-
vxbush
3/18/2026 7:56:12 AM
-
1
|
|
In yesterday's #15 Occasional Reader said: Much my astonishment, I heard NPR (accidentally?) committing actual journalism today. In their show “on point” someone was interviewing a London based Iran expert, who absolutely smacked down the interviewer on every single Democratic Party talking point. That is, “ no, there are no “moderates” in the Iranian regime (including Larjani), they are absolutely all kleptocratic Islamist thugs. The New York Times reports to the contrary are influenced by Iranian propaganda, that’s all.” (Paraphrasing) He also completely rebelled when the interviewer compared Trump to Khamenei terms of disposition. “ President Trump won a democratic election, there is simply no way you can compare these two people.” The interviewer was left literally sputtering. I seriously could not believe I was listening to NPR. I think somebody’s going to lose their job over this…😂 Are you sure there isn't any alien possession going on at NPR? That doesn't comport at ALL with my knowledge of them, and I started listening to them in the 1980's. |
|
-
vxbush
3/18/2026 8:12:15 AM
-
2
|
|
Great quote on X, shared by Stephen Kruiser in today's daily post: "We've reached the point where if you're an Iranian official and Israel hasn't killed you yet, it's a bit insulting."
|
|
|
|
-
vxbush
3/18/2026 8:48:51 AM
-
4
|
|
John Sexton at Hot Air reviews an article written by Thomas Edsall that evaluates "central planning and Hayek's insight into its limitations". In short, AI doesn't have the sortsightedness that humans have, given that it can the computer mind can (quoting from a paper mentioned in the article by Erik Brynjolfsson at Stanford) "shift the optimal locus of control through two channels: (1) by codifying local knowledge that was previously tacit and inalienable and (2) by expanding information processing capacity to aggregate, interpret and act on data." Meaning, AI can make centralized planning feasible. And this is what has me concerned. I've been tracking stories into a group I call "Technology and conflict". The drones in Ukraine made that list; now AI and central planning stories are being added to it. Is it possible? Yes. Will mankind realize that even AI isn't infallible (as every AI chat window reminds the user)? That remains to be seen. As more people grow used to AI and get misled by AI, hopefully they will learn the lesson that no technology can be allowed to operate independent of human interaction. But then I remember how stupid academia can be, and I have to seriously wonder what might be coming in the future.
|
|
-
vxbush
3/18/2026 8:52:52 AM
-
5
|
|
In #4 vxbush said: And I, Pencil was prominently presented in Sexton's article, so he used the classic example of non-central planning and its vast capabilities over central planning.
|
|
|
|
-
JCM
3/18/2026 9:26:00 AM
-
7
|
|
Reply to vxbush in 3: A little late John, you've burnt that bridge. No going back.
|
|
-
Kosh's Shadow
3/18/2026 9:59:32 AM
-
8
|
|
In #4 vxbush said: John Sexton at Hot Air reviews an article written by Thomas Edsall that evaluates "central planning and Hayek's insight into its limitations". I don't think AI can do central planning any better than people. Probably worse. By the time the knowlege is trained into the AI, it is obsolete for central planning. We'll find AI producing snowblowers in summer because they were in great demand in winter.
|
|
-
Kosh's Shadow
3/18/2026 10:00:26 AM
-
9
|
|
Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 8: I'd like to make that comment at HotAir, but it says I'm logged in and then I cannot continue to the article - I'm logged out again.
|
|
-
JCM
3/18/2026 11:05:09 AM
-
10
|
|
Reply to vxbush in 4: Great! Communism by computer. Even less humane than Stalin.
|
|
You must be logged in to comment.
