Philosophy matters
That feeling when you realize that Aristotle shaped our thinking in subtle ways that are extremely hard to disentangle.
The implicit is the enemy of understanding, before defeating it, one must make it explicit.
That feeling when you realize that Aristotle shaped our thinking in subtle ways that are extremely hard to disentangle.
The implicit is the enemy of understanding, before defeating it, one must make it explicit.
We talk endlessly about what AI can and cannot do. We talk very little about the assumptions built into the question itself. This dialogue follows a philosopher and an AI practitioner through twenty-five centuries of choices, Plato, Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Turing, Shannon, Hodgkin and Huxley, each one narrowing what counts
AI won't reduce the number of programmers. It will create millions more, because running code you cannot understand is not programming. It is faith. Part I — The Hypothesis The Democratization Arc, and What It Actually Produced. The prevailing narrative about AI and programming runs like this: LLMs will
Large Language Models have become ubiquitous in knowledge work, yet a curious pattern has emerged. Talk to consultants at McKinsey, BCG, Bain, and you'll hear the same refrain: "I don't really know how I can leverage AI to boost my productivity beyond research and brainstorming.
Excel didn’t kill accountants; it gave them better tools. Yet, with AI, we’ve abandoned this logic in favor of a collective fantasy. We’re treating a sophisticated calculator as a human replacement rather than a human multiplier. The reason for this shift is the "2-to-5-year" horizon.