7 ms·
I want to be upset over this in an exasperated expression of oddly naive "why can't we all get along?" frame of mind. I want to, because I know how I would like
by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
I want to be upset over this in an exasperated expression of oddly naive "why can't we all get along?" frame of mind. I want to, because I know how I would like the world to look like, but as a species we, including myself, continually fail to disappoint when it comes nearly guaranteed self-destruction.
I want to get upset over it, but I sadly recognize the reality of the why this is not surprising to anyone. We actually have competitors in that space, who will do that and more. We already have seen some of the more horrifying developments in that area.. and, when you think about it, those are the things that were allowed to be shown publicly. All the fun stuff is happening behind closed doors away from social media.
- dgfitz 2y agoCould you imagine how the entire world would look if they took truth serum for an entire year, how different the world might be? Lies run the planet, and it stinks.
- 10u152 2y ago[flagged]
- ziddoap 2y agoYour point could be made, probably even stronger than it is currently, by omitting the insult at the start.
- justonenote 2y ago[flagged]
- ziddoap 2y ago>than a chatgpt style Literally just remove the first 4 words and keep the rest of the comment the same, and it's a better comment. No idea what chatgpt has to do with it.
- justonenote 2y agoThat would be removing information and strictly worse that including it. Communication is about communicating information, sometimes a terse short and aggressive style is the most effective way. It activates neurons in a way a paragraph of polite argumentation doesn't.
- Hello71 2y agothe contention of your respondents and downvoters is that regardless of your intention, the extra information actually communicated is "i'm an asshole".
- justonenote 2y agoFine, that's still extra information. More accurately in the context of the comment, its "Im gonna be an asshole to you because I think you don't have the life experience I do", which is at least, some kind of signal. I wasn't the original responder btw.
- Frederation 2y ago[flagged]
- justonenote 2y agoNo comment.
- lioeters 2y agoSimilarly your point would have communicated better without the unnecessary and adolescent final sentence.
- justonenote 2y agoIt was for effect. Maybe you'd prefer if we were all maximally polite drones but that's not how humans are, going back to GPs point, and I don't think it's a state than anyone truly wants either.
- cortesoft 2y ago“More effective” at what? No one is ever going to be convinced by an argument that begins with an insult. So what do you mean by it will be more effective?
- justonenote 2y agoDo you honestly think an insult never brought about a change in a person? You never think a carefully landed and accurate insult made someone reconsider their position? Weird, because in my experience, that has happened to every single person I know and myself. Whether it's at the start or end of a comment is not really the point.
- dgfitz 2y agoWelp, in this specific instance, your insults are a microcosm of the election results. Stinks, huh?
- justonenote 2y agoThings are very black and white these days, no room for shades.
- mrbungie 2y agoIt may do depending in context, but that's not the point and in fact is widely recognized as a ad hominem argument and fallacious by definition. Most emotionally mature people would stop arguing after something like that.
- yubblegum 2y ago[flagged]
- dgfitz 2y agoAh nuts, I’m not trying to project anything at all. Sincerely.
- iwontberude 2y agomoralistic relativism creates cover for egocentrism to destroy us
- turbojet1321 2y agoYes but unfortunately that doesn't make it false.
- explodes 2y agoInsults are not part of the community guidelines
- iwontberude 2y agoBeing childlike is a blessing and a compliment in my book.
- mv4 2y agoI don't think they meant the "truth" truth but people saying what they really think and being open about their motivations.
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y agoSounds horrible. Deception is bad enough, knowing people’s true motivations and opinions surely would be worse. What truly motivates other people is largely a mystery, and what motivates oneself is wildly mysterious to that oneself indeed.
- leptons 2y agoThe only people who don't think truth matters are those who would profit from lies.
- gessha 2y ago“Grownups never understand anything by themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them” - Antoine de Saint-Exupery, The Little Prince
- Sperfunctor 2y ago[flagged]
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y agoThat.. is a new one. I thought I am fairly aware of various forms of coded language. Care to elaborate?
- dgfitz 2y agoFwiw I’m way too dumb to speak in coded language.
- Swannie 2y agoYes, have you watched The Wheel of Time? Better to read the books... the characters bound to tell the truth are experts in double meanings. Successful politicans and sociopaths are experts in double meanings. "I will not drop bombs on Acmeland." Instead, I will send missiles. "At this point in time, we do not intend to end the tariffs." The intent will change when conditions change, which is forecast next week. "We are not in negotations to acquire AI Co for $1B." We are negotiating for $0.9B. "Our results show an improvement for a majority of recipients." 51% saw an improvement of 1%, 49% saw a decline of 5%...
- dgfitz 2y agoWow. Yes I read the whole series. It was a fucking marathon. I can’t quite tie your point into the series directly, other than to agree that elected officials are, almost by definition, professional liars. (Tugs on braid)
- mcmcmc 2y agoNot the GP, but I think what they’re getting at is that Aes Sedai can deceive without saying untruthful. So a hypothetical truth serum wouldn’t necessarily guarantee honesty
- scottyah 2y agoHuman's short context windows with too many areas to research and stay up to date on is why I don't believe any version of Democracy I've seen can succeed, and the only real positive to some kind of ASI government/policing (once we solve the whole universal judgement system issue). I'd love a world where you would be assisted through tax season, ill-intentioned drivers were properly incentivized to not risk others' lives, and you could at least be made aware before breaking laws. Eliminating the need to lie/misguide people to sway them would be such a crazy world.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cat_plus_plus 2y agoWe would all be covered in bruises from getting slapped all day long.
- scarface_74 2y agoPeople try to cope and say others are guided by lies. In the US, people knew exactly what they were getting and I’m true the same is true in other “democracies”.
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y agoIf you can’t cope with the lies, what makes you think you’d cope with the truth? Which I guarantee you is magnitudes of order more horrifying.
- dgfitz 2y agoIf who can’t cope with what lies? Yes, the truth would also stink. I’m sure it’s also horrifying.
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y agoThe general you, the reader.
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoWhat is true is already so. Owning up to it doesn't make it worse. Not being open about it doesn't make it go away. And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with. Anything untrue isn't there to be lived. People can stand what is true, for they are already enduring it. —Eugene Gendlin
- WOTERMEON 2y agoI mean you can see that even at any company at any size. I think it’s human nature.
- portaouflop 2y agoPut LSD in the drinking water
- LoganDark 2y agoThis is actually a plot point of Unsong https://unsongbook.com https://unsongbook.com
- octopoc 2y agoIn WWII neither side used poison gas. It doesn’t have to be this way.
- r053bud 2y agoExcuse me, what?
- vondur 2y agoIt means all nations can agree to not unleash AI based weapons on the world. Sadly I don't see this happening.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- eterm 2y agoI think we can assume good fath and the grandparent merely forgot to add "in combat" to that statement, rather than deliberately trying to downplay the use of Zyklon B.
- SanjayMehta 2y agoNot on the battlefield.
- dahdum 2y agoIt took the use of poison gas to get countries on board, and some will still use it. Just more carefully. Would China, Russia, or Iran agree to such a preemptive AI weapons ban? Doubtful, it’s their chance to close the gap. I’m onboard if so, but I don’t see anything happening on that front until well after they start dominating the landscape.
- int_19h 2y agoRussia would most definitely not agree to it given that Ukraine is already deploying autonomous drones against it.
- anothercoup 2y ago[flagged]
- mr_00ff00 2y agoTechnically the US has never dropped nukes, those were atomic bombs. Second, don’t understand how the atomic bomb argument makes sense. Germany was developing them and would have used them if it got there first. Are you suggesting the US really is truly the only nation that would ever have used atomic weapons? That if Japan made it first they would have spared China or the US?
- anothercoup 2y ago[flagged]
- saagarjha 2y agoCare to explain how an atomic bomb is not a nuke?
- FeteCommuniste 2y agoAtom bombs are definitely nukes. Maybe the GP was thinking of thermonuclear (fission-fusion) weapons.
- aeonik 2y agoDepends on the circles you run in, but I've heard people distinguish nuclear bombs from atomic bombs, kind of like how atomic clocks are distinguished from nuclear clocks. I don't quite understand it because atomic clocks deal with the electrons, while nuclear clocks, nuclear bombs, and thermo-nukes are all dealing with the nucleus of the atom. I've always preferred fission vs fusion bomb, or nuke vs. thermo nuke.
- fwip 2y agoNukes haven't yet wiped us out. They still may.
- bodegajed 2y ago"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." - Karl Marx
- lmm 2y agoAnd how did that work out for him? If he'd stuck to interpreting the world, it's hard to say the world wouldn't have been much better off.
- yodsanklai 2y ago> We actually have competitors in that space, who will do that and more So what? Can't Google find other sources of revenue than building weapons?
- pixl97 2y agoWhy would it turn down billions in government contracts unless otherwise punished by its shareholders?
- DandyDev 2y agoBecause it's better for humanity? Because it's morally the right choice?
- II2II 2y agoMost of the early research into computers was funded for military applications. There is a reason why the silicon valley became a hub for technological development.
- bbqfog 2y agoYou can and should be upset. No reason to become complacent, that's a path to accelerated destruction.
- getlawgdon 2y agoAmen.
- matthest 2y agoThe path we're on was inevitable the second man discovered fire. No matter which way you look at it, we live on a planet where resources are scarce. Which means there will be competition. Which means there will be innovation in weaponry. That said, we've had nukes for decades, and have collectively decided to not use them for decades. So there is some room for optimism.
- asdfman123 2y agoWhat we should have ideally done as humans is find a way to not allow AI combat. Now that's off the table, I think America should have AI weapons because everyone else will be developing them as quickly as possible.
- pdfernhout 2y agoOn that ideal and whether it is still reachable someday, see my 2010 essay: "Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism" https://pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html https://pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transce... From there: ----- Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead? Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land? Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere? These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. ... Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. ... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ... The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream. We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working"). ... Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. ... ----- Here is something I posted to the Project Virgle mailing list in April 2008 that in part touches on the issue of Google's identity as a scarcity vs. post-scarcity organization: "A Rant On Financial Obesity and an Ironic Disclosure" https://pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html https://pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Proje... "Look at Project Virgle and "An Open Source Planet" ... Even just in jest some of the most financially obese people on the planet (who have built their company with thousands of servers all running GNU/Linux free software) apparently could not see any other possibility but seriously becoming even more financially obese off the free work of others on another planet (as well as saddling others with financial obesity too :-). And that jest came almost half a century after the "Triple Revolution" letter of 1964 about the growing disconnect between effort and productivity (or work and financial fitness)...Even not having completed their PhDs, the top Google-ites may well take many more decades to shake off that ideological discipline. I know it took me decades (and I am still only part way there. :-) As with my mother, no doubt Googlers have lived through periods of scarcity of money relative to their needs to survive or be independent scholars or effective agents of change. Is it any wonder they probably think being financially obese is a good thing, not an indication of either personal or societal pathology? :-( ..." Last April, inspired by some activities a friend was doing, I asked an LLM AI ( chatpdf ) to write a song about my sig, using the prompt 'Please make a song about "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."'. Then that friend made the results into an AI-generated song: "Challenge to Abundance" https://suno.com/song/d3d8c296-c2c4-46c6-80fb-ca9882c5e00a https://suno.com/song/d3d8c296-c2c4-46c6-80fb-ca9882c5e00a "(Verse 1) In the 21st century, we face a paradox so clear, Technologies of abundance, yet scarcity we fear, Irony in our hands, what will we choose to see, A world of endless possibilities or stuck in scarcity? (Chorus) The biggest challenge we face, it's plain to see, Embracing abundance or stuck in scarcity, Let's break free from old ways, embrace what could be, The irony of our times, let's set our minds free. ..." I hope Googlers and others eventually get the perspective shift that comes with recognizing the irony of what they and many others are doing with weaponizing and otherwise competetizing AI... Also on that larger theme by Alfie Kohn: "No Contest: The Case Against Competition" https://www.alfiekohn.org/contest/ https://www.alfiekohn.org/contest/ "No Contest, which has been stirring up controversy since its publication in 1986, stands as the definitive critique of competition. Drawing from hundreds of studies, Alfie Kohn eloquently argues that our struggle to defeat each other — at work, at school, at play, and at home — turns all of us into losers. Contrary to the myths with which we have been raised, Kohn shows that competition is not an inevitable part of “human nature.” It does not motivate us to do our best (in fact, the reason our workplaces and schools are in trouble is that they value competitiveness instead of excellence.) Rather than building character, competition sabotages self-esteem and ruins relationships. It even warps recreation by turning the playing field into a battlefield. No Contest makes a powerful case that “healthy competition” is a contradiction in terms. Because any win/lose arrangement is undesirable, we will have to restructure our institutions for the benefit of ourselves, our children, and our society. ..."
- mkolodny 2y agoA vague “stuff is happening behind closed doors” isn’t enough of a reason to build AI weapons. If you shared a specific weapon that could only be countered with AI weapons, that might make me feel differently. But right now I can’t imagine a reason we’d need or want robots to decide who to kill. When people talk about AI being dangerous, or possibly bringing about the end of the world, I usually disagree. But AI weapons are obviously dangerous, and could easily get out of control. Their whole point is that they are out of control. The issue isn’t that AI weapons are “evil”. It’s that value alignment isn’t a solved problem, and AI weapons could kill people we wouldn’t want them to kill.
- nicr_22 2y agoHave a look at what explosive drones are doing in the fight for Ukraine. Now tell me how you counter a thousand small EMP hardened autonomous drones intent on delivering an explosive payload to one target without AI of some kind?
- siltcakes 2y agoI agree. I don't think there's really a case for the US developing any offensive weapons. Geographically, economically and politically, we are not under any sort of credible threat. Maybe AI based missile defense or something, but we already have a completely unjustified arsenal of offensive weapons and a history of using them amorally.
- scottyah 2y agoWithout going too far into it, if we laid down all offensive weapons the cartels in Mexico would be inside US borders and killing people within a day.
- siltcakes 2y agoYou think the cartels aren't attacking us because we have missiles that can hit Mexico? I don't agree. Somewhat tangentially, the cartels only exist because the US made recreational drugs illegal.