4 ms·

The author eventually contemplates the "good" aspects of "machine ruthlessness" (e.g. "cryproanarchist technologies"), but ultimately warns against the "oppress

The author eventually contemplates the "good" aspects of "machine ruthlessness" (e.g. "cryproanarchist technologies"), but ultimately warns against the "oppressive" potential inherent in all machines. The main problem with this argument IMO is that it equates oppression with the kind of unwavering ruthlessness that is the way of the machines: they will do as they are programmed - there are no exceptions (unless such exceptions are programmed in of course, which is not discussed). This is however not the usual definition of oppression, which is normally conceived mostly as "unjust discrimination" [0] - which is really the polar opposite of such undiscriminating "decisions" by the computers. I.e. everyone is treated equally, which is an ideal under the rule of law, the alternative opens up for corruption where the wealthy (for example) in court is treated with more leniency than the poor - or vice versa. As it stands the text can be read a veiled criticism of a "rule of law"-system backed by the state. And as such, a modern take on an age-old discussion that leaves little leeway for common ground: a leeway that allows for a little bit of this, a little bit of that which is how things tend to end up in actual life. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression

jgerrish 4y ago
Cryptoanarchism seems to be a deliberately designed red herring in this article (or socially agreed upon warning). It doesn't escape the main thesis, that computers are physical devices that rely on rules. It's refreshing. I'm smashing my head with the ongoing Monkey Pox Holmes Rahe Stress train wreck, and discord in US cities. And here's an essay that raises questions on Philosophy of Mind. What if you believe in a Physicalist or Machine Functionalism Theory of mind? Then are we just as ruthless as computers? What if you have a Magical Random Banana? Does that let you escape the ruthlessness? What if you don't trust your magical banana?
southerntofu 4y ago
> I.e. everyone is treated equally, which is an ideal under the rule of law Sure it's branded as an ideal in our profoundly corrupt societies. But would "equal treatment" bring equality? In this system, we are all free to own a castle or to work 12h/day in the mines from the age of 8. But however impartial the treatment of individuals the system is still meant for profound inequality and exploitation. Of course i agree that at least here in France we are very very far off impartial treatment. Like you pointed out, the rich, the powerful and the cops are above the law and we lower people can get abused by the judicial system in many ways. I'm just trying to say that being impartial (or as the op says, ruthless) does not imply fairness. Capitalist impartiality still means billions of people starving and working the fields/mines/factories to maintain the cheap throwaway lifestyle of urban modernity. And yes, this state of things and the neoliberalisation of everything very much relies on computers. I think calling "oppression" is not a far stretch, but rather an understatement. On the history of computer oppression, you can do reading about "micro-management" and "bossware", and the restructuration of factories/administrations from the 80s to this day. Computers were and are an irreplaceable tool to enforce stupid policies that ruin the life and health of many working folks and the people they're supposed to serve.
- stareatgoats 4y ago
  > the system is still meant for profound inequality and exploitation I disagree that "the system" is "meant" for anything - the system is not a monolith even if certain parts of the machinery work well together, it is rarely a question of design, usually a mishmash of various historical phenomena and trends that happen to exist simultaneously. I think my plea for "a little bit of this and a little bit of that" perhaps got somewhat muted in my comment, placed at the very end like it was. So I agree that it would be oppressive to always treat everyone equal, the billionaire as well as the double working lone mom, and that machines many time is a prime tool for oppression and deflecting responsibility. But it would be problematic to start chipping away at the ideal of everyone's equality under the law in order to rectify such. This ideal is what stands between institutions like freedom, democracy and human rights on the one hand and corrupt states on the other, where the law is applied differently depending on who is on trial, and where the letter and intent of the law is flaunted in favor of pure (real) oppression. The problem really seems to be discerning where to apply "a little bit of this" vs where to apply "a little bit of that", a project that doesn't lend itself well to sweeping generalizations.

jgerrish 4y ago

Cryptoanarchism seems to be a deliberately designed red herring in this article (or socially agreed upon warning). It doesn't escape the main thesis, that computers are physical devices that rely on rules. It's refreshing. I'm smashing my head with the ongoing Monkey Pox Holmes Rahe Stress train wreck, and discord in US cities. And here's an essay that raises questions on Philosophy of Mind. What if you believe in a Physicalist or Machine Functionalism Theory of mind? Then are we just as ruthless as computers? What if you have a Magical Random Banana? Does that let you escape the ruthlessness? What if you don't trust your magical banana?

southerntofu 4y ago

> I.e. everyone is treated equally, which is an ideal under the rule of law Sure it's branded as an ideal in our profoundly corrupt societies. But would "equal treatment" bring equality? In this system, we are all free to own a castle or to work 12h/day in the mines from the age of 8. But however impartial the treatment of individuals the system is still meant for profound inequality and exploitation. Of course i agree that at least here in France we are very very far off impartial treatment. Like you pointed out, the rich, the powerful and the cops are above the law and we lower people can get abused by the judicial system in many ways. I'm just trying to say that being impartial (or as the op says, ruthless) does not imply fairness. Capitalist impartiality still means billions of people starving and working the fields/mines/factories to maintain the cheap throwaway lifestyle of urban modernity. And yes, this state of things and the neoliberalisation of everything very much relies on computers. I think calling "oppression" is not a far stretch, but rather an understatement. On the history of computer oppression, you can do reading about "micro-management" and "bossware", and the restructuration of factories/administrations from the 80s to this day. Computers were and are an irreplaceable tool to enforce stupid policies that ruin the life and health of many working folks and the people they're supposed to serve.

stareatgoats 4y ago
> the system is still meant for profound inequality and exploitation I disagree that "the system" is "meant" for anything - the system is not a monolith even if certain parts of the machinery work well together, it is rarely a question of design, usually a mishmash of various historical phenomena and trends that happen to exist simultaneously. I think my plea for "a little bit of this and a little bit of that" perhaps got somewhat muted in my comment, placed at the very end like it was. So I agree that it would be oppressive to always treat everyone equal, the billionaire as well as the double working lone mom, and that machines many time is a prime tool for oppression and deflecting responsibility. But it would be problematic to start chipping away at the ideal of everyone's equality under the law in order to rectify such. This ideal is what stands between institutions like freedom, democracy and human rights on the one hand and corrupt states on the other, where the law is applied differently depending on who is on trial, and where the letter and intent of the law is flaunted in favor of pure (real) oppression. The problem really seems to be discerning where to apply "a little bit of this" vs where to apply "a little bit of that", a project that doesn't lend itself well to sweeping generalizations.