Whenever any advance is made in AI, AI critics redefine AI so its not achieved yet according to their definition.

That stems from the fact that AI is an ill-defined term that has no actual meaning. Before Google maps became popular, any route finding algorithm utilizing A* was considered “AI”.

And the second comment about LLMs being parrots arises from a misunderstanding of how LLMs work.

Bullshit. These people know exactly how LLMs work.

LLMs reproduce the form of language without any meaning being transmitted. That’s called parroting.

I think you’re dangerously naive for two options and defeatist for the other one.

Nice strawman.

Voting isn’t the only way to have a democracy. Try to build an opposition outside parliament.

What’s your plan B? What will you do, if Trump wins, or Biden wins and they’ll have a successful insurrection? How will you avoid the next Trump successor?

I think it was actually, because the game stuttered when compiling shaders on PC. Valve then precompiled all the shaders for the steam deck and delivered those via the steam client.

On what? On dependencies? That shouldn’t be an issue with nixos.

I’d like to have the freedom to switch easily.

It doesn’t work at all with sddm. That’s what’s wrong.

I love the Gnome workflow, but holy shit, I get the hate. Why doesn’t it support a lockscreen that’s not gdm?

That’s actually what happens to Mac in the episode.

Authcoms have failed to realize that anarchism is materialist at least since Stalin.

1. The video used the same definition. I never claimed it was congruent with the essay on the anarchist library.
2. Lol, no. Power was incredibly monopolized by the bolsheviki and their Komisars.

I read the anarchist rebuttal. It made clear that force and authority are different things. The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay. The hexbear author didn’t understand that, or misrepresented the anarchist.

It’s ok, if you didn’t get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?

Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate? If not, then you don’t understand the anarchist’s critique.

How would you know? You didn’t fucking read it, if you didn’t source the argument of “authority is created through unquestioning obedience”!

I did read both the anarchist’s rebuttal and the hexbear comment (as far as I could stomach). I don’t completely agree with the anarchist’s rebuttal, which is why I didn’t share it. The hexbear bloke didn’t genuinely take the anarchist’s proposal seriously, as I’ve explained several times now.

There are literally those who think self defense is authority but justifiable authority, did you read the “Problems with “On Authority””? No?

That’s not what the essay’s author claims. The essay’s author doesn’t view self-defense as “blind obedience”, hence they don’t think it is authority. Please stop misrepresenting stuff, it’s getting exhausting.

It’s no use arguing, if we both don’t accept each other’s definition of authority. You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels’ definition. I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.

Just admit that you don’t want to consider anarchist perspectives. It would save you a lot of time.

Have fun doing your idealist vanguard LARP. Thinking that the “right” people in the government will somehow lead to socialism.

They aren’t engaging with the definition in a serious way. That is my point.

I follow a different definition, that’s more complete, IMHO: Authority is the monopolization of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few. With that definition, which is compatible with the bulk of anarchist theory, “On authority” is nothing, but the incoherent ramblings of someone with too much personal beef.

The hexbear author not once seriously engages with any of the two viewpoints given in the anarchist rebuttal. They give this example of a robbery, where they try to reach a point with the anarchist’s definition and call it absurd. The only reason, they do so, is begause in the middle of their argument, they switch definitions back to Engels’ definition. If I change the preconditions in the middle of my logical chain, shit will get goofy. Duh.

You mean the definition of authority that the video you linked as a rebuttal is based on? Because that is the one that is being critiqued.

No. The video and the essay huse different definitions. You didn’t watch the -ideo, or didn’t listen to it, properly.

The argument is that the alternate definition that the anarchist proposes is incoherent.

The hexbear author fails to do so and doesn’t properly represent the anarchist’s essay’s point of view.

Engels created a straw-man. No anti-authoritarian thinks that necessity, or self-defense is authority. Therefore, they don’t argue against necessity, or self-defense.

Wow, sick burn, homie. /s

Sorry, but you obviously have no idea of modern anarchist theory.

I didn’t claim Marx denounced dogmatism.

Ok, I’ve read it and I’m not impressed. The post on hexbear tries to act as if they were seriously considering the anarchist point of view, they are constantly being disingenuous.

The biggest point of critique againstEngels is that he is effectively strawmanning anti-authoritarians, by using a definition of authority that differs from the anarchist definition in a fundamental way. While the hexbear author acknowledges that fact in the beginning and seems to take the (IMHO flawed) definition of the anarchist’s critique at face value, he repeats the same mistake that Engels did and takes Engels’ definition as the only logical one.

They misrepresented my point. Enough that I don’t care to continue.