iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 27/02/2026

They invested so much money; they have to keep the ball rolling. I have friends who are terrified. They do not understand the underlying technology, and they believe what these guys say. One of them told me: "The best minds on the planet are investing trillions, it must work!"

100

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 27/02/2026

yes, that's why they'll become programmers. They'll have to check the code. It's a probability non-reasoning tool. Should be used as such.

100

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 27/02/2026

Possible short term, but longer term there'll be more programmers.

100

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 21/02/2026

Society has lost its direction. We are now driving blind, and the reason is reductionism. We’ve become so obsessed with breaking the world into tiny parts that we’ve forgotten how the whole thing actually hangs together. www.ocrampal.com/too-narrow-t... #SystemsThinking #Reductionism #Holism

ocrampal.com

Too Narrow to Be Wise: The Tunnel Vision Trap of Modern Expertise

We live in a Kafkaesque paradox: the very people we turn to for wisdom about life’s biggest questions—meaning, society, the future of humanity—are systematically selected for their inability to think ...

061

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 10/02/2026

We moved to the 'bottom-up' statistical approach, only to find ourselves frantically retrofitting those same rules onto a black box to stop it from hallucinating.

040

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 10/02/2026

LLMs hallucinate? Groundbreaking discovery: a statistical model works statistically. 😉 It’s the ultimate tech irony. We abandoned GOFAI because manual rules couldn't handle the messiness of reality.

151

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 08/02/2026

The programmer-turned-architect still needs to understand programming.

020

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 08/02/2026

You can't make architectural decisions without comprehending the constraints and trade-offs of implementation. The executive assistant still needs to understand business communication. The accountant still needs to understand accounting principles.

120

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 08/02/2026

This doesn't eliminate the programmer, it transforms them into architects. But here's the crucial point: they still need to know how to program. You can't architect systems you don't understand. You can't debug code you can't read.

100

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 08/02/2026

The tools eliminated tedious manual tasks, but the roles themselves weren't eliminated. They were elevated. The same pattern applies to programmers. LLMs can handle boilerplate, generate first drafts, automate simple tasks.

100

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 08/02/2026

Word and Excel vs LLMs. Secretaries became executive assistants, their role evolved to higher-level coordination, communication, and decision support. Accountants gained the ability to do far more analysis, strategic planning, and advisory work.

130

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 08/02/2026

AGI is Our Generation's Alchemy, And We're Too Arrogant to Admit It The AI industry has a dirty secret: we're building toward Artificial General Intelligence without the faintest consensus on what intelligence actually is. ocrampal.com/from-sophist...

ocrampal.com

From Sophists to Alchemists to AI Coders: The Technique Without Understanding

We believe we are at the cutting edge of history, but we may just be repeating its oldest mistakes. From the Sophists’ empty rhetoric to the Alchemists’ blind experimentation, humanity has a long hist...

040

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 03/02/2026

Yes. Retrieval is not understanding. I use them and they help. But one should not consider them intelligent.

010

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

Excel didn’t kill accountants; it gave them better tools. Yet, with AI, we’ve abandoned this logic in favor of a collective fantasy. We’re treating a sophisticated calculator as a human replacement rather than a human multiplier. www.ocrampal.com/the-shared-d... #philosophy #AI #intelligence

ocrampal.com

The Shared Delusion: Both doomers and dreamers assume current technology leads to AGI. They’re both wrong

050

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

If you’re happy to discard creativity, infinite regress and circularity as problems and instead embrace them as the 'geometry' of existence, then we’ve reached the bedrock of our disagreement. At that point, there isn’t much more I can add, except, perhaps, to wonder who (or what) wrote the code ;-)

100

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

Furthermore, he failed to develop a formal framework to express that transcendental intuition. That is precisely what applied Geneosophy provides.

000

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

I’ve already linked a blog post where I discuss Kant, Bergson, and Husserl. In a nutshell, Kant had a 'Geneosophic' intuition regarding the transcendental, but he assumed a priori categories and the 'thing-in-itself', both of which are unnecessary.

100

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

It is a new paradigm. We have begun publishing an introduction to the theory; however, we aren't yet sure when we will release materials on 'applied Geneosophy' due to IP considerations and related factors.

110

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

The alternative is comprehending the conditions for you to think in terms of mathematics and much more.

000

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

In very simple terms: while thinking in terms of computation allows you to express the relations between Concept X and Concept Y, Geneosophy allows you to comprehend the conditions for thinking about Concepts X and Y in the first place.

100

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

Who or what frames the computation? Is it another computation, or is computation a free-floating, all-encompassing entity? Perhaps it is an entity that is able to evaluate itself? And, finally, are you a part of this computation?

100

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

Computationalism leads to infinite regress and circularity; it cannot account for autonomous creativity. I am not suggesting the paradigm is inherently flawed, it functions exceptionally well for engineering and the scientific method—but one must acknowledge its fundamental limitations.

100

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

One must assume a starting point and judge it by its fruits. If you begin by assuming computation is the territory, you are led inevitably into the traps of self-reference and infinite regress.

200

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 01/02/2026

With all due respect to Dennett, he has it backward. When you think strictly in terms of computation, everything becomes a hammer, and you become blind to the very foundations that make computation possible.

200

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 28/01/2026

I use them to help writing an interpreter/compiler for applied geneosophy.

010

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 28/01/2026

LLMs aren't a replacement for creativity. Just as Excel helps accountants without replacing them, AI is a tool that speeds up the work but doesn't substitute for the person doing it.

110

Marco Palombi @ocrampal.bsky.social · 28/01/2026

LLMs are highly useful for research, provided you are an expert in the field capable of screening out hallucinations. They are also excellent for refining writing and generating boilerplate code in programming. Do you use them?

210