4 ms·

Some technology is obviously more useful to the population at large, such as the printing press. Other trchnology is more useful to the tyrant, such as the heli

Some technology is obviously more useful to the population at large, such as the printing press. Other trchnology is more useful to the tyrant, such as the helicopter only they can afford, and use to monitor the city centers for groups of those unruly students. The idea of all technology being neutral and equally useful for any cause is absurd. The discussion is what category AInfalls under. I can instantly see its value for the centralized surveillance state: find the signal within all the noise of those bills of calls, messages, and CCTV images a state can capture. I can’t immediately think of anything useful the technology could do for a few people fighting for dmcrocracy. They do not even have access to any such vast data trove that’s usually at the beginning of the AI value chain.

austincheney 8y ago
A tyrant is just a ruler. > The discussion is what category AInfalls under. A tool or utility. A hammer drives nails into wood enabling construction far superior to hands alone. A hammer can also crush skulls. A hammer is a utility. The determinate use is left to the user. The same objective reasoning applies to successful gun laws, which is often fatally missed by the gun lobby and advocates of gun restrictions.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
  Check any dictionary, except a 2000 year old Latin one. A tyrant is “a cruel and oppressive ruler” (Oxford American). Since you know that this is how the word has been commonly used for at least decades, and it is entirely clear from context that it was the intended meaning here, why do you feel it appropriate to waste everyone’s time with such a transparently bad-faith attempt to derail the discussion? Then, maybe, actually engage with the argument, instead of just restating its opposite without adding anything to support that viewpoint.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Because in the context of the conversation (about a tool) whether or not a leader is cruel the result is still the same. Objectively, mean people do not define a tool's presence.

austincheney 8y ago

A tyrant is just a ruler. > The discussion is what category AInfalls under. A tool or utility. A hammer drives nails into wood enabling construction far superior to hands alone. A hammer can also crush skulls. A hammer is a utility. The determinate use is left to the user. The same objective reasoning applies to successful gun laws, which is often fatally missed by the gun lobby and advocates of gun restrictions.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
Check any dictionary, except a 2000 year old Latin one. A tyrant is “a cruel and oppressive ruler” (Oxford American). Since you know that this is how the word has been commonly used for at least decades, and it is entirely clear from context that it was the intended meaning here, why do you feel it appropriate to waste everyone’s time with such a transparently bad-faith attempt to derail the discussion? Then, maybe, actually engage with the argument, instead of just restating its opposite without adding anything to support that viewpoint.
- austincheney 8y ago
  Because in the context of the conversation (about a tool) whether or not a leader is cruel the result is still the same. Objectively, mean people do not define a tool's presence.