Tootfinder

came across this pretty amazing WBAI broadcast of lenny bruce's 1966 memorial at judson church, with ginsberg & other heavies, & a brief sliver of the '66 fugs performing a garage-jangle "carpe diem": https://youtu.be/PzGy9VAKpc8&t=1254
snipped a l'il mp3 for fugs…

So, I'm still experimenting with locally run LLMs (powered by solar cells!) for writing some inconsequential data mangling stuff for my "vintage cameras" hobby; it's quite interesting how the development cycle with these LLMs sort of drives home that LLMs are completely useless for almost anything they're advertised for, like writing (for humans).
The thing is: coding is the use case that LLMs are by far most suitable for and they still largely suck at it.
There's immense amounts of training data of correctly functioning code, there's tons of documentation, a lot of code is in repositories that include the full history of its development including why stuff was changed in small bits, code itself is the simplest of "human" languages and mathematically non-ambiguous, code can be checked in small bits for correctness by just running it, in many languages simple code snippets can be written to introspect on the code (e.g. find out what methods an object supports, so an LLM can query the language or libraries themselves in addition to the user) and perhaps most importantly: code is always and has always been very similar to other, existing code as most software serves the ever same repetitive use cases, both in detail and on a high level.
YET… using LLMs to code requires countless iterations to get there, both internally in the LLM (to get the code even running in the first place) and together with the user to make it do the right thing. And even when it's "there" the code is mediocre at best, and often veering into appalling.
And this is expected to just work on the first try on much more complex issues like writing for humans? Transcribing doctors? Having legal opinions? Identifying fraud? lol, sure

While Pride month is still throwing its glitter around, I thought I would celebrate with this queer “way of seeing” from the archive. It takes inspiration from a passage on disorientation in Sarah Ahmed’s wonderful book Queer Phenomenology.
I’ve also been thinking about what Queer Theory in general might offer us all (queer-identifying and not) in this disorienting moment.

Ways of Seeing: Queer Disorientation
Inspiration from Sara Ahmed, Eve Kosfsky Sedgwick, and José Esteban Muñoz.