#apologia

[lifeinpoetry]

On earth, I have mistaken a rock // for a voice. A voice for a listening.

— Cynthia Dewi Oka, from "Apologia," A Tinderbox in Three Acts

[desperatelyseekingcannibals]

Added by BroadwayWorld:

Highlights from (2018 play) APOLOGIA, with Stockard Channing, Hugh Dancy & More!

[BroadwayWorld on YouTube - 29 May 2024]

[ixnai]

AI is not a panacea. This assertion may seem counterintuitive in an era where artificial intelligence is heralded as the ultimate solution to myriad problems. However, the reality is far more nuanced and complex. AI, at its core, is a sophisticated algorithmic construct, a tapestry of neural networks and machine learning models, each with its own limitations and constraints.

The allure of AI lies in its ability to process vast datasets with speed and precision, uncovering patterns and insights that elude human cognition. Yet, this capability is not without its caveats. The architecture of AI systems, often built upon layers of deep learning frameworks, is inherently dependent on the quality and diversity of the input data. This dependency introduces a significant vulnerability: bias. When trained on skewed datasets, AI models can perpetuate and even exacerbate existing biases, leading to skewed outcomes that reflect the imperfections of their training data.

Moreover, AI’s decision-making process, often described as a “black box,” lacks transparency. The intricate web of weights and biases within a neural network is not easily interpretable, even by its creators. This opacity poses a challenge for accountability and trust, particularly in critical applications such as healthcare and autonomous vehicles, where understanding the rationale behind a decision is paramount.

The computational prowess of AI is also bounded by its reliance on hardware. The exponential growth of model sizes, exemplified by transformer architectures like GPT, demands immense computational resources. This requirement not only limits accessibility but also raises concerns about sustainability and energy consumption. The carbon footprint of training large-scale AI models is non-trivial, challenging the narrative of AI as an inherently progressive technology.

Furthermore, AI’s efficacy is context-dependent. While it excels in environments with well-defined parameters and abundant data, its performance degrades in dynamic, uncertain settings. The rigidity of algorithmic logic struggles to adapt to the fluidity of real-world scenarios, where variables are in constant flux and exceptions are the norm rather than the exception.

In conclusion, AI is a powerful tool, but it is not a magic bullet. It is a complex, multifaceted technology that requires careful consideration and responsible deployment. The promise of AI lies not in its ability to solve every problem, but in its potential to augment human capabilities and drive innovation, provided we remain vigilant to its limitations and mindful of its impact.

[bonebabbles]

slash did disrespect the dead but at least he's not leaving the bodies out to rot like a spectacle for all to see. HORRENDOUSLY low bar, i know, but ... eugh

Like... he left Misty's corpse out there for at least a day, maybe longer. Wind Runner and Gorse HAPPENED to find it, and that lead to the Bumble death scene. Clear Sky disrespecting the dead was a relevant plot point.

But the team doesn't remember their own books so they've just totally forgotten that!

[icedsodapop]

Imagine writing for one of the largest English sources about South Korean media and engaging in apologia for Japanese occupation:

If the Japanese hated Koreans so much, why did they let them immigrate to Japan? My dude, pls read up on colonial capitalism.

[occultboyscout]

Is Witchcraft/Magic Real?

"Do you hear, you who so rashly accuse the art of magic? It is an art acceptable to the immortal gods, full of all knowledge of worship and of prayer, full of piety and wisdom in things divine, full of honour and glory since the day when Zoroaster and Oromazes established it, high-priestess of the powers of heaven. Nay, it is one of the first elements of princely instruction, nor do they lightly admit any chance person to be a magician, any more than they would admit him to be a king. Plato -- if I may quote him again -- in another passage dealing with a certain Zalmoxis, a Thracian and also a master of this art has written that magical charms are merely beautiful words. If that is so, why should I be forbidden to learn the fair words of Zalmoxis or the priestly lore. of Zoroaster?" ~Apuleius, Apologia

"Is Witchcraft/Magic real?" Sure! Or no. Who cares? Ask more interesting questions.

"I don't think magic is real." Okay cool! I'm not talking about magic then. I'm talking about philosophy, or poetry, or history. "I think magic is real." Awesome! Let's talk about ritual, and spells, and grimoires. It's all the same stuff. If the question you're trying to ask is "can ritual affect the physical world" that's a great question, I think so! Let's talk about it. If the question you're trying to ask is "can a person shoot fireballs out of their eyes" the answer is probably not. But if you ask "is magic real" you sound like the accusers of Apulleius, and their insistence on fish:

"You would have made out a far more plausible case by pretending that I made use of such things instead of fish, if only you had possessed the slightest erudition. For the belief in the use of these things is so widespread that you might have been believed. But of what use are fish save to be cooked and eaten at meals? In magic they seem to me to be absolutely useless." ~Apulleius

You do not know what I do. You do not know what I am. You do not know what you're asking me.

[darksilenceinsuburbiareloaded]

APOLOGIA | Root wood object | Japanese antique furniture, object

@apologia_jp

[r3adingr00m]

It takes a special kind of historical myopia, racism, deep and willful ignorance, and decision to ignore actual facts about things like economy, trade, and both GA and UNSC votes to write something like this. I want to say these writers are sick but actually it makes me sick that people can write this kind of utter hogwash, that it’s accepted as truth, and then repeated. I could do a line by line or para by para take down but I’m not going to right now, I will just post this piece in its entirety. F* the WSJ, truly. The one part that I highlighted here, before deciding that someone who thought that the grotesque level of violence and starvation affecting babies, children, and people generally, was not worthy of printing, and somehow distracts from the core idea, what we should all and always focus on, the loss of Israeli life and the attacks on Israel, Is that it is now quite well documented that yes of course there were Ttax and Israel. Yes, of course there was a level of violence. It was unexpected and has an at least recent times been unprecedented, and that the events that took place where to some scale not even within the scope of what attackers had planned, the fact of the matter remains of the actual numbers of people killed by militants versus the actual number killed by Israeli military response is yet to be determined. So these numbers are also just inaccurate (unless one goes by some theory like an analogy to the felony murder rule). But it would take actual journalistic integrity to interrogate that, which this utter rag of a paper does not have.

The last paras, which are on a screengrab that won’t fit here- basically: more on divisions in netanyahu’s cabinet. Israel has had “tactical wins on the battlefield” but “despite these…a strategic victory seems far off.”

Also wsj, you’re missing a tag. And that tag is “genocide”. If you have space for two, the second is “famine”.