Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Crime of Curiosity

piratewires.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 223 posts

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#161

Post by robbedpeter »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #158
kfrzcode wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guilt, and shame, are both *human emotions*. "Platforms," feel nothing.

It's just a bunch of people. But you are right in a sense, that is is a large enough group that it's momentum will crush any feelings of individuals in the team.

Platforms aren't a bunch of people. They're algorithmic constructs being executed by humans and computers and other constructs. Facebook, Twitter, etc, lack any meaningful human in the loop, but have evolved rules and behaviors that are more or less independent of human judgment.

The only way to get a rational human back in the mix is through legislation or litigation. Given sufficient repetition, eventually those things are abstracted and encoded again, in a cycle seemingly designed to prefer nonhuman control systems.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#162

Post by simiones »

robbedpeter wrote: post #161
faeyanpiraat wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a bunch of people. But you are right in a sense, that is is a large enough group that it's momentum will crush any feelings of individuals in the team.

Platforms aren't a bunch of people. They're algorithmic constructs being executed by humans and computers and other constructs. Facebook, Twitter, etc, lack any meaningful human in the loop, but have evolved rules and behaviors that are more or less independent of human judgment. The only way to get a rational human back in the mix is through legislation or litigation. Given sufficient repetition, eventually those th…

The rules are still designed by an organization ultimately run by humans, and the outcomes are also measured ultimately by human decision makers.

The technical platform is still ultimately an extension of the organization, which is the entity that ultimately has human goals - mostly profit, and avoiding outcomes that threaten that profit.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#163

Post by notriddle »

Sebb767 wrote: post #83
sjtindell wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the current AI threat is less "it's too intelligent and takes over", but rather "it's too stupid but we force it to take over anyway".

Or it’s just the second coming of CIH, and a bunch of computers get bricked.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#164

Post by TeMPOraL »

foerbert wrote: post #157
equality_1138 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I read this as a much broader critique of the scientific community. As YouTube is seen as a mass media company, it's not hard to accept their content decisions. He didn't fight it. I also believe any company that markets themselves as tech industry should not be this cagey about their relationship to science. It's an ethical question not a legal one. Jumping to the legal aspect seems like a big misunderstand…

I don't think the financial incentives question was so much a sincere question as it was bringing up a concern about other influences on his position. I think it's a valid one. Humans are really bad at fully separating and understanding our influences, never mind selectively ignoring some them. Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates, I think it's reasonable to bring up. Now…

> Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates

What do you mean by this? Perhaps I haven't searched deep enough, but to me, YouTube these days consists primarily of:

- Content creators, who are in it absolutely for the money, and whatever channel they run is just an excuse to get people to view ads (including product placement, and ads for creator's Patreon);

- Conspiracy nuts, who may or may not also be in it for the ad money;

- People reposting copyrighted content without having the copyright (i.e. the category that's responsible for YouTube's success in the first place);

- Media companies posting copyrighted content legally to take over the ad revenue stream.

There's some sprinkling of people who genuinely want to talk about their hobbies or ideas, without optimizing it for monetization. And here and there someone uploads some random video to share with friends. But the way I experience YouTube, almost all content creators are either marketers or wannabe marketers.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#165

Post by Nevermark »

pvg wrote: post #85
ftrobro wrote: post #13

"Democratizing genetic engineering won’t suddenly unleash bioterrorism upon the world." How sure is he of that, and why? As a comparison, nuclear power has been of great utility for many countries, but I sure would not want to see it "democratized".

but I sure would not want to see it "democratized" Nuclear power is already "democratized" by design. The basic framework of the non-proliferation treaty is that signatories get to use nuclear power (and receive international assistance developing nuclear power) in exchange for a commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.

Until you can personally sign a non-proliferation agreement and then order processed uranium, nuclear power has not been “democratized” in the sense being talked about here.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#166

Post by type0 »

nix0n wrote: post #52
ssijak wrote: post #2

I don't understand this social platforms. Covid stuff and fake news aside, I reported maybe 20 times obvious scam videos, or posts with extreme hatred and threats of violence against a group of people and similar stuff where 99.99999% of us would agree that it should be removed without question, and only once they did remove it. All the other times I get a message that they reviewed my complaint, that it does not go…

A few days ago, I learned that "Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules"[0]. Maybe there's something like that happening on youtube also. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28512121

I'm sure it does something similar. The Big Media has utterly different standards on what counts as disinformation on Youtube, what was the last time any official media channels got de-platformed?

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#167

Post by type0 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #142
simorley wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is so antithetical to the "spirit of the internet" and hacking in general that I'm in shock. > 77% of the Youtube audience in the US are 17-25 years old, it's not some niche forum for engineers and the notion that they can read scientific papers and weed out legitimate science created at home from misinformation is absurd. Only PhDs or engineers are allowed to be interested? You think only people with CS…

>that I'm in shock You're in shock of the attitude that hackers should stay off mainstream commercial platforms and avoid pandering to a generic audience? You do realize why we're having this conversation on HN and not on Facebook right? The 2% of the young adults who are genuinely interested in science and tech and DIY maker culture will find him regardless where he is. That's how it always works when people actuall…

> The 2% of the young adults who are genuinely interested in science and tech and DIY maker culture will find him regardless where he is.

Oh, maybe you're right if you mean 2% of 2% for those who will manage to find his videos elsewhere

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#168

Post by pvg »

Nevermark wrote: post #165
pvg wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but I sure would not want to see it "democratized" Nuclear power is already "democratized" by design. The basic framework of the non-proliferation treaty is that signatories get to use nuclear power (and receive international assistance developing nuclear power) in exchange for a commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.

Until you can personally sign a non-proliferation agreement and then order processed uranium, nuclear power has not been “democratized” in the sense being talked about here.

Private entities supply nuclear fuel all over the world

https://nuclear.gepower.com/fuel-a-plant

my main point, though, is that nuclear energy is a fairly strange, highly-regulated-at-all-levels beast with its own long complicated history so it's not a particularly straightforward parallel to a hypothetical weapon-of-mass-destruction-enabling genetic engineering

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#169

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

nradov wrote: post #57
AussieWog93 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"The Crime of Curiosity" is a great way to put it, because we're already banned from questioning a lot of areas of science on most major tech platforms. I think the keyword that, in my mind, justifies the censorship here is "on most major tech platforms". Nobody is banning the discussion of these ideas in academic journals or HN or other places where curious people can go to discuss things - it's just making sure un…

That's such an arrogant, condescending statement. You're assuming that the general population is too stupid to be trusted with unfiltered information. But theories aren't dangerous. Actions are dangerous.

Roughly a third of the population believes in astrology and doesn't believe in global warming or evolution. A good proportion also believes that Democrats drink the blood of children.

Do any of these facts support your point?

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#170

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

I'm baffled why anyone would believe that bioterrorism isn't a possible threat.

I'm also baffled why anyone would fail to understand that the practice of medicine is protected. And that vaccines require mass testing before certification and public release. Because every genome is different and it's not just about the fact that you rolled the dice on a new treatment and personally got lucky.

And that people who don't have PhDs - and many who do - can easily fuck up something as powerful as gene editing in countless ways, with fatal or life changing consequences for themselves and others.

Given the very poor reliability of software hacking, "biohacking" is insane, by definition.

When you have a population taking horse dewormer to treat Covid, handing out biohacking tools is like taping razor blades to the limbs of people who haven't learned how to walk without falling over just because some of them want to try something a bit different.

This isn't about "censorship" or victimisation, it's about common sense and the precautionary principle.

Post reply on HN