I once worked for a guy who typed 7 + 4 into a calculator, after freezing for 1.5 secs trying to work it out in his head. It was in a "stressful" situation (not something extreme, we just were in a hurry), and I'm sure the guy could add those numbers in his head, generally... he owns his own business, after all. It took so much out of me to not move a face muscle.
This one does though. These issues are solely created by humans, so of course humans can solve them, that's not even a question. People who care need to keep speaking up and reaching out to each other, get together; and by doing so expose the people who don't care, or actively are against the general welfare of humans, like rocks on the beach when the tide recedes.
It takes so much work, so much criminal energy, so much money and campaigns, to divide people. Whereas the opposite, people getting to know each other and working together, happens "by itself" all the time, for the most banal of reasons. Just give them some time and space together; no lobbying required, no bribes or blackmail, no psy-ops; just our innate desire to live and let live.
Humans who prey on humans are sick, it's as simple as that. Humans who don't want to stand up to humans who prey on humans may not be sick, but they're not our best, that's for sure, and they must not be our gatekeepers or our compass.
People getting to know each and working together to genocide another group of people that's slightly different from them does indeed have many precedents in history.
The problem with your idea is that you see "humans" as some kind of abstract unified whole. People care about their peers far more than they do about "humans" in the abstract. When you're a powerful venture capitalist, these peers are other venture capitalists for example. Some call this "class consciousness".
> The problem with your idea is that you see "humans" as some kind of abstract unified whole.
No, I don't, which greatly goes together with that not following from anything I said. I simply care about humans that are not predators way more than predators.
Why would I care what others do or don't do, know or don't know, like or don't like, when it comes to Germans serving other right-wing extremist Germans talking points and votes on a silver platter, because they cannot be arsed to actually read and take seriously the accounts and warning of historians who lived through those times? I can't even figure what point you think you are making.
I wonder how much knowledge can be decoupled from experience, if at all.
If I read thousands of books that explain the details of another civilization in another galaxy, very thoroughly and consistently, but it it just happens to be all made up - did I gain knowledge? More importantly, does what I have in my brain now flip from being fiction to being knowledge if that civilization flipped from not existing to existing? How so, if nothing in my brain, or how I live out the rest of my life, changes in the least, if not a single atom in this galaxy changes (let's ignore that gravity has infinite reach and all that, for the sake of argument)?
If yes, how? What in your definition of knowledge makes that possible?
> If I read thousands of books that explain the details of another civilization in another galaxy, very thoroughly and consistently, but it it just happens to be all made up - did I gain knowledge?
sounds a lot like math - made up entities that very thoroughly and consistently fit together.
It's an interesting analogy you're making because... this is the lived reality of a lot of people that are interested in fictional worldbuilding / stories. And it flips to being real in the film Galaxy Quest.
They also share many underlying issues, e.g. the grand scale stealing of what humans wrote for other humans without ever consenting to a shred of this, who will make more things to steal from, or how the people who wield these things make them annoying.
Fixing 272 FF vulnerabilities, compared to the nuking of the web and everything, what someone here called invasion of the body snatchers, is like a bottle of water in exchange for boiling all oceans and making rain fall stop forever. It's that meaningless and trivial in my eyes. We would have had bug fixes anyway, we could have coded anyway. The destruction, and "just" of society and communication and thought, not even talking about the goons who make bank with this stuff, is on a whole new level, and I'd say of a new quality compared to previous iterations of mass society ratcheting up to make people smaller and more alienated. This isn't the newspaper or the radio or TV or the internet, it's all of those and then some, and the worst parts mostly it seems.
We don't need anyone with half an idea to be able to make an "indie" game (not very independent when you first need to suck up everything any human created and put on the web, honestly, this makes the greediest AAA companies look like honest workers) or a "Hollywood level movie" in 5 minutes. Nobody has time to play/watch any of that crap.
The product isn't interesting. That a human made it is, because then I can think what of it I can or can't do. If it's just some artifact shat out by the collective human creativity mushed around until the output is nice, it's just in the way. The web is on the path to become a park full of turds, and you can search for a blade of grass all day.
AI companies may have no moats, but humans will make moats. Just some areas and communities where no "AI" stuff, regardless of hair splitting, is allowed. And then we'll see how pushy the proponents get, if it's really just about some cool new tool or rather some sort of harness everybody gets herded into, with some trinkets like all the slop and yet another "app" not even the maker actually uses.
Thinking about the world and oneself isn't a repetitive chore in the way washing your clothes is.
"I doubt, therefore I think, I think, therefore I am" -- if I no longer think, what's left? Biomass? Why us then.. why not goo, or just more parking space?
Energy and awareness. Were more empty than whole and the cells that do make up an invididual are not 100% human. And all of it the periodic table of elements
Implicit in that is the false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B.
And even if that framing was accepted: okay, now we "talk about the other side", but then anything said could be countered with something about this side. It's not pointing out anything relevant, it's rather wiggling a laser pointer.
> everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B.
This is a strange thing to say about someone pointing out that the problem is widespread. It's not a false dichotomy: insider trading is endemic to congress.
Also why would you write "false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B" when someone is replying to the most unhinged and extreme take:
> > That line of argument... is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives
If you want to talk about a false dichotomy, maybe someone engaging in ridiculous conspiracy theories about how criticising Democrats can only be of interest for proponents of the Russian regime would be a good place to start?
> the German word for "entertainment" is "Unterhaltung"; thus it can be argued that the purpose of entertainment/Unterhaltung is "unten halten"
No, that would be "Untenhaltung", which isn't an actual German word, but could be.
"unterhalten" in German can both mean to entertain (however, not as in "entertaining a notion") having a conversation, as well as "to maintain". It has several meanings, all of them positive.
Not to appeal to authority, but because I think it's useful, here's how the WHO defines it according to Wikipedia:
> the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation
Note words such as "power", "psychological harm" "maldevelopment" "deprivation".
Yes. That also takes resources away from people experiencing actual violence. The qualifier “physical violence” isn’t used by people that deal with violence. They use the term “violence”.
“Intellectual violence” is a term used by cowardly people that desire power and wish not to be challenged by others. Those people must be mocked at every opportunity to ensure they are never taken seriously.
reply