6 ms·
I agree that I don’t think we’re in danger of runaway AGI, but tbf, in the early 2000s, there were a lot of safety risks to social media we couldn’t see yet. “
by dartos 2y ago
I agree that I don’t think we’re in danger of runaway AGI, but tbf, in the early 2000s, there were a lot of safety risks to social media we couldn’t see yet.
“I don’t think a live message board is going to destroy society” could’ve been something someone said about Facebook or Twitter.
The danger there wasn’t in the tech, it was in the societal impact and consolidation of information control. Both, imo, are danger areas for AI as well.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- exe34 2y agodid Facebook destroy society?
- klodolph 2y agoThis line of discussion is the “Let’s talk about whether the word ‘destroy’ is correct here” which is tangential at best.
- exe34 2y agoyour response and that of many others here lead me to think I've attacked a religiously held belief here. I'd like to apologise for causing offense. I will not question the creed again.
- klodolph 2y agoIt sounds like you got a lot of responses. Naturally, when you get a lot of responses to something, it feels very intense. So it’s natural to think that the people responding to you feel that same level of intensity that you do. This is, usually, not true. But I can understand why you’d feel that way… I can understand why you feel like you’ve stepped on some kind of religious tenet. In reality, it’s just a bunch of people independently replying to you. They’re not offended, it just feels intense to you because of how many people are replying. The same thing happens, for example, on Stack Overflow if you say something technically wrong, and ten people independently correct you. It feels like some kind of attack, even when it is not.
- exe34 2y agoThat makes a lot of sense, thank you!
- Lutger 2y agoyes
- Devasta 2y agoIt's facilitated multiple ethnic cleansings and it's main user base is now mentally ill anger addicts, primarily because of their algorithms; it'd be weird if you didn't think so.
- LanceH 2y agoUnironically telling someone what they should be thinking while complaining about social media's influence.
- exe34 2y agoI had an uncle like that, he would tell you how intelligent he thought you were if you agreed with him, but the moment you disagree, you're clearly not as intelligent as he originally thought.
- fsociety 2y agoThis unfortunately seems like the status quo in the modern age. It is worse in online discourse when you can type a message and put the phone down to forget about it. There are little consequences to what you write.
- theyinwhy 2y agoThey moved fast and broke things.
- edgyquant 2y agoAnyone asking this question is doing so in bad faith. Do better
- exe34 2y agoi take it poisoning the well has worked in your favour in the past, and now it's your go-to?
- homarp 2y agohttps://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/ https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/ https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-how-facebook-contributed-to-genocide-in-myanmar-and-why-it-will-not-be-held-accountable/ https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho...
- exe34 2y ago> The report concludes that, prior to this year, we weren’t doing enough to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence. We agree that we can and should do more. people have been genociding their neighbours since before we were people. if it wasn't Facebook, they would have used something else. do you also support to banning e2e and having big brother reading everybody's communications? because if you don't, then anybody can organise a genocide without the authorities being able to stop them.
- homarp 2y agoyou don't need to decode a message to decide it's a mass repost. See https://faq.whatsapp.com/1053543185312573 https://faq.whatsapp.com/1053543185312573 for example. Social media 'amplifies' trends, or even "makes" trend. "The algorithm" is optimized for 'engagement'. The questions are a) can you detect via metadata something is happening and 'cool down' the amplification b) can you de-amplify anger? c) what is the responsibility of "the algorithm" makers ?
- exe34 2y agoso people who are so determined to genocide their neighbours are going to say oh damn, this juicy little "fact" about the other sort of person has already been shared 5 times and the algorithm won't let me forward it again, oh well, no genociding today.
- baq 2y agoit technically didn't. enjoy being technically right.
- exe34 2y agoah so it was hyperbole. got it thanks!
- baq 2y agoglad to be of help! you may also be interested in the fact that people also use other rhetorical forms when writing on the internet.
- exe34 2y agoKeep on poisoning discussions, it's really helpful.
- baq 2y agoSure wasn't me who asked a passive-aggressive pointless question.
- exe34 2y ago> “I don’t think a live message board is going to destroy society” could’ve been something someone said about Facebook or Twitter. My mistake, I thought this was a genuine argument - it turned out I stepped into the middle of a religious war. I'm sorry for questioning the creed!
- dartos 2y agoMy argument was that someone could have said “I think social media will destroy society” 20 years ago and back then it would have been a wild notion. Judging by this thread, nowadays it would not be as much of a wild notion. I use this observation to draw similarities to how we are currently viewing issues around the dangers of AI. No argument is being made about social media itself. That’s all you.
- dartos 2y agoLiterally no But social media did radically change society and not strictly for the better, imo. With hindsight, someone saying “social media will destroy society” seems more justified than it did 20ish years ago. I’m using hyperbole to elicit and emotional reaction which, hopefully, will give readers pause to reflect on what I wrote. Not everything is strictly literal.
- exe34 2y ago> I’m using hyperbole to elicit and emotional reaction which, hopefully, will give readers pause to reflect on what I wrote. No, the emotional reaction it elicits is "oh here we go again." It's worse than useless, it completely undermines your point. Social media has a lot of negatives, and some positives. The negatives are mostly a result of chasing profit, and locked-in platforms as opposed to federation between equals. E.g. nobody's crying out that email is about to destroy the very fabric of reality.
- dartos 2y agoEmotional reactions are subjective. You seem to be the only one really hung up on the made up quote I used to illustrate my point. Maybe it undermines my point to you, but that’s okay.
- slibhb 2y agoThe whole "social media is dangerous" is a moral panic. There's just no good evidence for it.
- notaustinpowers 2y agoFacebook literally was foundational in ethnic cleansing within Myanmar, I'd be careful calling this a "moral panic". Oh, also, there is good evidence for it, including Facebook themselves! https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/ https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/
- slibhb 2y agoYour link is word salad as far as I can tell. It certainly doesn't say "Facebook was foundational in ethnic cleansing in Myanmar". Social media companies are often scapegoats when things go wrong in the world. From teen mental illness (Jon Haidt) to Trump getting elected (Cambridge Analytica). And now apparently genocide in Myanmar. It's all just nonsense.
- notaustinpowers 2y agoYour lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.
- slibhb 2y agoOh no the social medias are killing the Burmese! Quick, someone arrest Marc Z! To The Hague with him!
- notaustinpowers 2y agookay...?
- jrochkind1 2y agoI think there probably are safety risks that I worry about too; but I don't think this article mentions them or is clear on what safety risks employees were worried about, if any, despite having the phrase "safety risks" in the headline?