The overarching message is that builders should deeply consider the impact of what they're building on civilization. "Technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it." Therefore builders "bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility" because "every design choice reflects a vision of humanity." The questions shouldn't just be 'can we buil…
The strange part is how moral responsibility somehow always lands on the builders... the people with the least leverage... while the funders get to ask the ethical questions. Weird!
It lands on both. "It was just a job" or "I was just following orders" doesn't excuse you from doing unethical stuff.
>“technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it,” If critical decisions affecting human life—such as hiring, lending, crime prediction, and welfare—are processed in an opaque black box, people will lose their fundamental right to explain their context or appeal against the machine's algorithmic verdicts
This is already happening. Most companies are using AI screeners for hiring now. They reject qualified people all the time.
Have you ever successfully appealed a failed HR screen?
IME the reality of the modern world that there's little genuine appeal or reconsideration anymore. There is some sort of process but it's Byzantine and if we're talking the government, expensive.
I guess everyone has had different lives but between humans and algorithms I take the algorithm every time.
There's been plenty of examples of workers seizing the means of production and establishing sustained non-capitalist organization (State or otherwise). We have any number of strategies to choose from: The PRC, Soviet Union, Syndicalized Spain (my favorite, seems the least likely to lead to police state), Vietnam, Cuba. The question thus isn't "how," but more specifically a couple other questions: "How do we prevent c…
All of the examples you gave caused much more tragedy than the system they meant to replace.
I don't think the OP disagrees, considering they wrote
> "my favorite, seems the least likely to lead to police state"
Yes it's a very dangerous concentration of power. But I don't believe strong words or proposing regulation by just another elite would change much. Please join/help open source groups doing small + local or distributed models. There's a lot to do. Support truly open source companies. Let's walk the walk.
>“technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it,” If critical decisions affecting human life—such as hiring, lending, crime prediction, and welfare—are processed in an opaque black box, people will lose their fundamental right to explain their context or appeal against the machine's algorithmic verdicts
But the technology that outputs decisions can also output reasoning that justifies such decisions. When a judge or a jury outputs a decision THEY are also a black box and you can only evaluate said decisions on reasoning THEY also output. I’m not taking a side here. I’m just saying this reasoning is flawed.
It’s a black box in the sense that we know the process used by LLMs to “reason” is very different than how humans reason and make decisions.
The whole point of “jury of your peers” is that your guilt or innocence is being decided by people with common life experience to you and thus the possibility of empathy and judging you fairly.
This is already happening. Most companies are using AI screeners for hiring now. They reject qualified people all the time.
Have you ever successfully appealed a failed HR screen? IME the reality of the modern world that there's little genuine appeal or reconsideration anymore. There is some sort of process but it's Byzantine and if we're talking the government, expensive. I guess everyone has had different lives but between humans and algorithms I take the algorithm every time.
What I'm saying is that pre-AI, at least a human would skim it, and maybe see something that caught their eye that wasn't on the keywords list. Or if it were an internal referral that used to guarantee at least a call with a recruiter or HM.
I don't believe. I accept things i don't know and i know what i know. There is no inherant issue with this. in contrary it makes me mentally stronger. I can choose on my own terms if/when i want to end my life. If i get very sick, i don't have to hope for a god or priests blessing to end my life, i will just do it. But religion is different: if you believe that homosexuality is wrong due to your religion, there is no…
> I don't believe. You believe that you don't believe. > But religion is different: if you believe that homosexuality is wrong due to your religion, there is nothing i can argue about. Your priest told you this based on some book or story from 2000 years ago and you do not question this. This isn't the Church doctrine. The Church doesn't target homosexuals or even homosexuality in particular but ALL sexual practices…
> Christians don't believe in this because a book written thousands of years ago say so but because deep in their souls it makes sense and is the truth for them.
Sorry mate, but that's just cultural indoctrination that made them feel that way, and the culture is intimately tied to the book.
I’m reminded (and apropos as the Pope quoted him) of Tolkien’s description of the “eternal life” the Ring gives to mortals, and how it’s … not so desirable in the end.
Indeed It's far more necessary that the utter dregs of humanity (e.g. Peter Thiel) eventually die of old age. Or put another way the damage of mortality killing good people is more than offset by the good of it killing the worst people with the most power. Because in the end it's probably not going to be your sweet mother who will get to live forever, it'll be people like Peter Thiel. No thanks, for the good of our s…
“Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their downfall. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them. They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions of Sauron. And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thraldom of the ring that they bore and of the domination of the One which was Sauron's. And they became forever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows. The Nazgûl were they, the Ringwraiths, the Úlairi, the Enemy's most terrible servants; darkness went with them, and they cried with the voices of death.” - from the Silmarillion but it’s echoed in LotR also. And even Bilbo complains of being “butter spread over too much bread”.