4 ms·

Yes technology is neutral (exceptions being things like the hollow point bullet) but not all applications are neutral. Remember when cameras got small enough to

by nik282000 3y ago

Yes technology is neutral (exceptions being things like the hollow point bullet) but not all applications are neutral. Remember when cameras got small enough to be included in pocket sized devices? They were abused and spent some time at the front of the 24hr news cycle as the subject of a moral panic. Eventually laws were adjusted and some technological adjustment's were made and the same will happen with "AI". In this particular case the issue isn't even the technology it's parenting. The students generating these images are in their teens and are more than capable of understanding that using images of their classmates is not only immoral but also likely illegal. But when left to raise themselves using the iPad-Babysitter you end up with the moral free for all that we are seeing today. Until 18, parents should be held equally responsible for the actions of their kids.

Miner49er 3y ago
> Yes technology is neutral (exceptions being things like the hollow point bullet) This is a bad example, hollow points have a legitimate use in the prevention of collateral damage, among other things. Unless you mean it's an exception because it's clearly a good technology, but I'd also say that's not true. It falls under neutral.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  Good point. Given most offensive weapons have a defensive purpose, both active and deterrent, their is a case for them being neutral. A bio weapon, near shore detonated nuclear device, or other doomsday devices that are designed to indiscriminately kill large numbers of civilians strike me as evil tech.
- zolbrek 3y ago
  How dare you load bullets meant for killing in your gun! Don't you know you're supposed to shoot the bad guy in the leg?
palata 3y ago
> Yes technology is neutral (exceptions being ...) I find it interesting how you contradict yourself in your very first sentence. "Technology is neutral, except when it isn't". To me it means that it is not neutral, doesn't it?
- diffeomorphism 3y ago
  No, it does not mean that at all. Deserts are dry places except for rare occasions, when they can even be flooded. No contradiction just how language works.
  - palata 3y ago
    But then you missed my point. If I ask "Are deserts really always dry?" (in a context where you can reasonably assume that I understand the concept of a desert) and you answer "Yes they are, except on occasions where they aren't", then what you actually meant was "No, they aren't. Sometimes they can be flooded, but most of the time they are dry". I did not mean to ask "Is technology sometimes neutral?", but rather "Is technology always neutral, and in this case, is this particular technology neutral?". I did not write all that, but I assumed that it would be inferred from the context. And that, too, is how language works. Also note that my above reaction was not aggressive. I genuinely find it interesting that they think "technology is neutral" but start their explanation with a sentence that clearly shows that they think technology is not neutral.
    - diffeomorphism 3y ago
      No, I did not miss it but told you that people and language don't work that way. In common language there is no difference between "Yes, almost always, except.." and "No, not 100% always, there are some very rare exceptions". That sounds contradictory at first because one starts with yes and one with no, but both say the same thing and people are perfectly fine with shortening "90% true" to true. The reason for that is that your question is kinda trivial to answer and kills any discussion for no gain of insight. "Is A literally, always B with absolutely no exceptions?". No, unless you talk about mathematics you don't get absolute statements.
giantg2 3y ago
I fail to see the points you are trying to make. Ok, so some laws were adjusted around the use of small cameras. Yet there are still issues today. I mean, you have to actually catch someone using it. How many people are redlight scanning their airbnbs? Many people breaking the law just aren't getting caught. I fail to see how the laws really fixed anything. All that happened is people learned to live in this new reality and the news stopped reporting it because it's not new. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the hollowpoint comment. In theory it could be applied for evil (murder) or could be applied for good (self defense, public defense, food, etc depending on one's beliefs about what is good vs evil).
isk517 3y ago
> But when left to raise themselves using the iPad-Babysitter you end up with the moral free for all that we are seeing today. 20 years ago long before iPads when I was in high school there were definitely kids that would have done this exact same thing if the technology was available. Lets not pretend as though lose morals are a recent invention.

Miner49er 3y ago

> Yes technology is neutral (exceptions being things like the hollow point bullet) This is a bad example, hollow points have a legitimate use in the prevention of collateral damage, among other things. Unless you mean it's an exception because it's clearly a good technology, but I'd also say that's not true. It falls under neutral.

Nevermark 3y ago
Good point. Given most offensive weapons have a defensive purpose, both active and deterrent, their is a case for them being neutral. A bio weapon, near shore detonated nuclear device, or other doomsday devices that are designed to indiscriminately kill large numbers of civilians strike me as evil tech.
zolbrek 3y ago
How dare you load bullets meant for killing in your gun! Don't you know you're supposed to shoot the bad guy in the leg?

palata 3y ago

> Yes technology is neutral (exceptions being ...) I find it interesting how you contradict yourself in your very first sentence. "Technology is neutral, except when it isn't". To me it means that it is not neutral, doesn't it?

diffeomorphism 3y ago
No, it does not mean that at all. Deserts are dry places except for rare occasions, when they can even be flooded. No contradiction just how language works.
- palata 3y ago
  But then you missed my point. If I ask "Are deserts really always dry?" (in a context where you can reasonably assume that I understand the concept of a desert) and you answer "Yes they are, except on occasions where they aren't", then what you actually meant was "No, they aren't. Sometimes they can be flooded, but most of the time they are dry". I did not mean to ask "Is technology sometimes neutral?", but rather "Is technology always neutral, and in this case, is this particular technology neutral?". I did not write all that, but I assumed that it would be inferred from the context. And that, too, is how language works. Also note that my above reaction was not aggressive. I genuinely find it interesting that they think "technology is neutral" but start their explanation with a sentence that clearly shows that they think technology is not neutral.
  - diffeomorphism 3y ago
    No, I did not miss it but told you that people and language don't work that way. In common language there is no difference between "Yes, almost always, except.." and "No, not 100% always, there are some very rare exceptions". That sounds contradictory at first because one starts with yes and one with no, but both say the same thing and people are perfectly fine with shortening "90% true" to true. The reason for that is that your question is kinda trivial to answer and kills any discussion for no gain of insight. "Is A literally, always B with absolutely no exceptions?". No, unless you talk about mathematics you don't get absolute statements.

giantg2 3y ago

I fail to see the points you are trying to make. Ok, so some laws were adjusted around the use of small cameras. Yet there are still issues today. I mean, you have to actually catch someone using it. How many people are redlight scanning their airbnbs? Many people breaking the law just aren't getting caught. I fail to see how the laws really fixed anything. All that happened is people learned to live in this new reality and the news stopped reporting it because it's not new. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the hollowpoint comment. In theory it could be applied for evil (murder) or could be applied for good (self defense, public defense, food, etc depending on one's beliefs about what is good vs evil).

isk517 3y ago

> But when left to raise themselves using the iPad-Babysitter you end up with the moral free for all that we are seeing today. 20 years ago long before iPads when I was in high school there were definitely kids that would have done this exact same thing if the technology was available. Lets not pretend as though lose morals are a recent invention.