911–920 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.
> So I guess I'm looking for some specific examples of where we've actually consciously, as a collective society, altered the course of technological progress for the greater good, because I honestly can't think of any. Firearms and explosives are not abused nearly as much as one would have imagined before their invention (or soon after). I don't think it's because we stunted the explosives tech-tree, but the social…
But there's not an everyday use case for firearms and explosives for the average person. There's civilian, everyday task that would be easier were better firearms and explosives available
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but it is very easy to say when you are currently not in the trenches. It has undernotes of being disconnected from reality so to speak.
We are all in the trenches of the war you refer to. For those of us who engage with a spirit of for the greater good, the side you are rooting for is as dangerous and malevolent as the side you supposedly plan to protect yourself from.
I remember talking to someone who worked on quantum computing explain how interesting the domain was, and at the very end he concluded with "if the Chinese figure this out before we do, then it's all over".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not new for software and hardware industry though, practitioners have just chosen to ignore it. From the Association for Computing Machinery, which encompasses all forms of software development, the very first principle is the public good: " Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest. In particular, software engineers shall, as appropriate: 1.01. Accept full responsibility for their own work.…
I think not just (computer) scientists but the general population thinks to serve the common good makes sense, not last because we understand it's eventually for our own good. It is however just that very small minority of the population with highly psychopathic/narcissistic traits - those that, in pre-historic times, would have been kicked out swiftly of hunter & gatherer / small village communities because of their…
I have found that, for many of the statements about what AI should do, I would actally be happier if the letters "AI" were replaced with "companies"
Well, as Nick Land said, "Capitalism and Artificial Intelligence are the same thing"
For those interested in exploring Land's main thesis (capitalism is AI), I have a research project on the topic [1].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are so many encyclicals, apostolic letters, etc. One could spend years reading just a fraction of them, depending on reading and comprehension speed, of course, which varies by person. Two I recommend, from the last 40 years: Veritatis splendor , John Paul II, 1993 Argues that Christian freedom is fulfilled, not limited, by objective moral truth: some acts are intrinsically evil regardless of intention or circu…
Note that, as anybody, the Catholic Church may have is bias. For example. Their dualist view of the world makes them see AI as something very different from human intelligence. So, without having read it, the church may negate that it could be at human level. A few years ago that would negate that computers could be creative because they do not have a soul. Anyway, kudos for focussing on the important issues and the…
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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have only read a few passages (and some of the excellent quotes others have shared here), but I find the underlying message here so much more compelling than those found in the various "manifestos" which come out of Silicon Valley. I think reading this helps me imagine a version of the future I'd actually like to live in. A version where technology is used well (rather than preaching for abstinence from technology)…
> much more compelling than those found in the various "manifestos" which come out of Silicon Valley. Whenever I hear these "tech overlords", I am always baffled at the total lack of culture, the absence of taste, the empty visions and the implied complete subjugation of humans to ideals of "efficiency" or "quick and easy". Maybe they would have been more interesting people if they had been brought up in beautiful to…
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…
The em-dashes present within the writing made me pause and consider how much of this was written/exited by AI. Quick browse through pre-AI works from John Paul II show em-dashes present.