[FRIAM] sui generis

[glen]

https://www.science.org/content/article/billionaire-launches-plagiarism-detection-effort-against-mit-president-and-all-its

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4392624-new-york-times-chatgpt-lawsuit-poses-new-legal-threats-to-artificial-intelligence/

I just can't help but analogize between Intelligent Design and these arguments of ownership/novelty of [ahem] "content". It all feels like the argument from design to me. For a paywalled for-profit like the NYT to go after a for-profit like OpenAI and a rapacious <https://www.thenation.com/article/society/william-ackman-harvard-donor/> billionaire to go after prestige-mongering elite institutions seems like a clear instance of elite overproduction <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction>. And to have it all leveraged on the fantasy fulcrum of novelty and ownership is making my head spin.

But deep down, there's something to be said about intuitionism. At our last salon, someone asked how much ontological status we might give to stories about the Astral Plane. My answer derives entirely from what little I know about intersubjectivity and cross-species mind reading. If there is a commonality to nootropic or psychonaut experience, it derives from our common *structure*, including whatever deeply historical things like genetic memory that may (not) exist.

It's fine to give lip service to intellectual humility. But such rhetoric can't persuade ... uh ... "people" like Ackman. Surely ... surely people like that are smart enough to grok things like gen-phen maps, robustness and polyphenism, etc. Right? And if they do get it, then we grass tufts can go on about our work, trying to be open, accept and apply credit and blame to the best of our abilities and ignore these fighting elephants. Right?

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ