This is a long post about someone who has very obviously just gotten into politics. It is good for people to try and see how to impart change. Here are some constructive critical questions for the author:
1. Why no mention of No Tech For Apartheid or Google Workers United, who have been doing similar work for years?
2. What about all of the other police, DHS, and military contracts Google has been a part of? Did this problem really just start with the second (not even the first!) Trump presidency?
3. What does a focus on exclusively those at the top levels of a hierarchy, with minimal focus on incentive structures and wider systems, say about your theory of change? Was there a power analysis done, or was it assumed that "big title" = "powerful"?
Side Note: Incredibly insulting of James Dean to say email 3 CEOs.
I don't hold it against people for only caring about one or two issues. In addition to many plausible explanations, people like OP who take a stand are already doing so much.
I for sure agree about encouraging people to dig deeper and wider, and that absolutely none of this is new or is occurring in a vacuum, but (and I don't say this to single you out, this is just a long-held feeling I've had) I do also think it's important to encourage and commend anyone who reaches these conclusions, however late or nascent they might be. Especially someone with the backbone to speak out at and then quit a cushy, prestigious job.
Something something every journey, something something single step. For the author (and for all of us, really) I hope it's one of many. And I think they should be proud of this particular step :)
The main answer would probably be: because he worked for Google Deep Mind as opposed to Google in general, so the killerbot and mass profiling concerns were immediately relevant to him and his work.
Your comment seems to be whataboutism. The article was not an essay trying to prove that he knows the secret to being maximally effective at politics, or whatever it seems you were expecting?
Not to be rude, but this post just puts unwarranted faith in "science" and "experts".
For example, experts apparently collect evidence in "an unbiased, objective manner". What? Says who. Those "methods have to be available to other scientists for replication." Seems like an odd thing for an article with no author and two citations.
Frankly, there is no objective research, and fetishizing authority and "experts" (a group of people where, e.g., African Americans are underrepresented) is both harmful and dumb. There is a ton of literature on how science often does not follow it's systematic claims at all, check out Kuhn's work for an intro.
Are you more worried about the ethnic or cultural makeup of any set of knowledgeable people than the fact that they do or don’t have knowledge? How do you determine that African-Americans are underrepresented as “experts”-where is your research?
Of course humans don’t live up to their ideals. There is no “science” on its own, there are people conscientiously or not applying scientific methods and honesty, or not. Which kinds of expertise should we ditch first, which should we hold on to? Maybe a Great Leap Forward to get everyone on the same page? Even tobacco, oil and pharma scientists had good science, which was covered up by the companies.
Haha, now you've gone and done your own research! How dare you not accept this unattributed article at face value
But evidently, you are expected to understand (read: care enough to investigate) this accomplished assistant professor, defying all convention, does not place her name in the articles.
That being said, this smacks of scientism and not science, which is to question and investigate. It is quite pedantic to claim the word research must be some prescribed series of activities as opposed to what it is: a turn of phrase.
'Your mileage may vary'
'Do your own research'
See how these things might mean something and also not be literal intepretations...
No? Then this is a great article for you to confirm your bias towards people that don't believe everything that's 'fit to print'
> Seems like an odd thing for an article with no author
I see your ability to do your own research is exactly as described in the article. The article is from a single-person website, her background is provided in detail in the site's about page.
Maybe but it’s just a thought-terminating cliche that someone always throws out at any proposal at all besides shrugging your shoulders and accepting every problem.
I disagree, this is an objection that applies to this particular solution.
Its a global truth that corruption and tyranny is always a risk, but the amount of that risk varries with the solution proposed, and there are plenty of ways it could be mitigated to varrying degrees.
Devolving power to many smaller regional entities can offer a kind of open corruption that would be hard to pull off at a national level without attracting attention.
You're describing the Mozilla platform's old XUL strategy, or the modern Gnome desktop. JS has permeated GTK for the last 10 years. It was a huge part of Gnome 3. For a brief moment, pushing people to start with JS for their next GTK app was an explicit strategy for the Gnome project. There was so much backlash, though, that they backed away from that position a month or two later. Had they had the courage to stand their ground, the rise of Electron might never have happened. A world with a better GTK as the go-to cross-platform UI toolkit would have been a lot better than where we ended up instead.
You can make a hello-world app with JS and GTK by creating a file hello.js, typing some code in, and then running it. AFAIK, although Qt has some support for JS integration, the story is not the same. You still need to develop a traditional Qt app and then start peppering in JS where it suits you. Am I wrong?
I wish I could tell you, there is something to be said about 1) being live with no recording so records of dissent dont exist and 2) like the other commenter said slow government response
I suspect it's a lot of small things and social network multiplicative effect
So, this is an unencrypted (not end-to-end at least), intercept-ready chat network that was popular among (a) people with social status in the US, who might be of intelligence interest (sc. Elon Musk), and (b) people in a nation state that is definitely of interest to US intelligence? Is that right?
1. Why no mention of No Tech For Apartheid or Google Workers United, who have been doing similar work for years?
2. What about all of the other police, DHS, and military contracts Google has been a part of? Did this problem really just start with the second (not even the first!) Trump presidency?
3. What does a focus on exclusively those at the top levels of a hierarchy, with minimal focus on incentive structures and wider systems, say about your theory of change? Was there a power analysis done, or was it assumed that "big title" = "powerful"?
Side Note: Incredibly insulting of James Dean to say email 3 CEOs.