Loquebantur

11 ms·

91.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
This is blatant whataboutism . Instead of discussing the very real social consequences of companies like KKR gaming the ridiculously over-revered economic system and notable absence of any legislation preventing that. HN falls prey to simp
92.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Whataboutism very much? This is a matter concerning the entire populace, twisting that into calling it "populistic" is very weird. Big tech is creating new or exacerbating existing social problems. By contorting social platforms
93.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Any such post-AI jobs are predicated on there being a difference between AI and humans in favor of the latter. I presume, you imagine large parts of the population will be happy working in the sex industry or similar? People's irration
94.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Any authoritarian regime would love a populace with such self-absorbed opinions devoid of any regard for consequences in the long run. Awareness of events with geopolitical consequences might not immediately affect your diet or whatever you
95.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Your idea of being an expert because you majored in a related topic is amusingly misinformed as well. You are kidding yourself. You need to critically look at how politics in real life works. On the level of presidential elections, the US i
96.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
If you don't vote for yourself, somebody else will. Your idea of "value of a single vote" is grotesquely misinformed. You do not vote to "sway the election" with your grandiose opinion. You do so in order to inform
97.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Lots of economists are clearly wrong, as mutually excluding statements cannot be simultaneously true. To find out which side is which, you can employ simple logic. If you sustain a profitable information imbalance, you prevent the market fr
98.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
No, it's really not. If it were, shell games would be great as well? One like the other is simply fraud. You exploit others' lack of insight. Doing so is unethical due to the implications it would have on a societal level if it we
99.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
By your logic, insider trading would be just fine. For a market to function properly, information pertinent to traded value has to flow freely. The more you stifle that, the more rigged the market. Essentially, you sustain a monopoly that w
100.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
One first needs to appreciate the many attempts failing at it. Reddit, Twitter, social media... They all were bad to begin with, but deliberately made worse still, to the point of not fulfilling their raison d'être anymore. You need
101.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
No, it won't. News media today are nothing more but a vehicle to bring attention to advertisement. The majority of people do not read lengthy articles anyway, only headlines. Investigative journalism is wildly expensive and not cost-ef
102.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
It's not just about encryption and privacy. That's missing the forest for the trees. For a democracy to function, people need to be able to have free and candid discussions about any topic without the fear of being ostracised, per
103.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
People miss the forest for the trees here. Democratic society needs a way for people to communicate freely. Those ways are dying out fast. In modern life, people don't discuss politics in townhalls, pubs, or whatever anymore. Online co
104.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
I'm sorry, but I think you misinterpret what compression is all about? Heat is a random process. That process has a non-random component though. The phenomenon is compressed by describing it as a random distribution of impulses around
105.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Scientific models clearly represent a compression of measurement data? Scientific models aren't necessarily "causal" to begin with. They are functions that give predictions about measurements. It is these predictions that are
106.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
You utilize power as a group via coordinated action targeting pressure points and leverage. Understanding how the system you want to influence actually works is a prerequisite surprisingly often omitted. "Counteracting" individual
107.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
You paint a defeatist picture of the situation, which should be obvious not to be helpful in any way. You list many categories of small groups of people opposed to one encompassing the absolute majority of all. How is the former more powerf
108.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
The people who need that water tend to shed it after some time. Discarding waste water into the oceans via rivers is a huge idiocy. You essentially rely on the environment to "magically" sort it all out. Naively so and fraught wit
109.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Certainly true. But would that be a part of the population that actually partakes in the discussion to begin with? If you cannot say something more simple without making a mess of it, don't.
110.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
They bury the central tenet in the middle, staying true to being inept at public communication: > There is no technological solution to the contradiction inherent in both keeping information confidential from third parties and sharing th
111.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
The complacency of researchers knowledgeable in these topics should be noted as well. With great power comes great responsibility, as Spiderman states correctly. This letter is a "nice try", but pretty late and lacking media-aware
112.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
HN is no "decent web of trust". People are anonymous, they post anonymously and comment as such. Accordingly, incentive to contribute substantially is minimal at best. Look at your own comment: you didn't really read what I w
113.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
You need a web of trust, not a web of advertisement and anonymous spam. Just as in real life, there needs to be the possibility to reliably identify yourself easily to others and establish trusted channels of communication. Not just in a P2
114.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
It is really about people not knowing epistemology? In order to be anything other than a big distraction, information on the internet needs to be true. Which means, it needs to be from real humans, about real life, the real world, providing
115.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
The danger of Ai doesn't stem from it being possibly exceptionally toxic or anything. The point is, LLMs are already in their present state convincing enough chatbots to fool a majority into believing them to be real people. If you can
116.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Consider the comparatively simple case of these LLMs providing decent enough chatbots to fool a majority. If you deploy them on social media in a coordinated fashion, you can easily sway public opinion. You only need to train them to adhere
117.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
The way commercial enterprises are set up favors them exploiting the current state of their ecosystem to the point of self-destruction. This outcome matters not to shareholders, as they can jump ship accordingly. This is a serious flaw in o
118.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
It is mainly Google's fault since Google is the main actor in this space. You put up a false dichotomy, as if Google disappearing would mean a void to wander the world eternal. The internet is very much like public infrastructure. It i
119.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
As commercial enterprises currently are set up, they have no incentive whatsoever to preserve the ecosystem they are thriving on. Worse, they profit more when harming it. As seen here with Google, that is true irrespective of the nature of
120.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Yes, measured by impact, foreign terrorism was terrifyingly successful. The "answers" the US came up with rather exacerbated the problem. Most also don't work with homegrown terrorism at all. Using AI to profile such potentia

More ›