261–267 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's just something we tell each other so the children can sleep at night. Of course we exacerbate information asymmetries. That's what we do. That's why the neanderthals are in our museums, instead of the other way around. Saying we shouldn't is like saying birds shouldn't fly, because it's not fair to the fish.
There's a difference between survival and luxuries (like a trip to Paris). Ethics and politics should be about finding the boundaries between those things, and try to provide the basics (shelter, education, privacy) and let people try to make not 100% fair businesses out of the other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's just something we tell each other so the children can sleep at night. Of course we exacerbate information asymmetries. That's what we do. That's why the neanderthals are in our museums, instead of the other way around. Saying we shouldn't is like saying birds shouldn't fly, because it's not fair to the fish.
There's a difference between survival and luxuries (like a trip to Paris). Ethics and politics should be about finding the boundaries between those things, and try to provide the basics (shelter, education, privacy) and let people try to make not 100% fair businesses out of the other things.
If not, how do you know it is in fact the right thing?
If you prescribe and enforce your ethics, I think you're wandering close to another definition of politics.
I am an Apple fanboy but I am also a privacy fanboy. As AI, IoT, and consumer tracking continue to invade our daily lives I think Apple will continue to do quite well if they maintain there pro-privacy heading. Privacy is a feature, it's something people want, and unfortunately its becoming a luxury. That is something that attracts Apple's customers.
I'm one of the few in the "tech world" that isn't so much pro-privacy. Google can read my email, Apple can track my movements, my Amazon Echo can even listen in when it wants. The end result is a huge benefit to me. How is any AI supposed to know what I want, if I try to be an anonymous user? I prefer targeted ads. I prefer submitting my information to "robots" in the hopes that my user experience is tailored to what…
Honest question: in the context of the realistic range of consumer AI applications in 2017, what are some meaningful shortcomings Apple products have? And do those shortcomings have any interest to the majority of consumers (and not say, to developers or analysts)?
As an owner of an iPhone 7 and a Pixel I'd say there are not many. Google Assistant is way ahead of Siri at pretty much every imaginable task, and Google Photos can do a lot more than iOS Photos. That said, none of those features interest me much. And I'm not sure how many average consumers they do interest. It's more of a 'oh, that's cool I guess'. I prefer my iPhone 7 still.
Anecdotally speaking, anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between survival and luxuries (like a trip to Paris). Ethics and politics should be about finding the boundaries between those things, and try to provide the basics (shelter, education, privacy) and let people try to make not 100% fair businesses out of the other things.
If it's so ethical, why "provide" and "let"? Can't you trust people to do the right thing ? If not, how do you know it is in fact the right thing ? If you prescribe and enforce your ethics, I think you're wandering close to another definition of politics.
My ethics? I never said mine.
And yes, there are inherent dangers (like tyranny of the majority), but there are trivial ethical issues where there is no good solution for allowing the [or any] minority to self-determine. (Like rules regarding sex with children, just to throw in the classic think of the children. But of course the age of consent is not a magical line somehow creating an overnight transformative event for every resident of that state.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see it this way too. For way too many people privacy seems to have turned into a kind of religious end in and of itself. I think evaluating privacy in real, material terms as in ("what actually happens to me if I gave up my privacy here, and what do I get?") makes more sense than treating it as quasi sacred.
What if you found out today that your neighbors have been watching you undress for the past year? In material terms, nothing has changed and there is no material harm to you, but knowledge of that level of intrusive exposure without consent is something most people object to.