The author first encountered Esperanto in the late 2000s via an AOL message from a friend, who described it as a universal language invented by LL Zamenhof to promote world peace through easy learning.
Esperanto was created in 1887 by Zamenhof, a Polish-Jewish ophthalmologist, aiming to reduce conflict by providing a neutral, easy-to-learn second language.
The language grew in popularity among anarcho-syndicalists, socialists, and pacifists, but faced persecution under Stalin, Franco, and the Nazis, who saw it as a Jewish or communist conspiracy.
After World War II, Esperanto persisted, especially in the Soviet Union, China, and among cold war youth, and later via the internet, with online classes and communities.
The author attended the 110th World Esperanto Congress in Brno, Czechia, where they observed a shift from political ambitions to hobbyist and social activities, with factions like finvenkismo (worldwide adoption) and raŭmismo (community-building) coexisting.
Practical benefits of Esperanto include the Pasporta Servo, a global homestay network for speakers, allowing cheap travel and deep connections beyond transactional communication.
The language remains relevant in regions like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where it serves as a neutral tool for aid and communication among diverse linguistic groups.
The author reflects on Esperanto's enduring appeal as a sincere, joy-focused community that fosters understanding, despite its failure to achieve global peace.
The Catholic Church and Chinese government continue to engage with Esperanto for soft power, maintaining its presence in international contexts.
The author's expectation that philosophy would provide ultimate wisdom was unmet; he learned that philosophical debates often stem from ambiguous language.
A key insight is that everyday words are imprecise and break down when pushed too far, causing most metaphysical disputes.
Aristotle's pursuit of 'useless' theoretical knowledge sent philosophy down a wrong path that persisted for centuries.
Wittgenstein highlighted the language problem but philosophy's self-protective nature prevented real reform.
A better approach is to seek the most general truths by starting from practical utility and gradually increasing abstraction.
Philosophy is still in its early stages; most past work was wasted, but there is great potential if reoriented toward usefulness.
The author coined 'clanker' as an alternative to 'agent' for AI systems to emphasize they are mere tools, not human-like entities with agency or responsibility.
The term sparked controversy on Hacker News, with some perceiving it as a slur, but the author argues that machine language should avoid anthropomorphizing and assigning moral status to LLMs.
Comparing the term to racism is inappropriate because it devalues actual human oppression; real harms from AI affect humans, not the machines themselves.
The author insists on maintaining a clear boundary where humans bear responsibility, while machines are just tools, and will change the term if it becomes associated with racist tropes.