indifference isn't opression, and all the world with the exception of some people is indifferent to you
This should be the top comment.
Computers are an oppressive technology
21–30 of 145 posts
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#22A deeply and clearly thought out argument for why immutable blockchains and code as law are terrible ideas, yet the conclusion is that crypto-anarchist technologies are a net good. No explanation or exploration of why that might be the case, given the preceding damning indictment of the principles such technologies are based on. Very odd.
As to the broader issue, I agree with those here pointing out that indifference to human values is simply part of the nature of the universe. I wouldn't say that nature is inherently hostile, it's just indifferent. Survival of the fittest doesn't care about the feelings of those eliminated form the gene pool. The rules we code into computer systems are no more or less intractable to human values than the laws of physics that make our bodies work. I think this means that decision making on human affairs should fall to humans, which means all such decision are ultimately political ones. Crypto-anarchism can't do an end run around that.
Yet I think it's wrong to think of human values as purely a system we choose to impose on brute nature from outside it. We are part of nature. Our systems of values, and traits such as love and empathy are evolved behaviours. They were selected for by those same implacable laws of nature and survival of the fittest. So I don't see recognition of the implacability of nature as irretrievably nihilistic.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#23Computers are NOT an inherently oppressive technology, any more than vehicles are inherently homicidal.
What can liberate humanity from bogus causal analysis?
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it in an opposite direction with computers? Whenever you are writing a program you are trying to as much as possible fulfill what your user wishes.
I'm not sure that's exactly true and I'm not sure on it's applicability to the article. The author's point isn't about that it disregards human feelings in my opinion, it's that we implicitly trust and idolize the machines without thinking about the biases and uses for a lot of the technology we rely on. I actually feel the examples used by the author are not great and a bit showy and repeating their initial anecdote…
> we implicitly trust and idolize the machines
I think it's a strawman. Nobody I know idolizes machines. It's abundantly clear that software has its limitations and machines are only as good as they are programmed.
The examples that you are giving are usually treated as bugs. Nobody in their right mind would say that a somebody is not a person because they haven't been detected by some image recognition software. Everyone would just agree that that software sucks at recognition and should be fixed.
I'm not saying that they programs are always achieving the goal of fulfilling users' goals, but this is the general direction in which the programs are developed. Even if you are exclusively driven by greed, usually the best way to sell your program is to make it useful.
And yes, you can give examples where the best way of monetizing your program would incentivize doing something which is not user-friendly, but ultimately, if your program is not useful at its core, it will not be used, so making it useful is your first priority.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#25The author fails to define their use of the term "oppression". Instead this work seems more focused on "ruthlessness", which is also hinted at by the url. In that direction, it's interesting.
I agree with the main points brought forward. Machine are indeed ruthless, and it's certainly interesting to see how that ruthlessness is used to achieve more human ends. How machines are put in as an intermediary to shield the humans behind the curtain from accusations of inhumanity. I think it may mirror systems in general. Where any large enough organization of people takes on a mind of it's own, and thereby becomes more ruthless and less human than any of the individuals making it function.
It may be an inherent property of systems, of meat or metal, that they oppress their surroundings to achieve their goals.
I first encountered this idea in John Gall's excellent book _Systemantics_. It's worth a read.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#26How is this number2? …
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#27Will an AI ever be able to make correct moral decisions? Or is that something only a human can do?
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#28Author's main point is that computers make their decisions based purely on how they are programmed, disregarding any human feeling. Well, the same can be said about nature.
Ironically this time, we started the problem :) (or some would say nature made us do that)
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#29The author eventually contemplates the "good" aspects of "machine ruthlessness" (e.g. "cryproanarchist technologies"), but ultimately warns against the "oppressive" potential inherent in all machines.
The main problem with this argument IMO is that it equates oppression with the kind of unwavering ruthlessness that is the way of the machines: they will do as they are programmed - there are no exceptions (unless such exceptions are programmed in of course, which is not discussed).
This is however not the usual definition of oppression, which is normally conceived mostly as "unjust discrimination" [0] - which is really the polar opposite of such undiscriminating "decisions" by the computers. I.e. everyone is treated equally, which is an ideal under the rule of law, the alternative opens up for corruption where the wealthy (for example) in court is treated with more leniency than the poor - or vice versa.
As it stands the text can be read a veiled criticism of a "rule of law"-system backed by the state. And as such, a modern take on an age-old discussion that leaves little leeway for common ground: a leeway that allows for a little bit of this, a little bit of that which is how things tend to end up in actual life.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#30The reason that reversals are so important is because of the inherently naive and insecure way that digital transactions like credit card payments work. You have to give out your credentials for every payment! And then hope they don't decide to steal from you.
In the context of cryptocurrency this is ludicrous. With cryptocurrency you never give away your key, you just use it to sign a transaction. It's amazing that people generally haven't picked up on that basic advantage of cryptocurrency.