Click ‘active last month’, either for the whole Fediverse or after selecting a platform from the list.
You are absolutely right… I posted a while ago about a solid-state lab project I was working on. I made pretty large steps towards that, but I eventually realized that it would only make a difference if I could leverage the latest technology. So I’ve spent the last months working on a smaller-scale project (a very low-cost ultrasound imaging machine) and finally I’m starting to see some tangible results; I will build and present the final prototype in collaboration with my university, but the important thing here is that I’m getting both experience and reputation, plus I’m convincing a friend (an engineering lab researcher) to join an eventual, larger-scale, solid-state lab project. The idea is not to get “something that works and is open source”, as it was before, but to research cutting-edge technology.
Hi, sorry for not responding earlier. You seem to be very knowledgeable. I was trained in ethics as part of my medical training, so the extent of my knowledge may not be as great as yours. Anyway, these are the specific pieces of knowledge I was invoking:
So, my point is that this specific situation must not be resolved by you stated means since:
Thanks, comrade, I didn’t know about the 16 Days of Activism. There were massive protests on the 25th, I even attended one. The good news is, our current government has responded to public outcry by pushing forward laws to protect women. The bad news is, sexism and anti-feminism is growing at an alarming rate here, so the next government will probably reverse everything… I hate this place.
So, let me summarize…
Yeah, we’ve all studied ethics. Ethics (no matter if you believe it’s inherent to reality or a useful construct) acts in two scenarios:
Ethics doesn’t state that “you should punish others when they act contrarily to ethics”. That’s law. And the reason it punishes people is because that discourages them from acting in that way again. Free will, if you wish.
Now, at the international scale there are no real laws. Implementation of laws depends on the ability of individual countries to enforce them, for their own interests. If we could create laws that affected every country, then yes, we could simply model these laws after ethics. But we can’t.
So, in the example I gave you, suppose you are a citizen of country #2. I already stated that the best course of action for your country would be to side with country #5. But then, since you believe you should punish that country because it acted unethically, you will push your government to side with #1 instead. You tried to enforce laws that didn’t exist, and now you’ve acted against your best interests.
The mistake here is that ethics doesn’t deal with punishment. Punishment is specified by laws, seeking the best interest of society. But the best course of action here was not to punish, yet your instinct led you the wrong way.
I’ll clarify then. You’re assuming individual ethics apply to large groups of people, which disregards the reason why those ethics exist in the first place. They exist at the individual level as an “acceptable” set of behaviors to discourage behaviors outside it. There are two important differences between individuals and countries:
For these two reasons, ethics do not make sense at an international scale. I’ll illustrate with an example:
There are 5 people. 4 of them make an agreement to beat up the 5th. This person learns of the plot against them and decides to attack each of the others separately, one by one, by just waiting outside their homes.
In this case, the 5th person should have simply called the police. What they did was unacceptable, since they attacked first, thus escalating the conflict.
However, at an international scale, things change dramatically. There is no police, so there’s just country #5, presented with a choice: either do nothing and get beaten up, or attack first. Did they act right or wrong? Well, it doesn’t matter, since there’s no way to change the result. The country will always choose the second option, and, furthermore, the other 4 countries will know damn well what #5 will do. In fact, they will not plot against it unless they think they are going to win in every scenario.
Now, imagine this happens, and country #5 has already attacked country #4. Now, the remaining 3 would be able to beat up #5. But let’s say #2 and #3 decide to side with #5 and beat #1; maybe in that situation they would suffer less losses, get better profits, etc. But in this case it’s in the best interest of #1 to oppose #5, and thus to keep #2 and #3 on its side, so it decides to convince the people on those two countries to hate on #5. Now they can’t side with it, since they would face backlash, so they need to co-operate with #1.
While a purely ethical analysis only concludes that ‘#5 attacked #4’ (which doesn’t provide any useful course of action), the more useful benefit analysis affords that #1 has managed to obtain the highest benefit, by manipulating #2 and #3 and capitalizing on conflict between #4 and #5. The useful course of action would have been for #2 and #3 to side with #5.
This isn’t about ethics. Countries are not people, they only act in their own interest with exactly zero regard for anything else. Russia attacked Ukraine because it was the least bad option for them (Ukraine joining NATO would be very bad for them), and the US imposes sanctions because it is also the best possible move, and now they can do it without facing backlash. And that includes propaganda if necessary, on both sides.
The point I’m trying to defend is that manipulating the public’s opinion is part of the global dynamic, and everyone should be aware of, and oppose it, to get what THEY want, rather than what the large-scale political chaos imposes on them. You seem to agree on that, so that’s great, I don’t see the need for further debate.
Here, if you look for the word ‘Russia’ it appears in 5 out of 8 episodes. They literally infiltrate a Russian facility, where the Russians appear as the antagonists, plus Russian characters act in other vile ways in the plot.
You could think that, just as easily as you could NOT think that. In fact, there’s no reason to discard either option, or any other. For all you know, you could be a tomato that some scientist tricked into believing it exists.
Thus, one doesn’t choose to believe something because it’s possible, but because it’s useful to do so. So we choose to believe the simplest possible hypothesis that explains all the phenomena we care about. “We live in a simulation” is just as plausible as any other idea, but it adds exactly nothing to our understanding of the world around us.
Thanks for the sources, I find this one particularly interesting. I’ll need to look into it more carefully, since we already know there’s a great deal of manipulation around this issue.
Edit: tl;dr: “we have extremely hard evidence that the Chinese authorities are putting people in prison for breaking the law”.
Well, I read this by IBM, it’s mostly aimed at learning how to use their products, but I think it does a really good job at that.
Well, I don’t support people trolling within or across instances, but I think ideologies of any kind should be tolerated. I upvote any political post as long as it is intended to be honest, fun or otherwise constructive for us. Also in my opinion it’s nice to be reminded that whatever your side is, the other side is always right in one thing: you are being manipulated.
Here I’ve been able to download the TTF files.
AI is just dirty cheap intellectual labor. If you are not concerned about people hiring other people to do x (post comments, whatever), then you should only be slightly concerned about AI making that orders of magnitude more feasible to do.