BardicSense

BardicSense t1_j9n539q wrote

McKinsey tends to be horrible at estimating things as advantageous for the business, so let's hope they're wrong about this like they are with just about everything else. McKinsey destroys companies with their terrible "cost cutting" measures.

If AI should be automating anything it should he useless overpaid consultant jobs.

5

BardicSense t1_j8of936 wrote

This kinda reminds me of that horrible Spartan practice of judging the babies on day 1 if their life, and deciding to put the rejects out into the wild to be killed.

Will the test be able to tell me what major the embryo will choose? If it's anything in business or finance, I'm gonna lobby my spouse to terminate the pregnancy.

I want a lawyer or a doctor, only. /s

18

BardicSense t1_j46llvg wrote

Yeah but different platforms with different rules encourage different types of interaction. People act differently on different sites. Theres a lot of effort going into designing ways to encourage prosocial behavior through "nudging" and various other psychological tricks. I dont believe that the perfect algorithm or website design exists that would make everyone suddenly wonderful and excellent to each other, but curbing people from having total meltdowns, making rage filled rants, or stalking/harrassing people, would be a good thing.

The point is humanity is still in its early infancy with its use of internet technology. 1991 is when it went public, and the species might need some time to adjust properly to this new capacity for communication. We dont know for sure that it has to end in a corporate sponsored dumpster fire every time. I think theres hope for improvement.

1

BardicSense t1_j45ptis wrote

Why not assume the best in people until empirical evidence provides you with no room for benefits of the doubt? After all, if human nature is ultimately mostly corrupt, as your assumption might suggest, then it matters little what good your decentralized system might try to do if it will ultimately be corrupted and exploited.

Instead you should give people lots of leeway and benefits of the doubt, and if you detect certain rhetoric that is based on a well established pattern of misinformation campaigns or some type of nefarious propaganda, then you eliminate the user's access or whatever, but it seems like being a control freak about the whole thing is the opposite intention of what decentralization was supposed to be.

−1

BardicSense t1_j3ze0o5 wrote

I love the story as well. Brilliant writing on the choices and perspectives of a so-called "ideal" society.

This reminds me of a terrible David Brooks (establishment hack, a useful idiot for people who consider themselves more sophisticated observers of the news, for context) NTY article that used a Those Who Walk Away From Omelas reference to defend all sorts of modern atrocities and injustices in the US and abroad. He completely misunderstands the story on purpose just to push propaganda for the US empire, he's pathetic. It's like Brooks couldn't ever become a real writer on his own merits and so he had to resort to cobbling together some distorted parodies of other people's great works like Omelas.

He literally tried to justify the US invasion of Iraq by saying that not walking away from Omelas was not only perfectly reasonable, but necessary, and so we have to just put up with all sorts of heinous shit in order to tell ourselves this is a good and just and free society. I cant believe he held a job at the NY Times for so damn long. Fuck David Brooks.

1

BardicSense t1_j33ou2n wrote

Spreading fear seems pointless, but spreading uncertainty and doubt seems wise. No one should feel certain of anything, and one should always doubt what they think.

8

BardicSense t1_j24yqwp wrote

Too many people in the capitalist countries have no idea how life was in the USSR at all, good or bad or neutral, due to a dedicated stream propaganda from the Cold War. Most Americans know so little about the history rest of the world that they'd do well to not comment on any of it.

5