4 ms·

Thanks for your point of view. I agree that we should pay more attention to motives of aggressor. That helps us understand beyond. Still I'm very sceptical abo

Thanks for your point of view. I agree that we should pay more attention to motives of aggressor. That helps us understand beyond. Still I'm very sceptical about sanctions that affects mostly innocent and poorest people and destabilise overal economy that is already very fragile. Just look at the history, what happened after Spanish influenza and escalated in 1928. Today, with technology all this could happen again but much more quickly. Even more I'm worried about censorship. What make our values differnet if we implement exactly same politic that we fight against?

leobg 5y ago
Yes, that is exactly what scares me as well. It is one thing to have government censorship. That is something one can at least understand. But here we are, as a free society. And with tools that never existed before in history that allow each of us to have a voice. And yet, at least on the surface, the spectrum of narratives that are considered worthy of discussion is almost as narrow as if there was some sort of central control. It is one thing if you have to be afraid that a Goebbels or Putin manipulates public opinion. But if it should turn out that it's people's craving for easy answers itself that leads to the emergence of mass delusions, then that would be much, much scarier.
- t0bia_s 5y ago
  I've recently spoke with friend about this topic and argument was, that he don't have time to verify every information from 3 or more different sources. And most people do not even bother to verify any information at all. So... Are we failing in education? In my country, one week ago private DNS provider CZ.NIC blocked 12 "disinformation" websites - it is probably more now. There was no law, no definition. Just private decision about few sites that was propagandistic from Russia. My question is... If we do not have definition of disinformation (who has patent on truth anyway?), then should we allow commercial TV's stream for example Putin's speeches?
  - leobg 5y ago
    Yeah, this is crazy. I think it is the symptom of a deeper problem we are facing as a society: Tech has increased our ability to spread messages. But what it has not increased is our ability to validate those messages. In a sense, we have perverted the original idea of the computer. The computing pioneers of the 1950s and 60s saw the computer as a tool to help us deal with the complexity of the world's problems [1]. What we have focused on instead is to use computers to make our information landscape even more complex than it already was. It is very telling to look at our advances in A.I.. GPT-3, for instance, can produce massive amounts of pausible sounding content. But what it cannot do is verify a piece of information. That, right there, is our problem in a nutshell. We've already seen it play out in Trump, and in Covid. And we're going to see it play out in many, many more ways in the years to come. [1] Doug Engelbart, I believe, had this system in the 1960s. He had the idea that organizations would input all their knowledge into that system. And the system would then help them draw connections, show them gaps in their knowledge, make predictions, give them suggestions on what questions to ask or experiments to run, etc.. He believed that, eventually, such a system could be used at a global scale. So that, ideally, no human would ever again waste his time trying to solve a problem that has already been solved by someone else, no matter where or when. And that we as a species would, instead, be able to focus all of our intelligence on those questions and problems that are yet unsolved.

leobg 5y ago

Yes, that is exactly what scares me as well. It is one thing to have government censorship. That is something one can at least understand. But here we are, as a free society. And with tools that never existed before in history that allow each of us to have a voice. And yet, at least on the surface, the spectrum of narratives that are considered worthy of discussion is almost as narrow as if there was some sort of central control. It is one thing if you have to be afraid that a Goebbels or Putin manipulates public opinion. But if it should turn out that it's people's craving for easy answers itself that leads to the emergence of mass delusions, then that would be much, much scarier.

t0bia_s 5y ago
I've recently spoke with friend about this topic and argument was, that he don't have time to verify every information from 3 or more different sources. And most people do not even bother to verify any information at all. So... Are we failing in education? In my country, one week ago private DNS provider CZ.NIC blocked 12 "disinformation" websites - it is probably more now. There was no law, no definition. Just private decision about few sites that was propagandistic from Russia. My question is... If we do not have definition of disinformation (who has patent on truth anyway?), then should we allow commercial TV's stream for example Putin's speeches?
- leobg 5y ago
  Yeah, this is crazy. I think it is the symptom of a deeper problem we are facing as a society: Tech has increased our ability to spread messages. But what it has not increased is our ability to validate those messages. In a sense, we have perverted the original idea of the computer. The computing pioneers of the 1950s and 60s saw the computer as a tool to help us deal with the complexity of the world's problems [1]. What we have focused on instead is to use computers to make our information landscape even more complex than it already was. It is very telling to look at our advances in A.I.. GPT-3, for instance, can produce massive amounts of pausible sounding content. But what it cannot do is verify a piece of information. That, right there, is our problem in a nutshell. We've already seen it play out in Trump, and in Covid. And we're going to see it play out in many, many more ways in the years to come. [1] Doug Engelbart, I believe, had this system in the 1960s. He had the idea that organizations would input all their knowledge into that system. And the system would then help them draw connections, show them gaps in their knowledge, make predictions, give them suggestions on what questions to ask or experiments to run, etc.. He believed that, eventually, such a system could be used at a global scale. So that, ideally, no human would ever again waste his time trying to solve a problem that has already been solved by someone else, no matter where or when. And that we as a species would, instead, be able to focus all of our intelligence on those questions and problems that are yet unsolved.