831–840 of 1001 posts
I'm curious if there has ever been an instance where people have been able to "tame" a technology to consider a broader, societal good, or if we've always just been at the whims of how any particular tech naturally concentrates or dissipates power. For example, if you look at the boom of the middle classes in the mid 20th century, this appears to me largely a consequence of the fact that industrial technology at the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance so successfully that to a ton of people it no longer means 'people who are different are made valuable by that difference'- it's been demonized into essentially meaning 'give black people and women jobs they don't deserve'. It's a prime example of propaganda through language pollution. For whatever reason HN has been slowly goose ste…
> We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term woke. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term social justice. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term critical race theory. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term di…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also atheist here. Reading old+new testament was informative like reading history: whatever is true or not in those passages, have had profound impact throughout history Their point is that despite your subscription to reason, without exposure to other cultural norms, you may be blind to what Christian values you live by. Becoming aware of them can help self evaluation of your ethical framework
As an atheist, how do you read a bible without critical thinking? I’ve tried and I just have a really hard time with all the double meanings and things not making any sense. What am I missing?
It shouldn't cause you so much friction to hold an idea in your head you don't believe to be true. Read it as anthropology rather than metaphysics.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is not true at all. In what sense is it not true? > mission of the church and mission of the ai being the same is absurd Did I claim that? I just said any point you wrote against church representing powerful few is applicable to AI.
In the practical day to day sense as in not having money for it. The open models are not that cheap to run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism The world would likely be a better place if people of all political stripes could internalize this concept.
But how do you judge the consequences? Either you have an infinite regress, or you end up declaring by fiat that some things are good and others are bad, just because. Which is...deontology--what "consequentialism" was supposed to be opposed to and an improvement on. The concept that I think the world would be a better place if people of all political stripes could internalize is that nobody knows for sure what is go…
> As Pope Francis warned, we must realistically ask ourselves who holds this power today and how they use it: “It must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our own DNA, and many other abilities which we have acquired… have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the…
> I don't have any answers (and I'm not looking for them, really, just musing)
I'm not sure why, but even in my general pessimism it hadn't occured to me that there are people out there who are uninterested in what living a virtuous life means. I truly just assumed that just about everyone had some sort of convoluted self-justification. That you say you don't even try, and want to read about it from "those whose job it is to think about", blows my mind. Do you think of yourself as an ameoba without free will or something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion > Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in this anti-DEI time. I mean.. DEI was in reality homogenization and eliminated diversity. Just because you agreed with the small amount of allowed opinions/people doesn't make it more diverse.
Perhaps, perhaps not; but you can't possibly argue that the current anti -DEI climate better fosters diversity than a pro-DEI or a-DEI environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion > Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in this anti-DEI time. I mean.. DEI was in reality homogenization and eliminated diversity. Just because you agreed with the small amount of allowed opinions/people doesn't make it more diverse.
DEI was only ever meant to reflect the diversity of society in our institutions (which historically have been and continue to be homogeneous compared to society). Of course there are better and worse ways to create the outcome of increased diversity. But thr recent backlash is the antithesis of diversity, wrapped up in the propaganda of "reverse racism."
That sounds reasonable, but it's not really true. It was a tool to DISTORT the diversity of society by making minority groups front and center to a disproportionate degree. The more minority the better. This isn't reflecting the diversity of society, that's flipping it over.
I'm not saying the intentions weren't good. They were. But good intentions don't matter after a certain point. Communism for example is all about good intentions and every time we try it it leads to mass casualties. After a while you have to wise up.
I'm curious if there has ever been an instance where people have been able to "tame" a technology to consider a broader, societal good, or if we've always just been at the whims of how any particular tech naturally concentrates or dissipates power. For example, if you look at the boom of the middle classes in the mid 20th century, this appears to me largely a consequence of the fact that industrial technology at the…
We do not have to tame technologies, we have to tame rich people who only want to get richer.