5 ms·
You lose the "freedom of thought" simply because a computer does exactly the same thing that a good salesman would do, simply at scale?
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
You lose the "freedom of thought" simply because a computer does exactly the same thing that a good salesman would do, simply at scale?
- someguydave 10y agoIndeed if the security of control of your government is fragile enough that a fancy telemarketer can acquire significant power perhaps a bit of governmental re-architecture is in order.
- mirimir 10y agoWell, what's problematic is democracy. Representative government doesn't protect against this sort of data-driven populism. If people can be manipulated so efficiently, how can democracy be workable?
- crawfordcomeaux 10y agoBy shifting societal norms toward learning nonviolent emotional independence?
- mirimir 10y agoThat seems a good start. But maybe that's game-able too. If you're dealing with an AI (or proto-AI, at least) that understands you better than you do yourself, you're pwned. So then you need your own AI, to filter input and flag exploits. Rather like anti-malware, for your mind.
- crawfordcomeaux 10y agoThat's what I'm developing :D The idea is to create a human programming language to encode activities for learning/practicing principles found in the book Nonviolent Communication and publish that before publishing the language as a way to protect oneself.
- mirimir 10y agoCool :)
- jpttsn 10y agoSounds expensive
- someguydave 10y agoOne answer: restricting the vote to people who have skin in the game. If you have to personally pay for your favored policy you might consider it more carefully.
- mirimir 10y agoYes, people with less to lose are arguably easier to manipulate. But I'd rather see some sort of "I am not a bot." test for independent thinking ;)
- someguydave 10y agoNot only are they easier to manipulate - they have a conflict of interest when they (for instance) demand that the government pay them money when they don't pay taxes.
- mirimir 10y agoThat, I believe, is among the least of our problems.
- dredmorbius 10y agoA hydrogen bomb does the same thing that Greek Fire does, at scale. The gas turbine does the same thing the ox does, at scale. Mustard gas does the same thing a bee does, at scale. Scale fucking matters.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoYour examples illustrate my point quite well. It is (and should be) illegal to pour greek fire on even 1 person - small scale doesn't make the action ok. Does this mean we should pass a law against salesmen, and just general interpersonal persuasion? If not, why not?
- dredmorbius 10y agoI'm going to try to put my finger on the nature of your comments that's troubled me for quite some time. A key element that's lacking seems to be the principle of charity: seeking a sympathetic understanding of an idea presented, and interpretation of ideas in their most persuasive form. I don't believe I've ever seen you do that. You might care to give it a thought. http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html I'll through your questions back at you: How is Greek Fire unlike a hydrogen bomb? How might considerations of these be different? What else that shares elements of what a hydrogen bomb is, or does, still substantively different in a way that would not require some sort of regulatory treatment? Why is it we pass laws, generally? What are the hallmarks of a good, or a bad law?
- dredmorbius 10y agoGah. "Throw", not "through".
- crawfordcomeaux 10y agoIf I sell you something I know you have the money for, but can't afford, that's a predatory action. If I convince you to harm yourself, that's a predatory action. We have laws of various forms making these actions illegal. They may not be federally regulated, but could probably stand to be, especially when it's done at scale. Who needs protection of the law in those situations? The emotionally exploitable or the unethical salesman?
- mirimir 10y agoNo, you lose your freedom either way. But a society loses its freedom when software does it at scale.