I left a comment at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prompt_engineering#Neutral_point_of_view. Please *please* don't spam the thread with +1s and absolutely don't harass folks there.
If you have useful resources to add, though, by all means please do so. I greatly appreciate the help from folks who are deeper in this than I am.
TIL that the Wikipedia page on "prompt engineering" is an absolute disaster of AI hype.
I am this close to starting an NPOV discussion.
TIL: There is LaTeX coffee stains package and I think you should know this: https://www.overleaf.com/latex/examples/latex-coffee-stains/qsjjwwsrmwnc
Or as JP in the linked post mentioned, Ursula K Le Guin's definition of technology: "what we can learn to do"
Technology is not machines, it's the "application of conceptual knowledge to achieve practical goals", so it could involve machines, but may as well not
@seachanger I'm sure you've read it before but Ursula K Le Guin's definition of technology as "what we can learn to do" has long been my favorite and operating definition. https://www.ursulakleguin.com/a-rant-about-technology
the reason to intentionally use the word technology is a) because it’s the correct word for these concepts; b) it directly challenges the power of techbros as a social class (as well as the ecosystem of liberals, scientists, centrists, white supremacists, misogynists, institutionalists, and careerists who’ve crowned them king of this particular moment) and 3) it digs at the root of the “tech will save the climate” capitalist fantasies the oil corporations have placed throughout the panopticon
i argue that technology actually CAN save us. iterative invention is vitally important to our futures. the concepts of innovation, invention, and recursive social learning just have to be envisioned outside the strangling reductions of colonial capitalism (and its caste systems that favor the imaginations of the wealthy, white, and male)
the idea that technology gets to be in a special moral class free of ethical inquiry, that specific forms of technology deserve to exist simply because they can be invented, that technology the word can only refer to items engineered in certain ways by specific classes of people, is deeply problematic. it's a lie. it's a lie that excludes most of the technology produced by human beings over many thousands of years, and obscures our longest lived & most successful cultural technologies
the way our society hijacks the definition of 'technology' to mean only the extra-human.
but humans can't make anything that isn't human. computer as non-human is an illusion. technology - as the practice or product of iterative learning and creation - has to be re-seen as fundamentally organic and often invisible. its not 'technologically advanced' to obliterate other people using factories or things made in them, its just crass. tech must be conducive to life. its what i mean by #socialTech
"Wow this is so cool, the scorpion is actually *paying* me to ride across the river on his back!"
Trans woman, bisexual, someone's fiancée, forever a programmer, poly, and former total mess