4 ms·

I seldom agree with you (I think maybe once), and the first paragraph of this post alone is loaded with statements with which I'd disagree. But you cannot be a

I seldom agree with you (I think maybe once), and the first paragraph of this post alone is loaded with statements with which I'd disagree. But you cannot be accused of being uninteresting. I mean, you spend so much time here smacking down people's concerns about very real things that are happening in the news as we speak. NSA-spying, growing government power, curtailed liberties, etc. You have a tendency to characterize people on the other side of that argument as conspiracy theorists, or otherwise irrational and on the fringe. But, what keeps you up at night is the possibility of an army of killer robots controlled by a couple of multi-billionaire megalomaniacs holed up in a subterranean fortress. Wow.

rayiner 13y ago
You always prepare for the last war you fought, but that's never what actually hits you.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  But, surely you see the dissonance between your assertions that people's concerns over NSA-spying, etc. are irrational and the fact that you're worried about killer robots? I mean, if you believe that there are people with such an intent as to dominate us with technology, then why is it such a stretch to imagine that it's exactly what's happening now with the NSA? It would seem a little more practical for those megalomaniac billionaires to use something like the super-secret TIA, NSA-spying, etc. than to build an army of robots. Does the government literally need to create a killer robot and stamp "USA" on it for you to be concerned? Because, you know they've done that also. They call them drones.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I don't think people concerned about NSA spying are "irrational." I think they're overreacting, their fears are unlikely to come to pass, I think they're wrong about the scope of the 4th amendment, I think they're wrong about how much of the public shares their views, but I don't think they're "irrational."
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      >I think they're overreacting, their fears are unlikely to come to pass Again, I find it odd that you think it's more likely that the crazy billionaires will unleash an army of killer robots on the population. I think more of the public is concerned about what's actually happening right now with NSA-spying, etc. than you assert, and certainly it's a more pressing concern for many more reasonable people than your killer robot army. It just boggles the mind that a person who is concerned about the potential for a wild, sci-fi future of killer robot armies is at the same time so nonchalant about his government's recently confirmed, actually occurring, secret mass-spying campaign on innocent citizens.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        I never said I think it is more likely. I mentioned it as an aside in response to a comment about futuristic dystopia. In the context of discussing futuristic dystopia (which I think is unlikely in general given historical trends), surveillance doesn't worry me but robots do. That's because I believe it's entirely possible for whatever negative impact arises from surveillance to be contained through the majoritarian processes. It's been worse before and it's gotten better so we have historical evidence that it's something that can be overcome. We don't know what happens when you don't need to recruit hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, people with families and friends and ties in their communities, as soldiers in order to control the population of a country. That's uncharted territory. I have a deep and abiding faith in the masses of ordinary people. I don't think you can control large-scale public opposition with surveillance. It certainly didn't do Egypt's previous regime any good. I think even China, with its far more massive surveillance state, will be unable to oppose majoritarian opposition when its time comes. That's why surveillance doesn't worry me, even if it exists today. It should be noted that even if the NSA is collecting every bit of plain-text data that flows over the internet, minority groups have far more ability to communicate securely today than they did in say the time of MLK. I don't think the NSA can break strong encryption today, but I'd bet they were reading MLK's mail back then. The NSA certainly has a lot more information than the FBI did back then, but it's all low-grade crap that's almost entirely useless for population control.
jivatmanx 13y ago
More or less total surveillance and indefinite storage exists today. It takes very little creativity to imagine this being abused. Choose a few keywords, and you can easily identify everyone in the U.S. with any significant civil libertarian. Once you've got the list, all you have to do is prevent these people from getting political power, and voila, 1984. The robot thing definitely takes more creativity to think of than that. More generally, I tend to think that all Brute Force methods are the most crude, and a last resort even in a tyranny.
- rayiner 13y ago
  If you think that it takes an elite cadre of civil libertarians to protect the country from 1984-style dystopia, then surveillance is indeed a scary thing. But surveillance isn't going to do anything against broad-based public opposition. If you think the masses of ordinary people are capable of preventing a 1984-style dystopia through majoritarian mechanisms, then surveillance is a lot less scary.
tptacek 13y ago
For my part, I believe the robots are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way!

rayiner 13y ago

You always prepare for the last war you fought, but that's never what actually hits you.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
But, surely you see the dissonance between your assertions that people's concerns over NSA-spying, etc. are irrational and the fact that you're worried about killer robots? I mean, if you believe that there are people with such an intent as to dominate us with technology, then why is it such a stretch to imagine that it's exactly what's happening now with the NSA? It would seem a little more practical for those megalomaniac billionaires to use something like the super-secret TIA, NSA-spying, etc. than to build an army of robots. Does the government literally need to create a killer robot and stamp "USA" on it for you to be concerned? Because, you know they've done that also. They call them drones.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I don't think people concerned about NSA spying are "irrational." I think they're overreacting, their fears are unlikely to come to pass, I think they're wrong about the scope of the 4th amendment, I think they're wrong about how much of the public shares their views, but I don't think they're "irrational."
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >I think they're overreacting, their fears are unlikely to come to pass Again, I find it odd that you think it's more likely that the crazy billionaires will unleash an army of killer robots on the population. I think more of the public is concerned about what's actually happening right now with NSA-spying, etc. than you assert, and certainly it's a more pressing concern for many more reasonable people than your killer robot army. It just boggles the mind that a person who is concerned about the potential for a wild, sci-fi future of killer robot armies is at the same time so nonchalant about his government's recently confirmed, actually occurring, secret mass-spying campaign on innocent citizens.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I never said I think it is more likely. I mentioned it as an aside in response to a comment about futuristic dystopia. In the context of discussing futuristic dystopia (which I think is unlikely in general given historical trends), surveillance doesn't worry me but robots do. That's because I believe it's entirely possible for whatever negative impact arises from surveillance to be contained through the majoritarian processes. It's been worse before and it's gotten better so we have historical evidence that it's something that can be overcome. We don't know what happens when you don't need to recruit hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, people with families and friends and ties in their communities, as soldiers in order to control the population of a country. That's uncharted territory. I have a deep and abiding faith in the masses of ordinary people. I don't think you can control large-scale public opposition with surveillance. It certainly didn't do Egypt's previous regime any good. I think even China, with its far more massive surveillance state, will be unable to oppose majoritarian opposition when its time comes. That's why surveillance doesn't worry me, even if it exists today. It should be noted that even if the NSA is collecting every bit of plain-text data that flows over the internet, minority groups have far more ability to communicate securely today than they did in say the time of MLK. I don't think the NSA can break strong encryption today, but I'd bet they were reading MLK's mail back then. The NSA certainly has a lot more information than the FBI did back then, but it's all low-grade crap that's almost entirely useless for population control.

jivatmanx 13y ago

More or less total surveillance and indefinite storage exists today. It takes very little creativity to imagine this being abused. Choose a few keywords, and you can easily identify everyone in the U.S. with any significant civil libertarian. Once you've got the list, all you have to do is prevent these people from getting political power, and voila, 1984. The robot thing definitely takes more creativity to think of than that. More generally, I tend to think that all Brute Force methods are the most crude, and a last resort even in a tyranny.

rayiner 13y ago
If you think that it takes an elite cadre of civil libertarians to protect the country from 1984-style dystopia, then surveillance is indeed a scary thing. But surveillance isn't going to do anything against broad-based public opposition. If you think the masses of ordinary people are capable of preventing a 1984-style dystopia through majoritarian mechanisms, then surveillance is a lot less scary.

tptacek 13y ago

For my part, I believe the robots are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way!