4 ms·
We could have kept social rules outside of the CPU and made sure the machines were unintelligible. We should have kept the machines blind and retained social c
by barrysteve 3y ago
We could have kept social rules outside of the CPU and made sure the machines were unintelligible.
We should have kept the machines blind and retained social control between people and families.
Once we allowed machine code to be intelligible, we poured control of services, governments and speech into machines.
Truly free speech in a CPU became synonymous with the concept of a virus. And real free speech has followed, programmed rules on an electronic device are socially silencing people.
The concept of a virus, outlawed one of the best uses computers could have provided, maintaining speech globally.
Now we are racing to the bottom, to put the rules of society into a machine. Then lock society out of the machine, with a few holding all the keys to the computing kingdom.
Slavery to machines, as enjoyable as it is, will eventually become nonsensical.
As power becomes centralized, all the new moves will be made by those outside the system.
So I think that CPUs should be running unintelligible code, and LLMs are a baby step towards that.
- mikewarot 3y agoI see the consistency in your thoughts. I disagree as to the root cause, and thus the course of action required to correct the situation. You can take $5 out of a wallet, and buy something, and not risk the rest of your cash, or your other assets. You can't do that with a computer. You can't tell a program to only run a program for X purpose, or X seconds, etc... because the Operating System has a gaping hole in its design. All of them share that hole. Thus we can't just run our own web sites, nobody wants to risk their unsafe computers going to them. Thus we're forced into walled gardens. Thus we lose the war for general purpose computing, and democracy. We need to take back control of our computers.