I am generous towards the authors cited (Schiller, Benjamin), and I am unimpressed. Most of these questions constitute the “high middle brow” of intellectual thought: that thought which takes itself too seriously. Is this a recent development at Oxford, or has it always been the case that the university churns out relatively talented but predictably radical students, certainly ones who will not produce anything truly challenging, but whose work will at least seem challenging to those who have not really developed a strong method of inquiry on their own.
I wanted to do a tour of the All Souls College last year but it was closed, unfortunately, on the day I walked by; I was only there for a two day conference and had to leave early the next morning.
I'm not sure I agree. They're just essay prompts. One could write a bad essay that takes itself too seriously given the prompts, but one could also write a powerful essay starting from any of these prompts. I don't really see where you get the conclusion that students matriculating from these places have recently begun to be smoke-blowers that while possessing detailed knowledge of various arcana fail to produce anything useful.
It’s not about highly specific knowledge: none of these questions are justifiable for a graduate level program, they are better served as prompts for essays that Americans write in their college applications. With these questions you are not going to be engaging with anything particularly deep, but you may produce something that sounds deep. But sounding deep and having actual depth are very different things, and the latter can often look very boring or painstaking, whereas the former always appears profound—and it seems like all of these questions are meant to help the student produce something “profound,” not necessarily something thoughtful or difficult.
All Souls College doesn't have any students, graduate or otherwise. It's primarily a place where people can conduct research into any topic, most often in the humanities.
It frequently hosts journalists, politicians, lawyers, etc, who have had successful careers outside of academia and who may have no academic qualifications other than an undergraduate degree, and sometimes no degree at all.
I think the prompts being "easy" in this way is sort of the point. An applicant can demonstrate their mastery of language and the topics they select, producing an essay that goes far beyond the obvious leading direction (which most of the questions have).
The examiners are, I imagine, quite good at the close reading of essays which this sort of question produces. That ought to address your second point.
Oxford and its equivalent universities around the world (Harvard, Yale, and so on) are not really selecting for radically brilliant views on social or philosophical issues. At the end of the day, it's an institution training elites for business/government/etc. not a fund for intellectual brilliance.
I don’t know if that’s true, I made a little web app for displaying the schedule for my team based on our billable hours, and I didn’t do any of the scripting myself but I did have to think a lot about what the app would do and what it would look like and what kind of functionality I wanted, tradeoffs between functionality and specific use cases, etc. It just made the scripting part go faster, that’s all.
And even less than someone who wrote an interpreter for the script, less than someone who also chanted times tables while doing it.
More thinking isn’t a simple good thing. Given a limit to how much thought I can give any specific task, adding extra work may mean less where it’s most useful.
It is a good faith argument, my point is exactly that the actual scripting was not part of the relevant thought any more than the interpreter would have been.
That adds up over time, though, and it works in reverse. AI will always be able to read and write faster than a person can. You may be able to write the script, but in the time it would take to /literally/ write it, you're on to the next thing. And if that script is actually a feature that spans two or three or 10 files, now you're really cooking.
Yeah I noticed today, I had it work up a spreadsheet for me and I only got 3 or 4 turns in the conversation before it used up all my (pro) credits. It wasn't even super-complicated or anything, only moderately so.
As to 2., the whole of this narrative in the Phaedrus is ironic, considering it depends on the written word for its transmission, this dialouge being fully reported by Plato, filled with literary allusion, dramatic setting. Cf. "Plato's Pharmacy," by Derrida, and the work of his student, Bernard Stiegler.
If you talk to the average individual outside of California or NYC about AI, or even Waymos, they will get increasingly irate and start spouting off about “water usage” and everyone’s jobs getting taken away—as if RLHF contract work is not available to basically anyone with a college degree. I hate to say it but you cannot trust “the masses,” Marx never said mob rule, he said rule by the proletarian, the class which knows, on account of their labor, the best integration of the human organism into mechanical production. No, there is no concern for the “masses” living in pre-industrialized agrarian communities or those who have been mystified by reactionary ideas (like this so-called majority), he was referring to those whose existence was an exception, that which was free and not predictable, contingent in the operation of the economy. It is by their exceptional circumstance that radical social change is even possible, not because of any moral need to raise humanity out of its savage condition. The masses, without the right understanding, will just become a lynch mob and start burning everything in sight, as they tend to in most circumstances.
The masses seem kind of right to be in that mindset, if you consider it from thier point of view for even one second?
So, yes RLHF is available right now, for people with specific backgrounds. That RLHF work is temporary and it's going to make hundreds of thousands of people redundant. The RLHF work is actually job-negative, it is work which will later deprive others of a way to make a living.
Once that training work dries up, what happens to the people who were doing the job which AI now does? How do they pay rent? How do they feed and clothe themselves? What answers do any AI proponant actually have for this, or is the intention that every person shuts the critical thinking part of their brain off and trusts the computer will come up with something?
Yes well you are trusting your instinct, meanwhile the actual postings for RLHF work keep increasing, and the rates contractors accept keep going up. But who knows, maybe some superAI is going to take all their jobs away soon.
> meanwhile the actual postings for RLHF work keep increasing, and the rates contractors accept keep going up
If you knew this for fact you'd have something to corroborate, is this just vibes? Job loss numbers are published, at the very lowest end the estimates are 50k across 2025 in the US alone. I don't see any evidence RLHF is creating livelihoods at the rate AI is destroying them.
The economy is not a monad, some sectors grow rapidly, others shrink precipitously, and still others are very stable for many decades. Just because AI is booming right now does not mean that other areas will not experience deficits. And the AI boom is an international phenomenon, not restricted solely to the US, so it would be hard to measure the value of any labor input strictly according to US economic data.
> and everyone’s jobs getting taken away—as if RLHF contract work is not available to basically anyone with a college degree.
Huh? The jobs aren't going away because a few people can get temp work as traitors to automate away the jobs of their fellows? I suppose that's technically correct (e.g. the there-exists counterexample to a for-all statement), but it totally misses the point.
> The masses, without the right understanding, will just become a lynch mob and start burning everything in sight, as they tend to in most circumstances.
BTW, totally fine. If you like nice things and have political or economic power, it's totally on you to prevent things from getting bad enough that people want to do that. That's something libertarians would do well to remember. Propaganda only gets you so far.
All productive labor, profitable labor, involves creating something that reduces labor time. The people who manufactured looms took away the jobs of the weavers
Ah, the real Marxist constant finally rears its head. Thank you for so well demonstrating the primitive contempt for humanity which your ideology requires. What a shame none of you has actually read or studied any of that "theory" you prate about.
I would be perfectly happy to support your so-called humanity when you are capable of providing a rigorous definition of what it consists of, and one that does not require the concept of a "soul" or otherwise some basically racist, phrenological standard for the body. Because when you say humanity all I see are objects that are standardized almost too closely to the commodities they produce, a single standard that would unify and homogenize everyone in the world. That's why I don't care for "humanity," I care about power, physical power, creative power, what any individual is capable of with the right tools.
I’m not familiar with Alinsky, I’m more broadly influenced by the CCRU, although I suppose that makes my reading of Marx fairly idiosyncratic, though I do remain with him at the letter.
Nick Land has called himself a lot of things. But more interesting to me is this question: in what way may China since Deng be regarded as meaningfully Marxist? (Are they still nominally Marxist over there? Were they really ever? Maoism was its own "deviation.")
No its not quite right still, I think for the US it still makes the most sense to have the start of the summer be the longest day, because basically the earth has been heating up to that point and that’s when the energy input begins to wane. Think about it like a steak: when you take it off the grill, its still heating up a bit before it starts to cool down.
Yes fortunately it is really bad at actually making novel bioweapons or syntheses in general so whatever you made probably wouldn't do more than give someone a mild headache.
I wanted to do a tour of the All Souls College last year but it was closed, unfortunately, on the day I walked by; I was only there for a two day conference and had to leave early the next morning.
reply