5 ms·

I think it's an interesting thing how much people consider Black Mirror to be about the dangers of technology. Black Mirror is about technology, and the danger

by Lerc 1y ago

I think it's an interesting thing how much people consider Black Mirror to be about the dangers of technology. Black Mirror is about technology, and the dangers of people. Charlie Brooker loves technology and makes no bones about it. It is perhaps a degree of irony that so many watch Black Mirror and blame the technology because they fail to see the Mirror.

haswell 1y ago
Arguably it’s about both. Much of the technology is dangerous in the way guns are dangerous. It may be true that human behavior is what is reflected back to us, but the potential for danger co-emerges with the capability of the technology we’re using.
- Lerc 1y ago
  I would say most technology that is dangerous is so a way that lies in the range from Table-Saw to Asbestos. A table saw at one end is when it performs it's intended function but on something different to what it was designed for, with harmful consequences. The other end is asbestos where there is a harmful outcome that is completely incidental to the targeted function. Very little technology is designed specifically to harm, but still more than I am happy with. On the other hand most would support the idea of employing such a means if their own survival is at stake. While it is easy to argue against attack drones in the abstract, when you consider the situation where Ukraine employed drones to effectively reduce the amount of bombing their country would receive, it's hard not to sympathise with someone who wants the bombs to stop.
cameldrv 1y ago
It’s like saying “guns don’t kill people, people do.” Ok, but guns make it a lot easier and they amplify existing problems. With scalable technology, it’s more like “nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do.”
- Lerc 1y ago
  There should at least be a way to declare a form of technology that is specifically designed to be able to cause harm. I think I might use the term "Aw nope" for that. Or maybe an anagram of that to hide my disfavour. I think that development of such things should be tightly regulated, but also that you should be clear to distinguish between things like that from things that are capable of doing harm or even likely to cause harm and how much intent it takes to cause that outcome. Angle grinders are very dangerous things, they harm quite a few people, but there is also an understanding that the vast majority of that harm is unintentional, and preventable with safeguards.

by Lerc 1y ago

haswell 1y ago

Arguably it’s about both. Much of the technology is dangerous in the way guns are dangerous. It may be true that human behavior is what is reflected back to us, but the potential for danger co-emerges with the capability of the technology we’re using.

Lerc 1y ago
I would say most technology that is dangerous is so a way that lies in the range from Table-Saw to Asbestos. A table saw at one end is when it performs it's intended function but on something different to what it was designed for, with harmful consequences. The other end is asbestos where there is a harmful outcome that is completely incidental to the targeted function. Very little technology is designed specifically to harm, but still more than I am happy with. On the other hand most would support the idea of employing such a means if their own survival is at stake. While it is easy to argue against attack drones in the abstract, when you consider the situation where Ukraine employed drones to effectively reduce the amount of bombing their country would receive, it's hard not to sympathise with someone who wants the bombs to stop.

cameldrv 1y ago

It’s like saying “guns don’t kill people, people do.” Ok, but guns make it a lot easier and they amplify existing problems. With scalable technology, it’s more like “nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do.”

Lerc 1y ago
There should at least be a way to declare a form of technology that is specifically designed to be able to cause harm. I think I might use the term "Aw nope" for that. Or maybe an anagram of that to hide my disfavour. I think that development of such things should be tightly regulated, but also that you should be clear to distinguish between things like that from things that are capable of doing harm or even likely to cause harm and how much intent it takes to cause that outcome. Angle grinders are very dangerous things, they harm quite a few people, but there is also an understanding that the vast majority of that harm is unintentional, and preventable with safeguards.