4 ms·

It's odd for an article like this to make absolutely no mention of Free Software, but it's not really using oppressive in the sense the Free Software movement u

It's odd for an article like this to make absolutely no mention of Free Software, but it's not really using oppressive in the sense the Free Software movement uses it. The point of the article boils down to something like this: Pre-AI computers are very literal and show no judgement or discernment in their rule-following. They are inevitably used to implement complex systems against which users have little recourse, and to implement complex systems whose behaviours and failures can be blamed on computers rather than on the people responsible. These fundamental problems will persist no matter the progress made in AI. Free Software is intended to stop the user being oppressed by their own computers. The article's point is about other people's computers being used to serve their interests over yours, in ways that may be detrimental to the user compared to a more 'manual' system. Consider the train door example from the article. Suppose that code were Free Software. This might benefit whoever owns and runs the train, but wouldn't benefit the user (of the train) at all.

ryukafalz 4y ago
> The article's point is about other people's computers being used to serve their interests over yours Partly, but this example was also used as well: > Though perhaps unlikely, my hyper-awareness of the sinister ruthlessness of machines in the ordinary things around us led me immediately to note the pathological outcome: Someone stuck on a desert island (or equivalent) who starves to death, because the only food they have is expired Juicero juice bags and a machine which refuses to serve them. While in Juicero's case this might seem like a comical example, I fully believe it's only a matter of time until something like this happens. The deliberate utilisation of machine-assisted ruthlessness to malevolent ends becomes more and more common with every passing day, as companies realise they can escape from accountability by hiding behind the facelessness of the machine, which disempowers the individual to fight or object to it. The now memetic expression, “computer says no”, pithily expresses this phenomenon. …which is precisely the usual free software issue. The Juicero is a computer you own, but that does not serve your interests.
- MaxBarraclough 4y ago
  Yes, good point.

ryukafalz 4y ago

> The article's point is about other people's computers being used to serve their interests over yours Partly, but this example was also used as well: > Though perhaps unlikely, my hyper-awareness of the sinister ruthlessness of machines in the ordinary things around us led me immediately to note the pathological outcome: Someone stuck on a desert island (or equivalent) who starves to death, because the only food they have is expired Juicero juice bags and a machine which refuses to serve them. While in Juicero's case this might seem like a comical example, I fully believe it's only a matter of time until something like this happens. The deliberate utilisation of machine-assisted ruthlessness to malevolent ends becomes more and more common with every passing day, as companies realise they can escape from accountability by hiding behind the facelessness of the machine, which disempowers the individual to fight or object to it. The now memetic expression, “computer says no”, pithily expresses this phenomenon. …which is precisely the usual free software issue. The Juicero is a computer you own, but that does not serve your interests.

MaxBarraclough 4y ago
Yes, good point.