Hi. Agile enthusiast here. Iâ(TM)m a working coder and a manager and a consultant and a trainer all in one.

I firmly believe that Agile methods such as Scrum or Kanban are NOT for any type of work. Misery comes from mis-matching tools to jobs. Pounding a wood screw in with a hammer is possible, but really sucks, and doesnâ(TM)t result in high-quality work. Applying Scrum to non-complex (in the Cynefin sense), non-product development, non-software work is a guarantee of misery. Applying the values and principles of theâManifesto for Agile Software Developmentâ without the appropriate work environment is a total disaster.

I will freely admit that Agile (and Scrum, Kanban, etc.) also arenâ(TM)t for all personality types! I love uncertainty, variety, risk and so for me, Agile is a good fit for my personality. But if you want certainty, stability and predictability, then stay away from Agile!

I have! It was a good conversation.

Good points. I guess one question which a theory of mind might help us answer: are we optimized or are we mediocre WRT intelligence. And the AI winter stuff is also interesting because until AI tools can make better AI tools without human intervention, then I would say we aren't anywhere near a singularity anyway.

I love this distinction between knowledge and intelligence. Very important!

I agree. And, I think we have a long way to go before we exhaust our ability to discover new knowledge. Yes, that could be a type of singularity, but I don't think it is what is normally considered for the concept.

Yup. But I think we are growing there too. We just haven't had to face the kinds of global challenges that we are now facing, and/or, we haven't truly solved the root causes that led to previous global challenges (e.g. world wars). I'm an optimist: I believe we'll get through it all.

p.s. I'm not a cognitive scientist so I may be unaware of recent research proving a theory of mind which validates the concept of unlimited intelligence. I'm happy to be informed if such a theory of mind does exist.

All of the folks who talk about the inevitable singularity fail to make their case based on one really obvious and important assumption which --may-- be flawed.

To understand the assumption, though, requires understanding a concept related to intelligence, namely, the "theory of mind". Right now, most computer scientists and cognitive scientists believe that the mind is an emergent or contingent property of physics, chemistry, biology and evolution. However, this is not proven any more than the existence of souls are proven. This theory of mind is at the basis of all AI work and all speculation about where AI can go.

However, this theory of mind is very limited and does not describe a direct path from physics through the other disciplines to the reality we experience as humans of having intentionality, choice, self-control, an internal voice, control of our internal voice, meaning, etc. which are all part of our experience of intelligence.

So, the flaw then, at least potentially, is that without a proper theory of mind that makes that connection... and even with a validated theory of mind, we may discover that there is a fundamental LIMIT to the level of intelligence possible. We may discover that humans already represent the maximum possible level of intelligence in our given universe.

So, is a singularity even possible? We have no way of knowing until either it happens or we develop a theory of mind that can properly prove that intelligence has no upper bound.

Why?

Seriously, we (parents and society) brainwash our kids all the time because we created them. What's so different about an AGI?

-- Mishkin.

Nobody stops you from rolling your own with init.

And a distribution choosing different software eight years ago isn't the same as a private company intruding on your personal computer to change software without consent. And no, EULAs are not consent.

I'm not giving Mark Zuckerberg money so he can violate my privacy in order to manipulate me into buying more junk at my expense to further stuff his wallet.

Most podcasts take the form of a bunch of people at a table, each by a mic, who talk about ... stuff. It's unscripted. Unplanned. Shoot from the hip. And, unsurprisingly, it's also very boring. Contrast that to Rogan, who runs a podcast I despise, but who at least has a producer plan set ups to surprise his guest with something about them or their past they'd rather not talk about. To create tension or conflict. Better, think of This American Life, which follows documentary radio format. A subject is chosen for each episode. It's broken into two or three segments with a matching theme. Producers go out and interview people in the field who have something to say and the quotes curated so you get the interesting bits and not a bunch of wandering commentary. Then there's scripted VO to tie everything together.

Podcasters have conflated disorganized talk with produced and informed commentary. And people got better things to do than listen to boring nonsense even if they're stuck in traffic. I mean, there's always music!

I did not buy this on Ebay. I'm the same person who registered the account all those years ago.

Wait. Are you calling me old?!?!

Yeah. Guilty as charged. lol

Notice how the focus of 'Birds Aren't Real' is that robot birds are engaged in mass surveillance. Which is ridiculous, but with a tinge of plausibility since actual prototype robot birds have been created. But that's not the point. Forget birds. The point here is to dismiss robot birds as replacing all real live birds and in the process diminish or demean the concept of mass surveillance. Which IS REAL. I mean, we're all carrying phones with GPS tracking our every move, audio recording (which has been subpoenaed in the past) , and leaving video records these companies analyze for whatever reasons they choose.

The birds, not so real. The mass surveillance part, very very real. And I get the sense this movement benefits surveillance capitalists more than it debunks fake conspiracy theories.

GraphineOS. Requires a Pixel phone. Is pretty secure.

You can find a little bit of original source material compiled here: https://www.bahai.org/library/...
And a bit of an overview here: https://www.bahai.org/beliefs/...

But overall, it's a bit hard to find details online. There are a few principles that Bahais follow regarding government, politics, etc.:
1. Non-involvement in partisan politics due to its divisive nature
2. All of society's institutions must be completely reformed, including government
3. A form of democracy is best, but current systems are corrupt
4. Institutions led by individuals (e.g. pope, kings, etc.) are to be removed from society
5. Capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. all have critical failings due to their non-acknowledgement of the spiritual nature of humanity (materialism)
6. Bahai elections (internally for the community) have no campaigning, no parties, and do not result in power or authority for individuals, but rather for collective bodies only

There's probably lots of other principles too that I'm just forgetting.

There are two books that are worth looking at if you want to dig deeper:
"The World Order of Baha'u'llah" by Shoghi Effendi
"Baha'i Administration" by Shoghi Effendi
both of which can be found online here: https://www.bahai.org/library/...