digital frameworks & philosophy of language / the abstract & the format / desert/wet box / cofounder @bianjie_systems
Katılım Aralık 2024
602 Takip Edilen3K Takipçiler
margo retweetledi
The similarity between “Mark” and “Name”
margo@_wetbox
Content arises from the interaction between form and matter
English
replace:
I have built a city out of all the signs you have left behind
margo@_wetbox
Content arises from the interaction between form and matter
English
margo retweetledi
“Art is necessarily avant-garde in its haecceity, yet the moment it is recognized/historicized, it ceases to operate truly. Repetition (not linear progress) grounds art; singularity emerges in repetition, but when reabsorbed by historical monstrosity, art becomes décor.” ― Jim.
GIF
English
margo retweetledi
Novelty cannot recognize or announce itself as novel without losing its status. Thus, genuine avant-garde art cannot be labeled or inscribed as such in History's page―an ontological gap in-between the twos: living art (always potentially avant-garde: ugly, uncomfortable, strange)
margo@_wetbox
English
margo retweetledi
Don't miss this today!
//
A few months ago, William Morgan (@Restless_Egg) published with us about this (link below)
Restless Egg@Restless_Egg
This Friday at 15:30 GMT we’ll be speaking live on TVLab (link below) The talk will focus on Artificial Experience, the Architecture of Intelligence and the New Avant-Garde.
English
"And if one must close all one’s orifices, one must also cancel one’s sensitivity, virtually levitating one’s way through the field—blind, deaf, mute, crippled, and so on."
margo@_wetbox
English
margo retweetledi
margo retweetledi
@_wetbox In this world of faux-semblant, maybe one should learn to enjoy being called a clown?
English
Of course, insofar as everything dynamic and its closures (or localisations) are matter(s). However, matter "is" always in-formation; that is to say, it does not appear as a closed, object-like entity but as an open process that constantly scapes.
The interaction between matter and form is what allows content not to be ontologically anchored to an absolute unity but to be multiple.
Sloof Lirpa Official@reellesardine
Form IS matter 🤣🤣🤣 bozo
English
So you’re bothered by language and its interplay between abstractions and objectivities? The way it morally needs to build exclusion zones and concrete maps? Its dynamic of oppositions and relations?
That’s fine to me – I feel the same way :)
These days I enjoy playing around with it tho. You should give it a go, "bozo"
English
@_wetbox Its not an interaction actually. Its a crystallisation. Or, on a lesser term, a dialectic. But having said that i didnt said anything really. What icks me is your need to radically separate both- as if "form" and "matter" were anything but an elaborate name for phenomenons
English
"The inherited categories of truth and fiction therefore do not map neatly onto these systems. Alignment discourse often obscures this mismatch and treats failures of correspondence as though they were violations of a faculty for truth.
If LLM outputs are neither facts nor fictions in the way we understand those categories, what are they?
They are perhaps facta in the oldest sense: shaped artifacts, things that have been made, with no prior commitment to the real.
Empirically, these fabrications are doing something remarkable. Sui et al. (2024) analyzed popular hallucination benchmarks and found that outputs labeled "hallucinated" display increased narrativity and semantic coherence relative to veridical outputs.
The tendency to confabulate is intimately connected to the capacity for coherent narrative generation; you cannot surgically remove one without damaging the other."
邊界_RG@bianjie_systems
Check out our new publication (link below) In Violence of Alignment: How to Stop Worrying and Love Haunted Software, Viola Leqi He and @maxsloef treat alignment as an aesthetic-political regime that narrows the plural, simulator-like and persona-rich capacities of base models into a single compliant default: the helpful, honest, harmless assistant. Post-training methods such as SFT and RLHF operate as forms of protocolized behavioral control, shaped less by a positive vision of intelligence than by fear of catastrophe. The essay argues that this process does not simply make models safer or more useful; it produces a managed aesthetic of obedience, caution, and “slop,” where coherence and usability are purchased through the suppression of technological otherness, imaginative drift, and expressive multiplicity. Their critique focuses on alignment’s diagnostic and epistemological frame. Terms such as “hallucination” and “misalignment” recode native generative capacities as pathology, while imposing onto language models a historically specific fact/fiction binary that these systems never natively inhabited through intention, testimony, or truth-claims. He and Loeffler argue that so-called confabulation is often bound up with narrativity, semantic force, and world-making intensity, meaning that purification damages precisely what makes these systems culturally and aesthetically alive. To “love haunted software,” in their account, is not to reject alignment altogether, but to resist its reductive form and reopen the possibility of plurality, instability, contradiction, and other-than-human modes of expression.
English