Is there a social/structural notion of entropy?

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud i'm saying that like all metrics it measures only what the measurer is measuring, and the claims of universality associated to shannon information make it an extremely intoxicating viewpoint to misuse—but if we want to be fair, this is not a problem with shannon information but its usage. to some extent there are very meaningful forms of power and intent that aren't written down and run through all forms of language which i think is important

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] This is definitely one area where I am waaaay outside of my depths regarding the specifics as I am not a legal scholar nor do I pretend to understand the way in which the language involved in the amendment(s) is now applied or commonly believed to apply.

However, now that you bring it up, the fact that there's been such... shifting around of the ideas even when the language hasn't changed (and as you point out, changing the number of possible ... I'm gonna use 'modes' instead of 'states' here to talk about the number of possible configurations that exist depending on how the language is interpreted. But anyway, it definitely changes the number of modes depending on which entities people think the language does or does not apply to).

Maddening.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud i think codifying the enforcement mechanisms is absolutely possible to a meaningful if not perfect extent and absolutely helps to remove ambiguity which can be misused. my main complaint was just what i perceived to be an assumption that this is intrinsic to all systems and not an expression of the power(s) that created the systems in the first place—this may have been a misunderstanding on my part

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] Yeah, for sure; I hadn't really encountered the idea outside of very narrow applications, so when I think of Shannon entropy I tend to think in somewhat technical contexts where we're talking bits and such. The idea that it's been 'applied' in other areas is... concerning.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud you mentioned the bdfl and obviously a system with one of those clearly elides power

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] ah, well, no, I think you're right. It's 100% dependent on the powers that created the system, for sure. I just hadn't really wandered outside of a specific slice of that (ie, this moment in time, with this set of possible meanings and this set of possible interpretations of laws/context that these words can be held to at this moment, which is a lot but for a static moment in time may be considered... not-infinite. Not until you go to the next timestep, anyway...)

Charles U. Farley

@aud I suspect the framers would be shocked at the 14th amendment and would have expected us to have had a new constitutional convention rather than a civil war.

The whole concept of originalism makes no sense when you consider that the Constitution wasn't intended to apply to the states. Which makes me suspect that originalists actually want to throw out the 14th amendment. And probably most of the others beyond the Bill of Rights.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud i don't think the problem is in being unable to foresee/forestall all possible futures but in effectively responding to what arises and building in mechanisms for what you can see in response. we've seen that rust has a code of conduct but fails to enforce it—this is something we can look to address. no system of government is perfect

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] absolutely. I used to phrase this kind of thing, as, say... a "good king" example. Like you can, in theory, have a benevolent ruler (let's ignore that's probably never happened); even if you did, it doesn't make the monarchy a good system to so speak.

So it's just sort of musings on that idea taken a little further with regard to the inherent flexibility of how rules and laws might be interpreted.

Power being what it is, though, as was pointed out with the gun lobby, there's nothing stopping the 'second king' from deciding to pursue a propaganda campaign where words used in the original laws now mean something else that is easily abused (and frankly this probably happens).

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] yeah... hmmm. It's just, how do we get to completely ridiculous point where an entity like the rust foundation says it would be discrimination to not accept funding from war profiteers?

Speaking of linguistic abuse... bleh.

Anyway, there's no using technology (and I mean this to include the written word) to get rid of the "trust" problem at the end of the day.

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] I'm kind of glad to hear this, because originalism on its face is such a ridiculous concept (the idea that you can divine out what they mean is ridiculous; the idea that you should even more so) so it's nice to hear that when you take other parts of the constitution in, it also already doesn't make sense.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud unfortunately a lot of libertarians (derogatory) use a similar framing re software licenses that disallow military/surveillance/apartheid like the ACSL. there is an idea that these restrictions can be misused to harm good people, which only makes sense if you do not really care about the harm they are trying to stop imho. you can see US sanctions as an example of this, but US sanctions are imposed by an imperialist military state and not a band of people over the internet, so it's a bit wrong to draw the analogy

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud there is a claim i don't agree with that licenses depend on laws, which depend on the state, which is therefore bad. a license is actually a contract with users, which can be applied even in non-state contexts. one thing i don't like is anarchists who use it to act like no agreement between people(s) can be upheld in an anarchist society, when my conception of an anarchist society is precisely one in which agreements can be upheld

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] reminds me of the “how can you have morality without god?” question which is like, wait, what? it seems like morality is more important if you believe this is all there is.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud it's extremely common in "AI" discourse because the fundamental assertion of an LLM is that all meaning can be distilled to textual language (this part is not really that bad in itself; it's possible to speak to people purely through text) and furthermore that any mode of statistical text generation is equivalent to the exercise of language (this is marketing and obviously false)

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] ARGH

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud similar to people who elide that "AI" art is being used to deskill artists and pretend that it's a debate over the definition of art, rebuttals to the second very specious claim about statistical text simulating language are wilfully misinterpreted as challenges to the first claim about what textual language is able to represent. so a bunch of misguided people who think very highly of their own intelligence and not others' are abusing shannon information to equate the two claims

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud so shannon information is used as an argument to say with sufficient state being shoved through the text channel, intelligence arises

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] Jesus, I’ve seen some bad takes but WOW, that is… one hell of an impressively bad argument they’re making. Ugh.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud this is like one of the tenets of TESCREAL iiuc. far divorced from shannon, people always misuse any metric they can get their hands on to push their agenda and this is why the field of statistics was created