3 ms·

> The bomb didn't have to be dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima That doesn't seem like a fitting comparison, considering it's a highly debated topic to this day

by imiric 4y ago

> The bomb didn't have to be dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima That doesn't seem like a fitting comparison, considering it's a highly debated topic to this day. > I had to argue at a bar a couple weeks ago for a dev manager not to lay off his entire team of green junior data engineers. This has more to do with that particular manager not understanding the current state of AI, and buying into the hype, than the technology reaching the point where developers are being made redundant by AI. That manager would've come to a swift realization of his mistake very quickly. So you managed to burst his bubble of delusion, but this is not a sign of AI taking over anytime soon.

nerpderp82 4y ago
Now that the mob has passed, I'd like to address your statement. > That doesn't seem like a fitting comparison, considering it's a highly debated topic to this day. A comparison can be apt independent of how inciteful the statement is. The dropping of the bomb was a showcase of force, it didn't have to happen on a population of people. The demonstration could have happened on Mt Fuji, or Okinawa. > These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids, and the Army Air Forces agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the damage caused by the atomic bombs could be made. > The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. ... Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Fucking immoral human experimentation. Ok, back to AI. We are on the same level of change, before and after nuclear manipulation, before and after AI. We don't need to be demonstrating on the economy, we have an opportunity to show this technology in isolation before just unleashing it on the world in a grotesque tech demo. The comparison fits.

by imiric 4y ago

nerpderp82 4y ago

Now that the mob has passed, I'd like to address your statement. > That doesn't seem like a fitting comparison, considering it's a highly debated topic to this day. A comparison can be apt independent of how inciteful the statement is. The dropping of the bomb was a showcase of force, it didn't have to happen on a population of people. The demonstration could have happened on Mt Fuji, or Okinawa. > These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids, and the Army Air Forces agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the damage caused by the atomic bombs could be made. > The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. ... Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Fucking immoral human experimentation. Ok, back to AI. We are on the same level of change, before and after nuclear manipulation, before and after AI. We don't need to be demonstrating on the economy, we have an opportunity to show this technology in isolation before just unleashing it on the world in a grotesque tech demo. The comparison fits.