re: negative

@cwebberChristine Lemmer-Webber @cstanhopeYour friendly 'net denizen well, pretty much all the concerns that you mention, but also: I don't think you should be taking seriously any sort of outcome from the experiment without rigorous validation framework for the outcomes.

And at this point adding such a framework would be too late. You've started doing a self-experimentation with dangerous technology literally funded by some of the most gross people out there, and you're at the stage of interaction with it where you might be anthropomorphising it. I suspect you might be accidentally far more biased than you recognise.

I appreciate the list of caveats related to your relationship with the industry, I really do, but... I don't know, the experiment still doesn't sit right with me. Sorry, maybe I'll find better words eventually.

re: negative

@nina_kali_nina @cstanhopeYour friendly 'net denizen There is no doubt: it is a non-rigorous blogpost. There is more rigorous work happening, I linked to some of it, and @joeyhsee shy jo more here: sunbeam.city/@joeyh/1160831008

Maybe it is different for you, but the disturbing parts about this for me, and I have highlighted those for myself, aren't really related to rigor. I don't think most blogposts I write are particularly rigorous, but people aren't usually bothered about them, because there are other places to find rigor.

It's the other parts, I suspect, that are more toxic and which make the entire thing feel somewhat dangerous. And anyway, at the very least, it seems you agree on the concerns I stated wrestling with.

It may be worth a separate post explaining why I am troubled by *all* of this stuff, which I frontloaded and backloaded a sense of, but which deserves dedicated writing of its own if done right.

0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://social.coop/users/cwebber/statuses/116083216588063056 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)