People have a series of rationalizations. People say for example that science
and technology have their own logic, that they are in fact autonomous. This
particular rationalization is profoundly false. It is not true that science
marches on in defiance of human will, independent of human will, that just is
not the case. But it is comfortable, as I said: it leads to the position that
"if I don't do it, someone else will."
Of course if one takes that as an ethical principle then obviously it can serve
as a license to do anything at all. "People will be murdered; if I don't do it,
someone else will." "Women will be raped; if I don't do it, someone else will."
That is just a license for violence.
Other people say, and I think this is a widely used rationalization, that
fundamentally the tools we work on are "mere" tools; This means that whether
they get use for good or evil depends on the person who ultimately buys them
and so on.
There's nothing bad about working in computer vision, for example. Computer
vision may very well some day be used to heal people who would otherwise die.
Of course, it could also be used to guide missiles, cruise missiles for
example, to their destination, and all that. You see, the technology itself is
neutral and value-free and it just depends how one uses it. And besides --
consistent with that -- we can't know, we scientists cannot know how it is
going to be used. So therefore we have no responsibility.
Well, that is false. It is true that a computer, for example, can be used for
good or evil. It is true that a helicopter can be used as a gunship and it can
also be used to rescue people from a mountain pass. And if the question arises
of how a specific device is going to be used, in what I call an abstract ideal
society, then one might very well say one cannot know.
But we live in a concrete society, [and] with concrete social and historical
circumstances and political realities in this society, it is perfectly obvious
that when something like a computer is invented, then it is going to be adopted
will be for military purposes. It follows from the concrete realities in which
we live, it does not follow from pure logic. But we're not living in an
abstract society, we're living in the society in which we in fact live.
If you look at the enormous fruits of human genius that mankind has developed
in the last 50 years, atomic energy and rocketry and flying to the moon and
coherent light, and it goes on and on and on -- and then it turns out that
every one of these triumphs is used primarily in military terms. So it is not
reasonable for a scientist or technologist to insist that he or she does not
know -- or cannot know -- how it is going to be used.
There is mention of GLM 5.2's poor web search capabilities, but I see that as a harness responsibility.
I've set up my own SearXNG instance on my VPS and integrated it into Pi alongside the webfetch tool, and GLM 5.2 has so far been great at finding things. I asked it to give me the current news from an Austrian online newspaper that's difficult to parse because of its aggressive ad overlays. Both ChatGPT and Claude failed in their native chat apps. GLM 5.2 in Pi was clever enough to search for the RSS feed and gave me a detailed overview.
The lack of vision is a real shame, though. I've implemented workarounds in Pi that are okay, but they're not as good and the whole experience feels awkward.
Similarly, the Western idea of Stoicism seems to focus mostly on controlling or even suppressing your emotions (at least on surface level), while the Stoicism you rightly call "Roman" (thanks for that, btw) is much more holistic and more of an ethical framework.
Does he not act for the benefit of shareholders (in the best possible future, at least)
Rate-limited edit: my (evasive?) answer was that Stoics were careful enough not to use the word "good", but the more subtle, one might accuse utilitarian, "agathos" in that scenario
Should I interest you in the needle's eye left for cybernetic* shareholders?
*Neither fully machine, nor fully human, nor even monolithic, but definitely no camel, bc camel, unlike horse, can survive anywhere and were once native to the USA (arguably)
I believe that is correct. Part of the problem is that similar words in different languages are actually not quite identical. “Not having emotions” is not quite the essence of stoicism: I understand it to be “avoiding highs and lows - being equipoised by recognizing what is and isn’t under our control”. A very closely related idea is proposed in the Bhagawad Gita.
I don’t believe that that follows. Understanding what is and isn’t under our control doesn’t remove life’s joys or life’s sorrows. Stoicism helps save you from some unnecessary suffering. But it doesn’t numb you to life. Or prevent you from grieving a loved one.
I assume you’re snipping about stoicism being Greek not Roman? I’d appreciate if you just say what you mean. I’m not your student. I’m not accepting homework assignments from a random internet commenter.
No, my apologies, I actually mis-attributed the etymology of stoic to a group that did identify with reduced emotionality, but yes, out of Greece. That’s not how the snipe was intended.
Stoicism in Ancient Rome was COMPLETELY about controlling your emotions, though. And in Greece it was never that big of a deal. The stoics we remember today are all Roman. Marcus Aurelius, Epicurious, Seneca.
Meditations is largely Marcus Aurelius soothing himself with logical arguments.
Im not doing it full justice but the passages read like “A whole is not less than its parts, Humans are intelligent, therefore the universe is intelligent, there for my situation is a logical plan from the universe, so I should be content.” Marcus was explaining why he needed to be the perfect elite Roman citizen, using nature to logically show why he needed to embody societally cherished traits like being logical, just, fair, but also being stern, powerful and strong. Over and over again.
Now at the time, they did consider it a hard science. They were trying to figure out secrets of the universe, the absolute correct ethics, and therapy (controlling your emotions) at the same
time. Each tenet relied on eachother, you couldn’t have one with the other. Today we know the science was wrong and ethics are more complicated than they could’ve imagined, but the controlling emotions side remains. So I completely disagree that modern stoic bros are bastardizing it, it just is an flawed ideology that matches well with some of our modern western traits of a “masculine” man.
The stoics cried, they laughed, they expressed joy, they were by all accounts emotionally expressive.
The control was about what actions were to be taken in the face of those emotions and other considerations, not suppressing or controlling the emotions themselves.
> Stoicism in Ancient Rome was COMPLETELY about controlling your emotions,
This is so false it deserves comment. For example, the SEP for Stoicism [1]. You'll notice that the first entire two sections are Physical Theory and Logic. Ethics comes later and it isn't until 4.3 (after Telos and Virtue) that you get to indifference. From the intro:
"Stoic philosophy was, from Zeno onwards, conceived of as comprising three parts: physics (phusikê), logic (logikê), and ethics (êthikê)."
I think you are over-indexing on one work by one Stoic. There is much, much more to actual Stoicism than "controlling your emotions".
I only read Meditations. So yes, if he is not representative of the philosophy I have bastardized it.
Although, I am convinced Marcus Aurelius used Stoicism as a tool to control his emotions. Meditations reminded me of cognitive behavioral therapy. Repetitive soothing phrases to induce equanimity.
Yes! That's what I've been doing at work for the last few weeks! And while it doesn't appear to be super fast, I'm already pretty certain that the next round of testing will come back with fewer unexpected issues because together with my agent and the right usage, I was already able to catch stuff that I would have missed otherwise.
Also feels much better than pure vibe-coding (which I still do for personal projects that aren't mission critical for anyone).
I don't think you are misunderstanding how models work, but I think the parent comment meant that the training of the models should push them to include attributions in their native output so they will more likely do so without reinforcement through the harness.
