3 ms·

There are lots of things governments should and shouldn’t do, but unfortunately we don’t live in a vacuum, and need to consider the consequences of actions, rat

by kulahan 2mo ago

There are lots of things governments should and shouldn’t do, but unfortunately we don’t live in a vacuum, and need to consider the consequences of actions, rather than simply hope everyone is somehow forced to react the way we expect and desire. In a nutshell, what I’m saying is “They shouldn’t do either” is at best a platitude and at worst a distraction preventing critical thought.

colordrops 2mo ago
So our strategy should be to shut down AI so it leaves vulnerabilities everywhere? Not sure what you are saying. Fixing security bugs across the world's software isn't some single policy action that we can vote on. Governments should behave. I know they don't, but they should, and the population should do everything in their power to force them to. What other choice do we have? Please demonstrate your powerful faculty of critical thought and explain what we should do instead.
- sethammons 2mo ago
  Not who you replied to. "They should" isn't a solution. "Here is proposed legislation," "I started a petition," "i spoke with my congressman," "vote for Pedro." These are concrete. "They should" isn't anything. Like SMART goals, I believe the other commenter was pointing out that platitudes lack specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely aspects required for organizing and achieving progress.
danaris 2mo ago
By this logic, we should never try to escape our abusers or resist our oppressors: we should just capitulate now, give them everything they want, and that way they won't escalate to (more) violence. In a nutshell, this is bullshit. Bootlicker bullshit. In a democracy (which our Western nations are certainly supposed to be, though that's become less true over time), if the people in government are doing things that are counter to the interests of the people, the appropriate response is to replace those people. Protest, contact your representatives and senators, contribute to campaigns that oppose what they're doing, etc. And, of course, in an authoritarian state, if they decide they're going to add in backdoors to our phones, or ban encryption, or take whatever other draconian measures, then it doesn't matter a huge amount how we, the people, express our opposition to this; it's extremely unlikely that we have just enough collective strength and will to prevent them doing A, but not to prevent them from doing B instead. Either we can stop both, or neither.

by kulahan 2mo ago

colordrops 2mo ago

So our strategy should be to shut down AI so it leaves vulnerabilities everywhere? Not sure what you are saying. Fixing security bugs across the world's software isn't some single policy action that we can vote on. Governments should behave. I know they don't, but they should, and the population should do everything in their power to force them to. What other choice do we have? Please demonstrate your powerful faculty of critical thought and explain what we should do instead.

sethammons 2mo ago
Not who you replied to. "They should" isn't a solution. "Here is proposed legislation," "I started a petition," "i spoke with my congressman," "vote for Pedro." These are concrete. "They should" isn't anything. Like SMART goals, I believe the other commenter was pointing out that platitudes lack specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely aspects required for organizing and achieving progress.

danaris 2mo ago

By this logic, we should never try to escape our abusers or resist our oppressors: we should just capitulate now, give them everything they want, and that way they won't escalate to (more) violence. In a nutshell, this is bullshit. Bootlicker bullshit. In a democracy (which our Western nations are certainly supposed to be, though that's become less true over time), if the people in government are doing things that are counter to the interests of the people, the appropriate response is to replace those people. Protest, contact your representatives and senators, contribute to campaigns that oppose what they're doing, etc. And, of course, in an authoritarian state, if they decide they're going to add in backdoors to our phones, or ban encryption, or take whatever other draconian measures, then it doesn't matter a huge amount how we, the people, express our opposition to this; it's extremely unlikely that we have just enough collective strength and will to prevent them doing A, but not to prevent them from doing B instead. Either we can stop both, or neither.