I wish I knew _in more detail_ what my brain thinks it's picking up on here? (I could always be wrong.) It's important that I use the word _distribution_ everywhere; I'm at least definitely not being one of those _statistically-illiterate_ sexists. Most men _also_ don't have that kind or degree of boisterous dominance; my surprise is a matter of ratios in the right tail.
-I wish there was some way I could get a chance to explain to all _my people_ still under the Egregore's control, what _should_ be common knowledge too obvious to mention—that Bayesian _surprise_ is not moral _disapproval_. Beckett Mariner _deserves to exist_. (And, incidentally, I deserve the chance to _be_ her.) But I think the way you realistically _get_ starships and StyleGAN—and survive—is going to require an uncompromising focus on the kind of technical excellence that can explain in mathematical detail what black-box abstractions like "politics" and "empathy" are even supposed to _mean_—an excellence that _doesn't fit past the regex filter_.
+I wish there was some way I could get a chance to explain to all _my people_ still under the Egregore's control, what _should_ be common knowledge too obvious to mention—that Bayesian _surprise_ is not moral _disapproval_. Beckett Mariner _deserves to exist_. (And, incidentally, I deserve the chance to _be_ her.) But I think the way you realistically _get_ starships and full-body StyleGAN—and survive—is going to require an uncompromising focus on the kind of technical excellence that can explain in mathematical detail what black-box abstractions like "politics" and "empathy" are even supposed to _mean_—an excellence that _doesn't fit past the regex filter_.
But I don't expect to live to get the chance.
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff