Christina Franzen

@zulkuss @KyronKiranov @JesseCox Okay. Cool.

@antigonecorpse @KyronKiranov @JesseCox The big guys in steel plate were supposed to be tall barbarians of possible ancestry from Poseidon, who should be wearing leather. All Greeks in Nolan's movie wear pants, like some barbarians as Plato and Aristotle would think of them for it.

Putting on my old history teacher hat for a moment since my feed is all Nolan’s Odyssey. The original was composed long after the events it depicts. It’s fan fiction and myth. Myths are designed to allow storyteller flair. Don’t get hung up on historical accuracy with it. Enjoy

@FromTheDepths88 @TEBerry2 The “book purists” haven’t even read the book. I truly wonder where they’re getting their info from.

If Jurassic Park came out today I'd have Twitter know-it-alls yapping in my timeline, nitpicking the trailer to death and complaining about scientific inaccuracies, while book purists complain incessantly about "not staying true to the text."

@KyronKiranov @JesseCox Greeks are barbarians? And not civilized? Lolol. Tell that to Plato and Aristotle. They had metal armor too. Y’all just don’t read.

It's characterization. Steel armor implies a level of civilization and technical mastery that you don't expect from a tribe of barbarians. This isn't about a civilization clashing against a primal force and beating massive strength with craft and skill. This is just armor dudes killing armor dudes.

@JustinLync91747 @JesseCox Hahahaha. Hate to tell you but they’re not even historically accurate within themselves. And there are monsters and ghosts and are supernatural.

@JesseCox Myths at least should be historically accurate. Fan fiction should be historically accurate.

@notoriouszenpub @JesseCox Love Achilles, but he’s a crybaby momma’s boy.

@JesseCox And still Helen of Troy needs to at least look Greek and Achilles should at least be an actual icon of masculinity, not an actress that looks like a 12 year old boy.

@BookSpotlight 😳🤢

Someone just commented on my post saying using gen AI to make slop prompts ‘requires a greater knowledge of the English language’ As a PhD who currently *teaches* English, AHAHAHAHAHAHAH🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@firagawalkwthme Omg. This is a wonderful interpretation.

Tapping the sign for anyone confused by Nolan’s choices

@smolwarden It is preserved. In books, which give you the text in Ancient Greek. Y’all need to watch videos from Emily Wilson where she talks about Ancient Greek and the art of translation.

guys i know its fiction. its still an import piece of literature in human history that gives us a lot of info about the time it was written in and thus needs to be preserved. i thought that was obvious

idk maybe because preserving historical texts is important so we should be able to criticize a movie adaptation of homer’s the odyssey called “The Odyssey” if it changes the fundamentals of homer’s the odyssey

@mjarbo Do you not understand the concept of translation?

Fun fact about something I picked up on in The Odyssey trailer. At one point Robert Pattinson says that Tom Holland is yearning for his "DADDY" to come home. Tom responds and says something like "My DAD will come home" Something about that felt off to me. So I looked it up. The Odyssey is set in 1200 B.C. The word "Dad" wasn't invented until 1500 A.D. I think that's why it feels so off. The word used wouldn't have been invented for another 2700 years.

@tatertotsconor You’re right! I have to pull my students’ teeth to make them read 10 pages.

None of these people bitching and moaning have actually read it. That much is clear. They read the Wikipedia synopsis and think they’re now experts. Lol

@bigwalrus18 @ZVeryn96103 @reset_by_peer I don’t know much about microorganisms.

@antigonecorpse @ZVeryn96103 @reset_by_peer Why are you so sure about bugs but not bacteria?

It is an LLM. If you know how LLMs work, this explains it succinctly and thoroughly. If you do not, you should not be opining on AI consciousness at all.

@Stunt_ManMik3 @tatertotsconor What? Of course it did. They used different words but the intent stays the same. Agh. Just read shit. Learn Ancient Greek if you want to fight about it.

You know Christopher Nolan is a G.O.A.T when people flood the timeline with disingenuous and bad faith critiques. “The word ‘dad’ didnt exist in ancient Greece” -People who cant read basic Shakespeare without Coles Notes Correct. Dad is an English word. English didnt exist

@MissPavIichenko What a fucking loser. lol.

No, he’s an old fart who doesn’t understand how technology works. Also he was friends with Epstein

@esjesjesj 🤢🤮

I bet this goes so hard if you’re extremely fucking stupid

@lugaricano This asshole has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s an insecure incel piece of shit. And really dumb.

Flabbergasted that people have been dumping on/laughing at Dawkins. Is this because they are too scared to answer the deep question he posed in the article? Here is is, again (see below): What is the evolutionary purpose of consciousness? If an LLM could achieve the level of performance of a human without it, what would it be good for? What are people's serious answers to this?

@mattyglesias I will die on this hill.

We never should have accepted “compute” as a noun.

@hecubian_devil Death. Disenfranchisement. Slavery. Tyranny. Where are you coming from. I don’t get it.

I am realizing I don’t understand what the Left is worried about with AI. I assumed we feared stuff (surveillance, propaganda, policing, social isolation, job losses) that hinged on the tech being economically viable—fears related to the AI models *working*, essentially. And to that end, I’ve tried to articulate what I see as the major concerns with overcommitment to the “it’s a scam” counter-narrative. Namely, if it’s a scam, if the tech doesn’t work, then at some point the bubble pops. People stop buying it and investors stop funding it, the companies go under, and the house of cards collapses. But in this scenario, most of the fears I *thought* we had, like about social isolation or job losses, disappear. AI becomes a mostly self-limiting problem that solves itself once it inevitably fails. My concern is that this narrative leads to passivity. If the AI scam will collapse on its own, you don’t need to actually take real action against it—not legislation or other state action, anyway. You can hasten the collapse, however, by spreading the truth, by piercing the bubble for more people around you. By posting, mainly. Obviously, this has a certain appeal. It locates the correct mode of action—consciousness-raising, basically—well in the hands of what individual people can do, immediately, by doing something they already enjoy (posting). It’s both personally easy *and* makes you feel like you have individual agency. But the more I talk to people about this (or the more I get yelled at, really), the more evident it becomes that people see the scam AS the threat. Which I don’t fully understand. I get that it’s a threat in the sense that a bubble popping can result in a financial crisis/recession, so it has the character of a short-term economic problem, but the rhetoric seems so much more intense than that. People talk about the *tech itself* in strongly moral terms. Evil, anti-human, perverse, brain-rotting, etc. That seems deeper and more fundamental than the threat of a transitory economic crisis. And I have trouble reconciling the idea that the bubble will pop and the tech will be exposed as fraudulent, yet the tech itself is *powerfully evil* and must be resisted—if it doesn’t *work,* how can the *tech itself* be such a threat? How can it be a threat if the companies making it go under, and people stop investing in it? When I ask people this, they sometimes respond with versions of “well obviously even when the bubble pops the tech will stick around, companies will consolidate, etc”—which I agree would happen in a bubble-popping scenario, but I also think the tech is economically viable because it can actually replace lots of kinds of human labor. I think it *works*, to some extent, so it makes sense to me that the tech would be persistent. But if it’s a *fraud* and a *scam*, I have trouble reconciling that. So I just end up being very confused about *where exactly people are locating the threat from AI*. From what I can tell, a lot of leftist anti-AI writers and experts seem to have real worries that the tech itself is—like many automation technologies before it—fundamentally economically viable, which will lead to social and economic dislocation as it gets entrenched. This is a perspective I understand. Whereas “the scam is the threat” feels like a more diffuse, popular perception. So, genuinely, I’m soliciting answers to the question: if you’re on the left and anti-AI, where do you see the threat coming from? How do you envision it manifesting? What do you think needs to be done to stop it?

@hecubian_devil @Jak_erz They are credulous morons. So what.

@Jak_erz Do you insist on telling religious working class people they’re credulous morons before you organize with them? Or do you appeal to the egalitarian principles of their religious traditions when organizing with them? Do you meet them where they’re at?

It’s funny that “AI is/might be conscious” shakes out as a pro-AI position, whereas the anti-AI left is 100% unified “AI is not and probably never can be conscious,” Because when you think thru the implications, AI being conscious would be so damning for AI companies

@hecubian_devil It’s a threat to human intelligence lady.

@timeovertiming @yatharthmann You’re pathetic asshole.

@antigonecorpse @yatharthmann He has a degree in physics too, Karen. Provides 150,000 jobs. But you're mad because he was smarter than the engineering teacher who wanted him to waste time trying to impress people like you. Lol

Elon Musk is an engineer. Jeff Bezos is an engineer. Larry Elison is an engineer. Larry Page is an engineer. Sergey Brin is an engineer. Jensen Huang is an engineer. Turns out capitalism does reward skills and intelligence, and the richest people are indeed engineers.