5 ms·

This is more common than the opposite. I’m reminded of that recent embarrassing display of US government where the TikTok CEO was peppered with the kinds of qu

This is more common than the opposite. I’m reminded of that recent embarrassing display of US government where the TikTok CEO was peppered with the kinds of questions that betray the fact that the congresscritter doesn’t comprehend the topic. If they wanted real answers they’d say, “I yield my time to this SME I brought in.” But they’re just there to look tough on whatever.

ouid 4y ago
You don't need to be a subject matter expert to understand how encryption works. E2E can be explained to an 8 year old. The problem is that the skills selected for in politicians is the same as the skills selected for in non-venomous snakes, ie, their resemblance to venomous snakes, without the metabolic overhead of actually producing venom.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I don't understand your metaphor. > E2E can be explained to an 8 year old. Can. Also, the main problem here isn't explaining the tech itself (although the quotations in the link indicate this is also a problem), but rather explaining why it's (a) actually good, and (b) impossible to prevent even if it wasn't good. But even if it was the tech itself, most people don't have maths skills and fundamentally don't (care to?) think logically. When I was a kid, I couldn't understand why the adults kept joking about why it was so hard to stop the VCR from flashing 12:00 when I found it trivial. (I think we're getting to the point where you could run an image detection process on the display itself, totally circumventing any encryption. This will have a lot of consequences that are totally obvious and yet it may be done regardless).
raverbashing 4y ago
Pretty much that. Your average politician on this side of the pond is not much better than the ones on the other side And to be even more honest, technical people have a very hard time getting their point across non-technical people and engaging in politics
- ben_w 4y ago
  Perfect use case for ChatGPT. Sure, I'd be as surprised as anyone else if it could straight up write good laws, but it can almost certainly talk in political jargon better than any of us software developers can manage.
  - b112 4y ago
    Perfect use case for ChatGPT. You lunatic!! You have damned us all! The genie, it is released, the bottle broken, forever unstopped. PoliticianGPT, oh the humanity!
    - ben_w 4y ago
      We can also use it to TL;DR the laws and turn them into non-jargon, help us find and work against bad laws more easily. I've lost track of which version passed which exams, but recent news suggests v4 scores highly on (at least one) bar exam (I don't know if bar exam is "noob lawyer" or "good lawyer", but either way, even v3.5 can do more than me).
- lucaspfeifer 4y ago
  In response to your second statement: Technical people have been able to explain their ideas well enough to get them funded and implemented in a business setting. So we must ask, what is the difference between getting something done in business vs. in the government. Politicians, in order to get reelected, need soundbites that can be understood within the average attention span, which is not long enough to capture the more subtle details. Though tech people might provide them with these details, they are often lost in the execution or distorted by special interest lobbyists. Ideally, leaders would listen to the tech experts, translate that information into plain english, compile it into a detailed and concise plan, present that plan to voters within the average attention span, and execute the plan faithfully. Unfortunately, most of our current congress people, to use a metaphor, are not willing to 'rock the boat'. We need our politicians to put logic and reason above obedience, have high standards for legislature, and make this legislature in service of the nation.

ouid 4y ago

You don't need to be a subject matter expert to understand how encryption works. E2E can be explained to an 8 year old. The problem is that the skills selected for in politicians is the same as the skills selected for in non-venomous snakes, ie, their resemblance to venomous snakes, without the metabolic overhead of actually producing venom.

ben_w 4y ago
I don't understand your metaphor. > E2E can be explained to an 8 year old. Can. Also, the main problem here isn't explaining the tech itself (although the quotations in the link indicate this is also a problem), but rather explaining why it's (a) actually good, and (b) impossible to prevent even if it wasn't good. But even if it was the tech itself, most people don't have maths skills and fundamentally don't (care to?) think logically. When I was a kid, I couldn't understand why the adults kept joking about why it was so hard to stop the VCR from flashing 12:00 when I found it trivial. (I think we're getting to the point where you could run an image detection process on the display itself, totally circumventing any encryption. This will have a lot of consequences that are totally obvious and yet it may be done regardless).

raverbashing 4y ago

Pretty much that. Your average politician on this side of the pond is not much better than the ones on the other side And to be even more honest, technical people have a very hard time getting their point across non-technical people and engaging in politics

ben_w 4y ago
Perfect use case for ChatGPT. Sure, I'd be as surprised as anyone else if it could straight up write good laws, but it can almost certainly talk in political jargon better than any of us software developers can manage.
- b112 4y ago
  Perfect use case for ChatGPT. You lunatic!! You have damned us all! The genie, it is released, the bottle broken, forever unstopped. PoliticianGPT, oh the humanity!
  - ben_w 4y ago
    We can also use it to TL;DR the laws and turn them into non-jargon, help us find and work against bad laws more easily. I've lost track of which version passed which exams, but recent news suggests v4 scores highly on (at least one) bar exam (I don't know if bar exam is "noob lawyer" or "good lawyer", but either way, even v3.5 can do more than me).
lucaspfeifer 4y ago
In response to your second statement: Technical people have been able to explain their ideas well enough to get them funded and implemented in a business setting. So we must ask, what is the difference between getting something done in business vs. in the government. Politicians, in order to get reelected, need soundbites that can be understood within the average attention span, which is not long enough to capture the more subtle details. Though tech people might provide them with these details, they are often lost in the execution or distorted by special interest lobbyists. Ideally, leaders would listen to the tech experts, translate that information into plain english, compile it into a detailed and concise plan, present that plan to voters within the average attention span, and execute the plan faithfully. Unfortunately, most of our current congress people, to use a metaphor, are not willing to 'rock the boat'. We need our politicians to put logic and reason above obedience, have high standards for legislature, and make this legislature in service of the nation.