when you have only two choices and you have to be quite insane to choose one of them, you are, for all intents and purposes, forced to choose the other side (same argument works for left and right if you hear someone say they are forced to be what they are politically)
we are 100% separable from technology and we can “opt out” everything we want to opt out, every technology use is by choice and convenience and not necessity. my Dad does not have a mobile or internet and is doing just fine, the only “technology” that exists in his life in TV and a landline. so absolutely 100% of the technology you engage with is by your own choice and absolutely nothing else
if every business(man) who lobbies against regulations for their business is a fair game to go after violently (not just her/him but his family as well) there would be a bloodbath of epic proportions… one day, this might be you and your family too…
It already is our families. We don't have healthcare. We live in rentals that enrich others. We take rented scooters to work. We have no retirement funds or futures.
Live in slavery and be happy? Hold a sign no one reads? Own nothing? Feel no peace, have no medicine?
I don't condone it, but I understand it.
I believe there's still the possibility for us to fix things in peace, but I can see why others don't.
I hope so, because if instead of reflecting and trying to prevent whatever I created is used to hurt people, my option is to try to lobby/shield me from it, I hope the angry mob to come after me and put me my head on the stake, I will deserve it.
whatever you create will eventually hurt someone. legos have caused
more injuries (and choking deaths) than just about anything but we are not gonna go to lego investor’s house or current CEOs and try to burn his house down.
This analogy only works if the toddler buys their own lego and, while assembling it, the neighbour's toddler - whose parents can't afford to buy lego - chokes to death.
It is possible to build things that don't hurt people.
It is possible to reduce the harms of things that are likely to hurt people.
It is possible to not treat hurt as a foregone conclusion.
It is possible not to use this foregone conclusion to defend strangers who not only create things that actively harm people, but promote this harm as a good thing, without also providing the support to reduce or avoid those harms.
You'd consider that a fair comparison? I mean, it's not like the lego inventor is trying to shove legos down kids' throats against their will. These AI promoters on the other hand... are absolutely trying to thrust things against others and their wills, even promoting loss to what some deem a source of their well being (ie jobs). And while I don't know if the lego inventor knowingly & willingly deals with bad actors, I'm not so sure we can say the same for the AI promoters.
There is a difference between inventing a toy that has a chance of injuring someone, and, just for the sake of example, pushing cigarettes onto teens. Or opiates onto people in general.
I feel like Americans are tired of this shit being done to them with no negative consequences to the people who do this.
First, not sure where you live that you believe general strikes will result in the use of force against? certainly not in most civilized societies, no? Second, while US history has provided examples where use of force might have been necessary to bring about the change same history does not have (m)any examples where such violence wasn’t preceded with long attempts at bringing about needed changes without violence. also, violence against human beings is different from setting shit on fire, if violence against human beings is justifyable (regardless of how vile the said person/people are in your and even some majority opinion) who is to say that someone tomorrow might decide that same violence is justifyable against you or even worse - someone in your family?! think of it this way - if your claim is that violence is justifyable - who makes the determination for such justification?
I live in the US. There is a history of armed forces being used against the people generally striking. If you include large protests, even more.
> If your claim is that violence is justifyable - how makes the determination for such justification?
We authorize people in governments to make this determination, and increasingly machines. Should we? Do you think that it is acceptable to let a police officer justify force on behalf of the state? How about a machine? Mostly just trying to understand what you think is acceptable here.
But to answer...violence against human beings is indeed different than setting shit on fire, though the law certainly does not allow for the use of force against personal property either. And this difference is indeed the crux of the issue, depending on what your values are (though we seem to be in alignment on "life is valuable"). If for example (probably a bad one, but hopefully it gets the idea across), a group of people is committing a genocide, and you ask them to stop, and they do not, and so you interfere with the use of force...limited at first, maybe, but they do not stop: is their continued involvement not the justification for use of force, assuming other strategies are off the table? Different example than the thread, I realize, but my thought experiment is not tied directly to it, just at the sentiment.
> I live in the US. There is a history of armed forces being used against the people generally striking
[citation needed]
> a group of people is committing a genocide
if you are asking if violence is OK to fight violence, it always is. I guess I personally did not think that needs justification but 100% you can (and should) fight violence with violence
> if you are asking if violence is OK to fight violence, it always is. I guess I personally did not think that needs justification but 100% you can (and should) fight violence with violence
I wasn't asking that, but you were (sorta) vis-à-vis the justification question ;) My main point was to say that it seems strange that a crowd of folks that consider themselves "thinkers" would simply table the discussion of the use of force. I do not like discussions tabled simply because they seem indecent - that tells me they're probably important to have.
But to your point: if it is ok to 100% use force against force, why? If a federal agent were to show up at someone's door to and force them into a labor camp, where they would probably meet their death slowly - if the person decided to try to use force to fight the federal agent and take a chance on a better life than the camp, would their use of force be justified in your eyes? And taken a bit further and sort of building on the first example, what is the difference between someone using force against an employee of a company pursuing a goal whose technology is being used to aid in the use of genocide against others for reasons _the company can justify_ (money) but they can't? Are they not complicit in the devaluation / loss of other people's lives? In Grug's terms, "why ok for us to hurt people if we think we right, but not ok for people to hurt us if they think they right?" (or something like that)
chances of that passing are roughly in-line with chances of passing a bill to prevent our congressmen and senators from insider trading (you can also bet this as well :) )
there a lot of things that may be immoral but it is the system that promotes it or prevents it. our system promotes it (there are ads for kashi and fanduel on nickelodeon) so it is the capitalism
perhaps I live in a blue collar bubble but I do not know a single person in my personal and professional circle whose lives haven’t significantly changed with AI. just this week I helped three families setup https://github.com/mimurchison/claude-chief-of-staff because one family set it up. prompts are being shared like bread recipes during C19
I'm sorry I don't think automating your email and calendar is "changing your life significantly".. maybe that's just me.
I'm not denying AI is a great productivity tool, it really is!
But "changing the world" is like... electricity, or clean water, or radio.. things that anyone and everyone can set up and access for themselves.
Not a pay-as-you-go service that you (or most people) can only get from 3 for-profit companies who will only be raising the prices and walling up their gardens as times goes on.
I don’t disagree - however I’ll play Devil’s Advocate. It starts this way. When the first iPhone was released we were all like “cool, I can take a picture with my phone and not lug the camera around” and now majority of the population can’t go poop without it.
with AI, today we are automating emails and calendars, tomorrow home schooling our kids and skipping college and next thing you know we are taking pics our poop and uploading to AI to analyze our health :)
Re international agreements: yes, the idea is that _broad support_ is required for binding international agreements. Senate ratification represents broad support.
reply