Everybody back to your own domains and hosting (not fucking Amazon!). If your server provider bans you, then we have a real problem.
The Crime of Curiosity
31–40 of 223 posts
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#32The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…
Yeah the whole "censoring" stuff ratcheted up really fast. Kinda crazy.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#33The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…
> The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general.
I fall pretty strongly on the side of combatting misinformation, but I disagree with outright removal of content. I think it should be flagged as misinformation, but left available. Put another way, I'm a fan of labelling, not censoring.
I want transparency. "Our misinformation bot rated this as a 90% chance of being misinformation because XYZ." I bet the only reason we can't have that is because the ML bots suck so much the tech industry is scared to implement any system that might be open to scrutiny or analysis. It's a bit ironic.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#34The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…
Yeah the whole "censoring" stuff ratcheted up really fast. Kinda crazy.
It's scary.
Imagine the US five years from now, with Team Trump in charge of the censoring.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I was with him up to that point. "None of the kits we sell contain anything dangerous, nor is the average person experimenting with biology inherently dangerous. If you are trying to engineer something hazardous — like say a bat virus — you might have a problem, but the genome search space is large enough that accidentally creating a harmful organism is astronomically improbable. Access to most dangerous materia…
Do you see any comparison to Machine Learning? I get the impression he considers himself like a hobbyist running some models on their home GPU. Without access to server farms, there is an almost zero percent chance a home hobbyist invents an AI capable of displacing large amounts of human workers or setting off nukes on its own. AI is dangerous, but can be explored safely by a small practitioner. Perhaps these biomat…
Live biomaterials are self-replicating. That's one difference between biotech and any other scary tech we're used to dealing with, like explosives, dangerous chemicals or nuclear material. Even ML scales only as fast as you can buy compute and convince companies and governments to put your algorithms to use. Self-replication is another game entirely.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#36The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…
> The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. I fall pretty strongly on the side of combatting misinformation, but I disagree with outright removal of content. I think it should be flagged as misinformation, but left available. Put another way, I'm a fan of labelling, not censoring. I want transparency. "Our misinfo…
Marking is helpful. Removal is not.
Very much like spam: filters are good but not 100% good, so there must be a way to look at what the filter has rejected, and allow the reader to judge.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#37What's the best video platform that supports open standards and censorship resistance?
Is self-hosting the only option?
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#38The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…
> Remember that within the first year of covid, "masks work" was considered misinformation
No, because that never happened. Maybe don’t spread misinformation yourself if you want to make a point.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I was with him up to that point. "None of the kits we sell contain anything dangerous, nor is the average person experimenting with biology inherently dangerous. If you are trying to engineer something hazardous — like say a bat virus — you might have a problem, but the genome search space is large enough that accidentally creating a harmful organism is astronomically improbable. Access to most dangerous materia…
Do you see any comparison to Machine Learning? I get the impression he considers himself like a hobbyist running some models on their home GPU. Without access to server farms, there is an almost zero percent chance a home hobbyist invents an AI capable of displacing large amounts of human workers or setting off nukes on its own. AI is dangerous, but can be explored safely by a small practitioner. Perhaps these biomat…
Ai isn’t really at risk of escaping the lab and afflicting a population with something. I mean, deep fakes went online and that will afflict people, but that’s not the same: the closer parallel is “a technique for bio hacking escaped his computer,” which is different than “I accidentally/sort-of-not-accidentally made mosquitos extinct in my region
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#40The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…
> The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. I fall pretty strongly on the side of combatting misinformation, but I disagree with outright removal of content. I think it should be flagged as misinformation, but left available. Put another way, I'm a fan of labelling, not censoring. I want transparency. "Our misinfo…
Appreciate this perspective here. I'm against censorship, and am surprised how clear your "label not remove" concept is. I like it.