41–50 of 105 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point if the conclusion has already been made by the authors? Such "discussion" with a presumed bias becomes merely a statement or an echo chamber.
It's provocative statements just like this one that often start the most interesting discussions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neutrality is a prerequisite for discussions. This project is not a discussion.
> Neutrality is a prerequisite for discussions I have a hard time understanding how a person who has ever talked to another person in their life could have that viewpoint.
We usually go through these steps in 13 weeks, here they are in ~40 seconds:
- Research
- Potentials
- Concepts
- Design
- Model (you can see the physical models appearing in the very last second)
Algocracy [1] sounds somewhat better, but as any barbarism, Medieval Latin algorismus , a mangled transliteration of the Arabic al-Khwarizmi + kratos , Ancient Greek word for power, is just as wrong. The issue however is that society does not have a technology problem, it has a metaphysics problem: under, over, and for what should there be a we . Hence why all the futures we imagine through technology can barely go b…
Wrote the same thing yesterday in this Techrights piece [1]
I think there's a genuine danger in writing "dystopian warnings" like this. Plenty of people are now actually at the stage where they cannot see the joke.
Christopher Hitchens wrote on North Korea's Kim Jong-Un (and later Cory Doctorow said something similar), that Orwell's warning had simply been taken as a blueprint. For the same reason psychotherapists refuse to treat psychopaths - it arms them with better ways to be manipulative. The problem with satirical tech-critique is that for a lot of people our "Dystopia" is their "Utopia", and our frightening visions just gives them ideas.
Algocracy [1] sounds somewhat better, but as any barbarism, Medieval Latin algorismus , a mangled transliteration of the Arabic al-Khwarizmi + kratos , Ancient Greek word for power, is just as wrong. The issue however is that society does not have a technology problem, it has a metaphysics problem: under, over, and for what should there be a we . Hence why all the futures we imagine through technology can barely go b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know you can disagree with a conclusion, right?
Neutrality is a prerequisite for discussions. This project is not a discussion.
I get this was a design/art project and not necessarily meant to be sophisticated political philosophy, nonetheless there are a few distinctions here that would be useful: To be ruled by AI I think requires the AI to be in some sense conscious, to have some notion of I and be able to form its own values and goals. Otherwise the ruler is whoever imposes/creates the AI, just in a once removed sort of way. On the other…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point if the conclusion has already been made by the authors? Such "discussion" with a presumed bias becomes merely a statement or an echo chamber.
The goal is stated at the bottom - they take it for granted that no one wants to be ruled by chatbot. The point is to get you to think about what exactly is wrong with this picture, and what that says about the future you wish to see > It was the goal of this project to show a dystopian future, sensitizing people to undesirable futures while stimulating a discussion about what they wish the future to be like.
In my view taking for granted that the role of AI would be bad/dystopian makes it unsuitable to be called a discussion.
Imagine if we switch this topic to immigration in the 1900s, then we'd have a project that take for granted that a country where the majority are immigrants would be dystopian, and the "discussion" would revolve around how to stop migrants from coming in or getting rid of them.
Many times in history we've been blindspotted by quickly applying good/bad dichotomy to every matter, instead of exploring it.
> This will help you to conveniently find the products that match your taste, your wallet, and your societal value. To increase your societal value, just be yourself and actively contribute as much as you can. Your efforts will not remain unrewarded. This is supposed to be dystopian etc, but don't we already have this mechanism in place in our current world? It's called money.
I've actually discussed the same idea with friends. My western friends find the idea very repulsive, where for me with my mixed east-west background find it worthy of exploration. IMO the west's ideals reflects their history of loosely-confederated tribes, e.g. the Germanic and Frankish tribes. Centralised governments are the exception (the Roman empire, lasting only a few hundred years). Compare this with the east w…
Western cultures, as originating from the Greeks, prioritise the individual in society and usually attempt to improve through the conflict and collaboration of such individuals. Eastern cultures, as originating from Confucianism, prioritise the group and attempt to improve through harmony of social structure and contribution to the greater good. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, but they're very alien in c…
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol...