4 ms·
Nowhere in the guidelines does it say anything about a technical perspective. It calls for things that hackers might find interesting - which I would argue the
by cruzcampo 1y ago
Nowhere in the guidelines does it say anything about a technical perspective. It calls for things that hackers might find interesting - which I would argue the future of AI globally clearly qualifies as.
- Cordiali 1y agoI would say that it's strongly implied, by phrases like "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" and "some interesting new phenomenon".
- cruzcampo 1y agoWouldn't you say international tensions based on tech policy are an interesting phenomenon and of interest to people working in tech? I'd say it squarely fits that descriptor.
- Cordiali 1y agoNope, I definitely wouldn't.
- cruzcampo 1y agoThen we disagree and I'd challenge you on lacking the intellectual curiosity called for in the guidelines. But that's okay - as long as you don't see a need to censor on that basis.
- Cordiali 1y ago> I'd challenge you on lacking the intellectual curiosity called for in the guidelines. This is unnecessarily hostile.
- cruzcampo 1y agoI'd say claiming that tech policy relating to AI and it's global implications are not interesting to people working in tech and AI is a bad faith argument - calling it lacking intellectual curiosity is once again an attempt at a good-faith reading of what is an absurd point to make.