4 ms·

> This is from the top of my head but there are certainly other people who have smarter ideas that don't involve straight up censorship. So what can you conclu

> This is from the top of my head but there are certainly other people who have smarter ideas that don't involve straight up censorship. So what can you conclude about the private intent of key decision makers? I find that imputing malign intent often improves my ability to forecast outcomes. Whether there is actual bad faith almost doesn't matter if the assumption improves forecasts.

Applejinx 6y ago
I agree. The thing that makes me suspicious is an absolute demand that things have to be taken at, and discussed at, face value. The existence of malign intent is hardly mysterious. It's like the Firesign Theater skit with a political guy declaring, "And you can believe me. Because I never lie. And I'm always right." Part of the gag is that the guy picked to read the line is capable of delivering it really, really convincingly. You go, 'wow! He really means that… hey waitaminnit…' I think it's interesting to see these tech giants react to a repeating pattern of using direct manipulative lying as a weapon. It fits with some of my 'singularity' theories: corporations are like aggregate people, and AI is a still higher level than that, and it's neither easy nor desirable to use these newer forms of intelligence to replicate the worst follies of the individual human. At some point, tolerating the wilder excesses of the individual 'cell' will kill the 'host' organism, which if it's a corporation depends on living humans, if it's an AI depends on living human societies. If you've got an AI that isn't really an AI and is just a large informational weapon, or a corporation that isn't really an aggregate person and is just the intentions of one human expressed through power, there's no constraint on the actions of the larger more powerful entity. But if you have the larger organism (whether it's a corporation or a proper AI with a broad enough awareness) it's going to eventually resist self-destructive actions even if they're expressed in a complex way. I see this as YouTube as a larger organism recognizing it is being used as a weapon and trying to protect itself against future punishment or diminishment by preventing itself from being used in a particular way.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
toolz 6y ago
Care to make any predictions then? I'm always highly skeptical of confirmation bias and I think when I ask people to make predictions they immediately get a bit nervous which hopefully is enough to help them recognize they're only willing to claim their methodology works and not quite so eager to prove it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Applejinx 6y ago

I agree. The thing that makes me suspicious is an absolute demand that things have to be taken at, and discussed at, face value. The existence of malign intent is hardly mysterious. It's like the Firesign Theater skit with a political guy declaring, "And you can believe me. Because I never lie. And I'm always right." Part of the gag is that the guy picked to read the line is capable of delivering it really, really convincingly. You go, 'wow! He really means that… hey waitaminnit…' I think it's interesting to see these tech giants react to a repeating pattern of using direct manipulative lying as a weapon. It fits with some of my 'singularity' theories: corporations are like aggregate people, and AI is a still higher level than that, and it's neither easy nor desirable to use these newer forms of intelligence to replicate the worst follies of the individual human. At some point, tolerating the wilder excesses of the individual 'cell' will kill the 'host' organism, which if it's a corporation depends on living humans, if it's an AI depends on living human societies. If you've got an AI that isn't really an AI and is just a large informational weapon, or a corporation that isn't really an aggregate person and is just the intentions of one human expressed through power, there's no constraint on the actions of the larger more powerful entity. But if you have the larger organism (whether it's a corporation or a proper AI with a broad enough awareness) it's going to eventually resist self-destructive actions even if they're expressed in a complex way. I see this as YouTube as a larger organism recognizing it is being used as a weapon and trying to protect itself against future punishment or diminishment by preventing itself from being used in a particular way.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

toolz 6y ago

Care to make any predictions then? I'm always highly skeptical of confirmation bias and I think when I ask people to make predictions they immediately get a bit nervous which hopefully is enough to help them recognize they're only willing to claim their methodology works and not quite so eager to prove it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]