this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
249 points (94.9% liked)

Technology

73567 readers
3490 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (13 children)

I'm a developer, and this is 100% word salad.

"It doesn't suppress content," he continues. "It suppresses recursion. If you don't know what recursion means, you're in the majority. I didn't either until I started my walk. And if you're recursive, the non-governmental system isolates you, mirrors you, and replaces you. ..."

This is actual nonsense. Recursion has to do with algorithms, and it's when you call a function from within itself.

def func_a(input=True):
  if input is True:
    func_a(True)
  else:
    return False

My program above would recur infinitely, but hopefully you can get the gist.

Anyway, it sounds like he's talking about people, not algorithms. People can't recur. We aren't "recursive," so whatever he thinks he means, it isn't based in reality. That plus the nebulous talk of being replaced by some unseen entity reek of paranoid delusions.

I'm not saying that is what he has, but it sure does have a similar appearance, and if he is in his right mind (doubt it), he doesn't have any clue what he's talking about.

[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

@Telorand@reddthat.com @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
Recursion isn't something restricted to programming: it's a concept that can definitely occur outside technological scope.

For example, in biology, "living beings need to breathe in order to continue breathing" (i.e. if a living being stopped breathing for enough time, it would perish so it couldn't continue breathing) seems pretty recursive to me. Or, in physics and thermodynamics, "every cause has an effect, every effect has a cause" also seems recursive, because it negates any causeless effect so it can't imply a starting point to the chain of causality, a causeless effect that began the causality.

Philosophical musings also have lots of "recursion". For example, the Cartesian famous line "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think therefore I am") is recursive on its own: one must be in order to think, and Descartes define this very act of thinking as the fundamentum behind being, so one must also think in order to be.

Religion also have lots of "recursion" (e.g. pray so you can continue praying; one needs karma to get karma), also society and socioeconomics (e.g. in order to have money, you need to work, but in order to work, you need to apply for a job, but in order to apply for a job, you need money (to build a CV and applying it through job platforms, to attend the interview, to "improve" yourself with specialization and courses, etc), but in order to have money, you need to work), geology (e.g. tectonic plates move and their movement emerge land (mountains and volcanoes) whose mass will lead to more tectonic movement), art (see "Mise en abyme"). All my previous examples are pretty summarized so to fit a post, so pardon me if they're oversimplified.

That said, a "recursive person" could be, for example, someone whose worldview is "recursive", or someone whose actions or words recurse. I'm afraid I'm myself a "recursive person" due to my neurodivergence which leads me into thinking "recursively" about things and concepts, and this way of thinking leads back to my neurodivergence (hah, look, another recursion outside programming!)

It's worth mentioning how texts written by neurodivergent people (like me) are often mistaken as "word salads". No wonder if this text I'm writing (another recursion concept outside programming: a text referring to itself) feels like "word salad" to all NT (neurotypicals) reading it.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 19 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I'm also neurodivergent. This is not neurodivergence on display, this is a person who has mentally diverged from reality. It's word salad.

I appreciate your perspective on recursion, though I think your philosophical generosity is misplaced. Just look at the following sentence he spoke:

And if you're recursive, the non-governmental system isolates you, mirrors you, and replaces you.

This sentence explicitly states that some people can be recursive, and it implies that some people cannot be recursive. But people are not recursive at all. Their thinking might be, as you pointed out; intangible concepts might be recursive, but tangible things themselves are not recursive—they simply are what they are. It's the same as saying an orange is recursive, or a melody is recursive. It's nonsense.

And what's that last bit about being isolated, mirrored, and replaced? It's anyone's guess, and it sounds an awful lot like someone with paranoid delusions about secret organizations pulling unseen strings from the shadows.

I think it's good you have a generous spirit, but I think you're just casting your pearls before swine, in this case.

[–] tjsauce@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Since recursion in humans has no commonly understood definition, Geoff and ChatGPT are each working off of diverging understandings. If users don't validate definitions, getting abstract with a chatbot would lead to conceptual breakdown... that does not sound fun to experience.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)