3 ms·

When tech creates problems should tech tried to solve it or should tech be limited? We deceive ourselves honestly by pretending like we have not created new r

When tech creates problems should tech tried to solve it or should tech be limited? We deceive ourselves honestly by pretending like we have not created new realities which are problematic at scale. We have. They are plentiful. And if people aren’t willing that we walk back tech to reduce the problems and people aren’t willing to accept technical solutions which are invasive then what are we to do? Are we just to accept a new world with all these problems stemming from unintended consequences of tech?

isykt 3y ago
“Tech”? What do you mean by “tech?” Do you expect Apple to remove the camera, storage, and networking capabilities of all their devices? That’s the “tech” that enables this.
- glogla 3y ago
  I mean "tech" did a lot of messed up things - there is a reason why "what is your favorite big tech innovation: 1) illegal cab company 2) illegal hotel company 3) fake money for criminals 4) plagiarism machine" is a funny joke. Enabling people to talk to each other without all their communication being wiretapped and archived forever is not one of those, I would say.
  - danaris 3y ago
    Those aren't really "tech innovations", though, aside from maybe the plagiarism machine. Uber and AirBnB are just using very-widely-available technology—that some taxi services and hotels are also using!—and claiming that they're completely different when the main difference is that they're just ignoring the laws and regulations around their industries. Cryptocurrencies are using a tech innovation as a front for what's 99.9999% a financial "innovation"...which is really just a Ponzi scheme and/or related scams in sheep's clothing. LLMs are genuinely a tech innovation, but the primary problem they bring to the fore is really a conversation we've needed to have for a while about copying in the digital age. The signs have been there for some time that such a shift was coming; the only question was exactly when. In none of these cases is technology actually doing anything "messed up". Companies that denote themselves as being "in the tech industry" do bad things all the time, but blaming the technology for the corporate (and otherwise human) malfeasance is very unhelpful. In particular, trying to limit technological progress, or ban widely useful technological innovations because a small minority of people use them for ill, is horrifically counterproductive. Enforce the laws we have better, be more willing to turn the screws on people even if they have lots of money, and where necessary put new regulations on human and corporate behavior in place (eg, requiring informed consent to have works you created included in the training set of an LLM or similar model).
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
> When tech creates problems should tech tried to solve it or should tech be limited? You haven't explained the problem 'tech' has created, I'm confused as to what your point is? CSAM isn't a problem caused by 'tech' unless you're going back to the invention of the camera, and I think that toothpaste is well out of the tube. Additionally, and this is where a whole of arguments about this go wrong, the important part: the actual literal abuse, is human to human. There is no technology involved whatsoever. Technological involvement may be an escalation of offense, but it's vanishingly secondary.

isykt 3y ago

“Tech”? What do you mean by “tech?” Do you expect Apple to remove the camera, storage, and networking capabilities of all their devices? That’s the “tech” that enables this.

glogla 3y ago
I mean "tech" did a lot of messed up things - there is a reason why "what is your favorite big tech innovation: 1) illegal cab company 2) illegal hotel company 3) fake money for criminals 4) plagiarism machine" is a funny joke. Enabling people to talk to each other without all their communication being wiretapped and archived forever is not one of those, I would say.
- danaris 3y ago
  Those aren't really "tech innovations", though, aside from maybe the plagiarism machine. Uber and AirBnB are just using very-widely-available technology—that some taxi services and hotels are also using!—and claiming that they're completely different when the main difference is that they're just ignoring the laws and regulations around their industries. Cryptocurrencies are using a tech innovation as a front for what's 99.9999% a financial "innovation"...which is really just a Ponzi scheme and/or related scams in sheep's clothing. LLMs are genuinely a tech innovation, but the primary problem they bring to the fore is really a conversation we've needed to have for a while about copying in the digital age. The signs have been there for some time that such a shift was coming; the only question was exactly when. In none of these cases is technology actually doing anything "messed up". Companies that denote themselves as being "in the tech industry" do bad things all the time, but blaming the technology for the corporate (and otherwise human) malfeasance is very unhelpful. In particular, trying to limit technological progress, or ban widely useful technological innovations because a small minority of people use them for ill, is horrifically counterproductive. Enforce the laws we have better, be more willing to turn the screws on people even if they have lots of money, and where necessary put new regulations on human and corporate behavior in place (eg, requiring informed consent to have works you created included in the training set of an LLM or similar model).

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

> When tech creates problems should tech tried to solve it or should tech be limited? You haven't explained the problem 'tech' has created, I'm confused as to what your point is? CSAM isn't a problem caused by 'tech' unless you're going back to the invention of the camera, and I think that toothpaste is well out of the tube. Additionally, and this is where a whole of arguments about this go wrong, the important part: the actual literal abuse, is human to human. There is no technology involved whatsoever. Technological involvement may be an escalation of offense, but it's vanishingly secondary.