4 ms·

You post an article about open societies and then I can't access it without subscribing - LOL Just my opinion then without reading it: - in China we already se

by VvR-Ox 8y ago

You post an article about open societies and then I can't access it without subscribing - LOL Just my opinion then without reading it: - in China we already see what a government can do with technologies including AI to control the behaviour of people - the West always seems to think it's not going to be that evil around here because people are moral superior (I don't believe that - with Hitler in Germany we saw how quickly things can change and with refugees and poor citizens in all those countries we see how badly people can treat others and still think this is correct - even without an AI they'd believe blindly) - too many techies have no moral & ethics. While studying and also in business I saw most of the people just being interested in personal welfare and earning the most money they can TLDR; This (whatever 'this' will be) is definitely going to happen if not enough people find back to humanity - with or without support of IT/AI/... (just tools)

malloryerik 8y ago
Btw you can read the article for free by registering, though it's a hassle. Might be easier to read from some of the alternative links with the same speech posted by others here: https://www.wired.com/story/mortal-danger-chinas-push-into-ai/ https://www.wired.com/story/mortal-danger-chinas-push-into-a... https://www.georgesoros.com/2019/01/24/remarks-delivered-at-the-world-economic-forum-2/ https://www.georgesoros.com/2019/01/24/remarks-delivered-at-...
- VvR-Ox 8y ago
  Thank you very much :) But that's exactly what I dislike: for everything you wanna do on the net you're forced to register. I just can't see it anymore and instantly close stuff that behaves that way.
gnomewascool 8y ago
> You post an article about open societies and then I can't access it without subscribing - LOL While I also dislike being forced to subscribe to read something, free access to publications and open society are completely different things. After all, you had open societies before the digital age, when the vast majority of newspapers were paid. Obviously, the two are linked, but I'm not even sure whether gratis access to all journalism encourages an open society or discourages it. (You can imagine just-so stories for either case: 1. free access to articles → everyone can read them → better informed society → open society 2. free access to articles → high quality journalism goes out of business as they have to compete against zero-cost alternatives → misinformed (or even deliberately disinformed) society → people less likely to fight for openness. )
- VvR-Ox 8y ago
  > ... free access to publications and open society are completely different things Of course they are and it wasn't my intention to mix them up but as you also noted they are connected somehow. > 2. free access to articles → high quality journalism goes out of business as they have to compete against zero-cost alternatives → misinformed (or even deliberately disinformed) society → people less likely to fight for openness. This can be right in the capitalistic framework many have to live in and deal with. On the other hand this encourages people to write what is sold best / for the highest price. You can see how damaged the scientific publication system is as organizations and individual scientists are rated by how many articles (quantity not quality) they publish and where they are published (artificial reputation vs. real value). I am convinced that everything must be open to really pave the way towards an open society. The problem with this ATM is just the capitalistic framework. Peoples sole purpose in life is earning enough money to not perish before kind of a natural death occurs [which is also connected to amount of money you have]. The need to enslave yourself without purpose just to exist and the reality that success can be easily achieved just by making money somehow (quality doesn't matter and in most cases is punished because you don't earn enough margin) does not foster quality in any way. Same goes for writing in my opinion. Better to read something from someone who is really dedicated and interested in the topic than some mercenary writer.

by VvR-Ox 8y ago

malloryerik 8y ago

Btw you can read the article for free by registering, though it's a hassle. Might be easier to read from some of the alternative links with the same speech posted by others here: https://www.wired.com/story/mortal-danger-chinas-push-into-ai/ https://www.wired.com/story/mortal-danger-chinas-push-into-a... https://www.georgesoros.com/2019/01/24/remarks-delivered-at-the-world-economic-forum-2/ https://www.georgesoros.com/2019/01/24/remarks-delivered-at-...

VvR-Ox 8y ago
Thank you very much :) But that's exactly what I dislike: for everything you wanna do on the net you're forced to register. I just can't see it anymore and instantly close stuff that behaves that way.

gnomewascool 8y ago

> You post an article about open societies and then I can't access it without subscribing - LOL While I also dislike being forced to subscribe to read something, free access to publications and open society are completely different things. After all, you had open societies before the digital age, when the vast majority of newspapers were paid. Obviously, the two are linked, but I'm not even sure whether gratis access to all journalism encourages an open society or discourages it. (You can imagine just-so stories for either case: 1. free access to articles → everyone can read them → better informed society → open society 2. free access to articles → high quality journalism goes out of business as they have to compete against zero-cost alternatives → misinformed (or even deliberately disinformed) society → people less likely to fight for openness. )

VvR-Ox 8y ago
> ... free access to publications and open society are completely different things Of course they are and it wasn't my intention to mix them up but as you also noted they are connected somehow. > 2. free access to articles → high quality journalism goes out of business as they have to compete against zero-cost alternatives → misinformed (or even deliberately disinformed) society → people less likely to fight for openness. This can be right in the capitalistic framework many have to live in and deal with. On the other hand this encourages people to write what is sold best / for the highest price. You can see how damaged the scientific publication system is as organizations and individual scientists are rated by how many articles (quantity not quality) they publish and where they are published (artificial reputation vs. real value). I am convinced that everything must be open to really pave the way towards an open society. The problem with this ATM is just the capitalistic framework. Peoples sole purpose in life is earning enough money to not perish before kind of a natural death occurs [which is also connected to amount of money you have]. The need to enslave yourself without purpose just to exist and the reality that success can be easily achieved just by making money somehow (quality doesn't matter and in most cases is punished because you don't earn enough margin) does not foster quality in any way. Same goes for writing in my opinion. Better to read something from someone who is really dedicated and interested in the topic than some mercenary writer.