I got to be honest, that seems like a bunch of hot nonsense. How does talking about a draft make it seem more reasonable? Who would think it was reasonable by dint of it just being brought up in conversation? Why should anyone believe that the the Guardian wants to make the US war with Iran, which is extremely unpopular in Europe, seem reasonable?
That’s not an explanation of anything? What are you even trying to say here?
What even is this article? “People on the internet, who don’t know anything about how the military works are worried something that definitely won’t happen might happen.”
Why is this news?
There is a lot to hate about AI. A lot of dangers and valid criticism. But AI chatbots convincing people to kill themselves isn’t a problem with chatbots, it’s a problem with the user.
To me this seems like an obvious problem with the chat bots. These things are marketed as “PhD level experts” and so advanced that they are about to change the nature or work as we know it.
I don’t think the companies or their supporters can make these claims, then turn around and say “well obviously you shouldn’t take its output seriously” when a delusional person is tricked by one into doing something bad.
Last attempt, I swear.
By digressing to abstraction, good people can and do justify building tech for immoral purposes. It is irrelevant that tech is not inherently good or bad in cases where it is built to do bad things. Talking about potential alternate uses in cases where tech is being used to do bad is just a way of avoiding the issues.
I have no problem calling flock or facebooks tech stack bad because the intentions behind the tech are immoral. The application of the tech by those organizations is for immoral purposes (making people addicted, invading their privacy etc). The tech is an extension of bad people trying to do bad things. Commentary about tech’s abstract nature is irrelevant at that point. Yeah, it could be used to do good. But it’s not. Yeah, it is not in-and of-itself good or bad. Who cares? This instantiation of the tech is immoral, because it’s purposes are immoral.
The engineers who help make immoral things possible should think about that, rather than the abstract nature of their technology. In these cases, saying technology is neutral is to invite the listener to consider a world that doesn’t exist instead of the one that does.
Saying “tech is neutral” is a dodge. People say that to avoid thinking about the ethics of what it is they are doing.
At no point in this conversation have I ever said that tech in an abstract sense is inherently good or bad. The point that I am making— and this is the last time I will make it— is that it is not interesting to talk about the ethics of some technology in an abstraction in cases where the actual tech is as it is actually implemented is clearly bad.
Saying “tech is neutral” is a dodge. People say that to avoid thinking about the ethics of what it is they are doing.
I don’t see how that is the case.
It is literally the case. People who have literally made tools to do bad things justified it by claiming that tech is neutral in an abstract sense. Find an engineer who is building a tool to do something they think is bad, they will tell you that bromide.
OpenCV is not, in itself, immoral. But openCV is, once again, actual tech that exists in the actual world. In fact, that is how I know it is not bad, I use the context of reality—rather than hypotheticals or abstractions—to assess the morality of the tech. The tech stack that makes up Flock is bad, once again I make that determination by using the actual world as a reference point. It does not matter that some of the tech could be used to do good. In the case of Flock, it is not, so it’s bad.
As I said before: In a conversation about technology as it actually exists, talking about potentials is not interesting. Yes all technology has the potential to be good or bad. The massive surveillance tech is actually bad right now in the real world
This issue with asserting that technology is neutral is it lets the people who develop it ignore the impacts of their work. The engineers that make surveillance tech make it, ultimately, for immoral purposes. When they are confronted with the effects of their work on society they avoid according with the ethics of what it is that they are doing by deploying bromides like “technology is neutral.”
Example: Building an operant conditioning feedback system into a social media app or video game is not inherently bad, you could use it to reinforce good behaviors and deploy it ethically by obtaining the consent of the people you use on. But the operant conditioning tech in social media apps and video games that actually exists is very clearly and unambiguously bad. It exists to get people addicted to a game or media app, so that they can be more easily exploited. Engineers built that tech stack out for the purpose of exploiting people. The tech, as it exists in the real world, is bad. When these folks were confronted with what they had done, they responded by claiming that tech is not inherently good or bad. (This is a real thing social media engineers really said) They ignored the tech—as it actually exists—in favor of an abstract conversation about some potential alternative tech that does not exist. The effect of which is the people doing harm built a terrible system without ever confronting what it was they were doing.
“Technology is neutral” is a bromide engineers use to avoid thinking about how their work impacts people. If you are an engineer working for flock or a similar company, you are harming people. You are doing harm through the technology you help to develop.
The massive surveillance systems that currently exist were built by engineers who advanced technology for that purpose. The scale and totality of the resulting surveillance states are simply not possible without the tech. The closest alternatives are stasi-like systems that are nowhere near as vast or continuous. In the actual world the actual tech is immoral. Because it was created for immoral purposes and because it is used for immoral purposes.
If you are in a discussion about the development and deployment of technology to facilitate a surveillance state, then saying “technology is neutral” is the least interesting thing you could possibly say on the subject.
In a completely abstract, disconnected-from-society-and-current-events sense it is correct to say technology is amoral. But we live in a world where surveillance technology is developed to make it easier for corporations and the state to invade the privacy of individuals. We live in a world where legal rights are being eroded by the use of this technology. We live in a world where this technology is profitable because it helps organizations violate individual rights. If you live in the US, as I do, then you live in a world where federal law enforcement agencies have become completely contemptuous of the law and are literally abducting innocent people off the street. They use the technology under discussion here to help them do that.
That a piece of tech might potentially be used for a not-immoral purpose is completely irrelevant to how it is actually being used in the real world.
The repercussions are that all the grand jury materials are going to be released to the defense, which is extremely rare.
These materials will bolster one or more of the arguments for dismissal making them much more likely to succeed.
If these materials clearly demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct (which so far has not been proven) I think they could also be submitted as bar complaints against the prosecuting lawyers, making those complaints more powerful which could lead to career consequences for those lawyers.
This decision, which is part of the preliminary phase of a trial, is extremely unusual and very bad for the prosecution.
When I was in undergrad I had to write lots of essays by hand. I’d say about every other course in one of my majors had midterms and finals that were a single question essay to be completed in class during the testing period. I figured that was pretty typical.
The survey this is based on has a summary page, but they don’t post their survey error estimates. What I can tell, without giving them my email, is that the entire survey was 250 adults. How many of those are “gen z” I have no idea, but if you are generous and say 1/4 that is 63 people considered gen z. The 46 percent that reported dipping into savings would then be about 29.
Just so everyone prognosticating about the state of the economy in this thread is aware, you are commenting on a survey that has a very low n and did not publish any sort of margin of error.
AI doomsday marketing wank has the same vibe as preteens at a sleepover getting spooked by a ouija board.
The post title makes it sound like Reddit is doing some sort of automated classification of user politics with some sort of ml technique. But the screenshot does not show that. It shows an llm summary of a users posting history . If the tool was run on a user that posted exclusively to a cat subreddit, the summary would have been about how the user likes cats. Despite the utility or accuracy of llm summaries, what the screenshot shows is far more anodyne than what this post’s title implies is happening.
The screenshot shows an llm summary of a users posting history. Is that what you mean by “determine belief values stance and more” ? Is there more to this? How is that summary different from scrolling through someone’s posting history to see what they post about?
“Premeditated” in the context of homicide means someone intended to kill someone else. That is, they set into motion a course of actions because they believed that course of action would result in the death of a person.
Homicide in the context of fatigue or impairment are not usually premeditated because people generally do not put themselves in those cognitive states believing that doing so will result in the death of someone else.
Historically judicial systems have recognized that those cognitive states are more likely to result in unintentional deaths so do hold people operating vehicles under those conditions to a higher standard of punishment than, say, a sober person involved in a fatal crash. At the same time they consider intent and hold people in those circumstances to a lower standard of punishment than those who actually intended to kill someone.
PhD Level expertise:
Since you are unable to answer basic questions about your own position, let me take a crack at:
There is no evidence that talking about the draft more would make people find it more acceptable.