home.social

#mumford — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #mumford, aggregated by home.social.

fetched live
  1. Mumford & Sons – Prizefighter-Tour 2026 mit Waldbühne Berlin

    Mumford & Sons setzen 2026 ihre Rückkehr auf die großen Live-Bühnen fort. Laut der offiziellen Tourübersicht der Band…
    #Berlin #Deutschland #Deutsch #DE #Schlagzeilen #Headlines #Nachrichten #News #Europe #Europa #EU #AktuelleNachrichtenausBerlin #AktuelleNewsausBerlin #BerlinNews #folk-rock #Germany #Mumford&Sons #NachrichtenausBerlin #NewsausBerlin #Tour&Live
    europesays.com/de/1260456/

  2. Mumford & Sons melden sich zurück: Neues Album ‚Prizefighter‘ und Waldbühne Berlin 2026

    Mumford & Sons sind zurück – mit einem Paukenschlag. Die britische Folk-Rock-Band hat soeben ihr sechstes Studioalbum ‚Prizefighter‘…
    #Berlin #Deutschland #Deutsch #DE #Schlagzeilen #Headlines #Nachrichten #News #Europe #Europa #EU #Germany #Mumford&Sons
    europesays.com/de/957583/

  3. Trois régimes du pouvoir : savoir, production, représentation

    Le pouvoir moderne ne repose pas sur la seule économie : il s’articule entre trois régimes – savoir-technique, productif et représentatif. Ensemble, ils forment le cœur d’un monopole de compétence, de propriété et de légitimité. #Mumford #Marx #Proudhon #philosophiepolitique Le pouvoir moderne ne se définit pas par une seule source de domination, mais par l’imbrication de trois régimes distincts : technique,…

    homohortus31.wordpress.com/202

  4. Trois régimes du pouvoir : savoir, production, représentation

    Le pouvoir moderne ne repose pas sur la seule économie : il s’articule entre trois régimes – savoir-technique, productif et représentatif. Ensemble, ils forment le cœur d’un monopole de compétence, de propriété et de légitimité. #Mumford #Marx #Proudhon #philosophiepolitique Le pouvoir moderne ne se définit pas par une seule source de domination, mais par l’imbrication de trois régimes distincts : technique,…

    homohortus31.wordpress.com/202

  5. Trois régimes du pouvoir : savoir, production, représentation

    Le pouvoir moderne ne repose pas sur la seule économie : il s’articule entre trois régimes – savoir-technique, productif et représentatif. Ensemble, ils forment le cœur d’un monopole de compétence, de propriété et de légitimité. #Mumford #Marx #Proudhon #philosophiepolitique Le pouvoir moderne ne se définit pas par une seule source de domination, mais par l’imbrication de trois régimes distincts : technique,…

    homohortus31.wordpress.com/202

  6. Trois régimes du pouvoir : savoir, production, représentation

    Le pouvoir moderne ne repose pas sur la seule économie : il s’articule entre trois régimes – savoir-technique, productif et représentatif. Ensemble, ils forment le cœur d’un monopole de compétence, de propriété et de légitimité. #Mumford #Marx #Proudhon #philosophiepolitique Le pouvoir moderne ne se définit pas par une seule source de domination, mais par l’imbrication de trois régimes distincts : technique,…

    homohortus31.wordpress.com/202

  7. Mumford vs Kemp : deux focales sur la même mégamachine

    Mumford : mégamachine = techno-historique (pyramides → fusées).Kemp : Goliath = historico-statistique (400 sociétés sur 5000 ans).Même diagnostic, approches complémentaires. #Mumford #Kemp #Mégamachine #Goliath Lewis Mumford et Luke Kemp analysent le même phénomène — les hiérarchies techno-politiques massives — mais avec des approches méthodologiques distinctes. Mumford : focale techno-historique Lewis Mumford (Le…

    homohortus31.wordpress.com/202

  8. Mumford vs Kemp : deux focales sur la même mégamachine

    Mumford : mégamachine = techno-historique (pyramides → fusées).Kemp : Goliath = historico-statistique (400 sociétés sur 5000 ans).Même diagnostic, approches complémentaires. #Mumford #Kemp #Mégamachine #Goliath Lewis Mumford et Luke Kemp analysent le même phénomène — les hiérarchies techno-politiques massives — mais avec des approches méthodologiques distinctes. Mumford : focale techno-historique Lewis Mumford (Le…

    homohortus31.wordpress.com/202

  9. Mumford vs Kemp : deux focales sur la même mégamachine

    Mumford : mégamachine = techno-historique (pyramides → fusées).Kemp : Goliath = historico-statistique (400 sociétés sur 5000 ans).Même diagnostic, approches complémentaires. #Mumford #Kemp #Mégamachine #Goliath Lewis Mumford et Luke Kemp analysent le même phénomène — les hiérarchies techno-politiques massives — mais avec des approches méthodologiques distinctes. Mumford : focale techno-historique Lewis Mumford (Le…

    homohortus31.wordpress.com/202

  10. Mumford vs Kemp : deux focales sur la même mégamachine

    Mumford : mégamachine = techno-historique (pyramides → fusées).Kemp : Goliath = historico-statistique (400 sociétés sur 5000 ans).Même diagnostic, approches complémentaires. #Mumford #Kemp #Mégamachine #Goliath Lewis Mumford et Luke Kemp analysent le même phénomène — les hiérarchies techno-politiques massives — mais avec des approches méthodologiques distinctes. Mumford : focale techno-historique Lewis Mumford (Le…

    homohortus31.wordpress.com/202

  11. Mumford vs Kemp : deux focales sur la même mégamachine

    Mumford : mégamachine = techno-historique (pyramides → fusées).Kemp : Goliath = historico-statistique (400 sociétés sur 5000 ans).Même diagnostic, approches complémentaires. #Mumford #Kemp #Mégamachine #Goliath Lewis Mumford et Luke Kemp analysent le même phénomène — les hiérarchies techno-politiques massives — mais avec des approches méthodologiques distinctes. Mumford : focale techno-historique Lewis Mumford (Le…

    homohortus31.wordpress.com/202

  12. Ya les había contado sobre la vez que en una materia del profesorado nos dieron a leer sobre la #megamaquina de #Mumford... y en el trabajo práctico me la pasé haciendo relaciones, y citas a la película #snowpiercer?
    No drugs involved

  13. Ya les había contado sobre la vez que en una materia del profesorado nos dieron a leer sobre la #megamaquina de #Mumford... y en el trabajo práctico me la pasé haciendo relaciones, y citas a la película #snowpiercer?
    No drugs involved

  14. Ya les había contado sobre la vez que en una materia del profesorado nos dieron a leer sobre la #megamaquina de #Mumford... y en el trabajo práctico me la pasé haciendo relaciones, y citas a la película #snowpiercer?
    No drugs involved

  15. Ya les había contado sobre la vez que en una materia del profesorado nos dieron a leer sobre la #megamaquina de #Mumford... y en el trabajo práctico me la pasé haciendo relaciones, y citas a la película #snowpiercer?
    No drugs involved

  16. "AI models have one undeniable virtue: the increase in speed and efficiency with which they can carry out tasks that were once the province of human beings. Language models can produce functional text for a wide range of contexts, while image generation models are giving us the capability to render into existence whatever image or video takes our fancy. This is widely taken as clear evidence of the benefits of AI. For Mumford, this type of thinking is precisely the problem. The myth of the machine is dehumanizing because it subordinates human values to machine values: speed and efficiency.

    The most striking evidence of the myth’s cultural pervasiveness is that many avid accelerationists do not deny that AI could mean the end of humanity. They merely differ from the doomers in believing that this risk is necessary—even desirable—to achieve the spectacular increases in efficiency and productivity promised by AGI. Mumford foresaw this extreme endpoint. “The myth of the machine,” he wrote, “the basic religion of our present culture, has so captured the modern mind that no human sacrifice seems too great provided it is offered up to the insolent Marduks and Molochs of science and technology.”

    Those branded as skeptics or doomers also still accept the premises of the myth of the machine. The stated aim of many organizations concerned with avoiding the worst AI outcomes is that we should “realize the benefits while mitigating the risks” of the technology. Mumford would argue the first half of this statement concedes too much, accepting the basic premise of the myth of the machine while presenting the task as removing the obstacles to realize its benefits. Many skeptics also share a basic misanthropic premise of machine superiority, focusing as they do on the biased, irrational, and flawed nature of human beings that needs machinic augmentation."

    compactmag.com/article/ai-and-

    #AI #Neoluddism #AIBoosters #AIHype #AIDoomers #GenerativeAI #Mumford #STS #MediaEcology

  17. "AI models have one undeniable virtue: the increase in speed and efficiency with which they can carry out tasks that were once the province of human beings. Language models can produce functional text for a wide range of contexts, while image generation models are giving us the capability to render into existence whatever image or video takes our fancy. This is widely taken as clear evidence of the benefits of AI. For Mumford, this type of thinking is precisely the problem. The myth of the machine is dehumanizing because it subordinates human values to machine values: speed and efficiency.

    The most striking evidence of the myth’s cultural pervasiveness is that many avid accelerationists do not deny that AI could mean the end of humanity. They merely differ from the doomers in believing that this risk is necessary—even desirable—to achieve the spectacular increases in efficiency and productivity promised by AGI. Mumford foresaw this extreme endpoint. “The myth of the machine,” he wrote, “the basic religion of our present culture, has so captured the modern mind that no human sacrifice seems too great provided it is offered up to the insolent Marduks and Molochs of science and technology.”

    Those branded as skeptics or doomers also still accept the premises of the myth of the machine. The stated aim of many organizations concerned with avoiding the worst AI outcomes is that we should “realize the benefits while mitigating the risks” of the technology. Mumford would argue the first half of this statement concedes too much, accepting the basic premise of the myth of the machine while presenting the task as removing the obstacles to realize its benefits. Many skeptics also share a basic misanthropic premise of machine superiority, focusing as they do on the biased, irrational, and flawed nature of human beings that needs machinic augmentation."

    compactmag.com/article/ai-and-

    #AI #Neoluddism #AIBoosters #AIHype #AIDoomers #GenerativeAI #Mumford #STS #MediaEcology

  18. "AI models have one undeniable virtue: the increase in speed and efficiency with which they can carry out tasks that were once the province of human beings. Language models can produce functional text for a wide range of contexts, while image generation models are giving us the capability to render into existence whatever image or video takes our fancy. This is widely taken as clear evidence of the benefits of AI. For Mumford, this type of thinking is precisely the problem. The myth of the machine is dehumanizing because it subordinates human values to machine values: speed and efficiency.

    The most striking evidence of the myth’s cultural pervasiveness is that many avid accelerationists do not deny that AI could mean the end of humanity. They merely differ from the doomers in believing that this risk is necessary—even desirable—to achieve the spectacular increases in efficiency and productivity promised by AGI. Mumford foresaw this extreme endpoint. “The myth of the machine,” he wrote, “the basic religion of our present culture, has so captured the modern mind that no human sacrifice seems too great provided it is offered up to the insolent Marduks and Molochs of science and technology.”

    Those branded as skeptics or doomers also still accept the premises of the myth of the machine. The stated aim of many organizations concerned with avoiding the worst AI outcomes is that we should “realize the benefits while mitigating the risks” of the technology. Mumford would argue the first half of this statement concedes too much, accepting the basic premise of the myth of the machine while presenting the task as removing the obstacles to realize its benefits. Many skeptics also share a basic misanthropic premise of machine superiority, focusing as they do on the biased, irrational, and flawed nature of human beings that needs machinic augmentation."

    compactmag.com/article/ai-and-

    #AI #Neoluddism #AIBoosters #AIHype #AIDoomers #GenerativeAI #Mumford #STS #MediaEcology

  19. "AI models have one undeniable virtue: the increase in speed and efficiency with which they can carry out tasks that were once the province of human beings. Language models can produce functional text for a wide range of contexts, while image generation models are giving us the capability to render into existence whatever image or video takes our fancy. This is widely taken as clear evidence of the benefits of AI. For Mumford, this type of thinking is precisely the problem. The myth of the machine is dehumanizing because it subordinates human values to machine values: speed and efficiency.

    The most striking evidence of the myth’s cultural pervasiveness is that many avid accelerationists do not deny that AI could mean the end of humanity. They merely differ from the doomers in believing that this risk is necessary—even desirable—to achieve the spectacular increases in efficiency and productivity promised by AGI. Mumford foresaw this extreme endpoint. “The myth of the machine,” he wrote, “the basic religion of our present culture, has so captured the modern mind that no human sacrifice seems too great provided it is offered up to the insolent Marduks and Molochs of science and technology.”

    Those branded as skeptics or doomers also still accept the premises of the myth of the machine. The stated aim of many organizations concerned with avoiding the worst AI outcomes is that we should “realize the benefits while mitigating the risks” of the technology. Mumford would argue the first half of this statement concedes too much, accepting the basic premise of the myth of the machine while presenting the task as removing the obstacles to realize its benefits. Many skeptics also share a basic misanthropic premise of machine superiority, focusing as they do on the biased, irrational, and flawed nature of human beings that needs machinic augmentation."

    compactmag.com/article/ai-and-

    #AI #Neoluddism #AIBoosters #AIHype #AIDoomers #GenerativeAI #Mumford #STS #MediaEcology

  20. "AI models have one undeniable virtue: the increase in speed and efficiency with which they can carry out tasks that were once the province of human beings. Language models can produce functional text for a wide range of contexts, while image generation models are giving us the capability to render into existence whatever image or video takes our fancy. This is widely taken as clear evidence of the benefits of AI. For Mumford, this type of thinking is precisely the problem. The myth of the machine is dehumanizing because it subordinates human values to machine values: speed and efficiency.

    The most striking evidence of the myth’s cultural pervasiveness is that many avid accelerationists do not deny that AI could mean the end of humanity. They merely differ from the doomers in believing that this risk is necessary—even desirable—to achieve the spectacular increases in efficiency and productivity promised by AGI. Mumford foresaw this extreme endpoint. “The myth of the machine,” he wrote, “the basic religion of our present culture, has so captured the modern mind that no human sacrifice seems too great provided it is offered up to the insolent Marduks and Molochs of science and technology.”

    Those branded as skeptics or doomers also still accept the premises of the myth of the machine. The stated aim of many organizations concerned with avoiding the worst AI outcomes is that we should “realize the benefits while mitigating the risks” of the technology. Mumford would argue the first half of this statement concedes too much, accepting the basic premise of the myth of the machine while presenting the task as removing the obstacles to realize its benefits. Many skeptics also share a basic misanthropic premise of machine superiority, focusing as they do on the biased, irrational, and flawed nature of human beings that needs machinic augmentation."

    compactmag.com/article/ai-and-

    #AI #Neoluddism #AIBoosters #AIHype #AIDoomers #GenerativeAI #Mumford #STS #MediaEcology

  21. “ It is the thinkers in that tradition— #Mumford, #Arendt, #Ellul, #McLuhan, #Postman, #Turkle, and many others—who have taught us how deeply and subtly #technology is entwined with human history, human society, and human behavior …” open.substack.com/pub/newcarto...

    I Am a Data Factory (and So Ar...

  22. “ It is the thinkers in that tradition— #Mumford, #Arendt, #Ellul, #McLuhan, #Postman, #Turkle, and many others—who have taught us how deeply and subtly #technology is entwined with human history, human society, and human behavior …” open.substack.com/pub/newcarto...

    I Am a Data Factory (and So Ar...

  23. “ It is the thinkers in that tradition— #Mumford, #Arendt, #Ellul, #McLuhan, #Postman, #Turkle, and many others—who have taught us how deeply and subtly #technology is entwined with human history, human society, and human behavior …” open.substack.com/pub/newcarto...

    I Am a Data Factory (and So Ar...

  24. “ It is the thinkers in that tradition— #Mumford, #Arendt, #Ellul, #McLuhan, #Postman, #Turkle, and many others—who have taught us how deeply and subtly #technology is entwined with human history, human society, and human behavior …” open.substack.com/pub/newcarto...

    I Am a Data Factory (and So Ar...

  25. “ It is the thinkers in that tradition— #Mumford, #Arendt, #Ellul, #McLuhan, #Postman, #Turkle, and many others—who have taught us how deeply and subtly #technology is entwined with human history, human society, and human behavior …” open.substack.com/pub/newcarto...

    I Am a Data Factory (and So Ar...