8 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2024
    1. I don't really understand what they think uh what it is um if it's not you know 00:45:20 how resources are allocated and um the the transformation of commod you know raw material into finished goods and stuff all that takes energy it all takes material

      for - progress trap - real dangers from - abstraction and siloing

      progress trap - real dangers from - abstraction and siloing - Business processes create workers who live in abstract, symbolic worlds, never seeing the consequences of their symbolic manipulations - At the end of the day, the abstract, symbolic finance industry worker gets a fat salary and lives comfortably, whilist playing with abstractions of processes they are contributing to which they have no sensory information on - the separation of producer from consumer is yet another huge abstraction that cleaves the gestalt into pieces that we cannot see - ANTIDOTE to this - de-abstraction - re-synthesize - Processes have been fragmented and split apart - We need to find ways for people to re-synthesize and assemble the pieces back together again in order to - see and experience the whole picture

    1. for - personal health - metabolic disease - insulin resistance caused by mitochondria dysfunction - interview - Dr. Robert Lustig - health - dangers of sugar in our diet

      summary - Robert Lustig is a researcher and major proponent for educating the dangers of sugar as the root cause of the majority of preventable western disease - He explains how sugar and carbs are a major variable and root cause of a majority of these diseases - It is useful to look at these bodily dysfunctions from the perspective of Michael Levin, in which all these diseases of the body are problems with lower levels of the multi-scale competency architecture - https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?max=100&expanded=true&user=stopresetgo&exactTagSearch=true&any=michael+levin%2C+multi-scale+competency+architecture

  2. Jun 2024
    1. nobody's really pricing this in

      for - progress trap - debate - nobody is discussing the dangers of such a project!

      progress trap - debate - nobody is discussing the dangers of such a project! - Civlization's journey has to create more and more powerful tools for human beings to use - but this tool is different because it can act autonomously - It can solve problems that will dwarf our individual or even group ability to solve - Philosophically, the problem / solution paradigm becomes a central question because, - As presented in Deep Humanity praxis, - humans have never stopped producing progress traps as shadow sides of technology because - the reductionist problem solving approach always reaches conclusions based on finite amount of knowledge of the relationships of any one particular area of focus - in contrast to the infinite, fractal relationships found at every scale of nature - Supercomputing can never bridge the gap between finite and infinite - A superintelligent artifact with that autonomy of pattern recognition may recognize a pattern in which humans are not efficient and in fact, greater efficiency gains can be had by eliminating us

  3. Dec 2023
    1. i think the most dangerous thing about ai is not 00:47:11 super smart ai it's uh stupid ai it's artificial intelligence that is good enough to be put in charge of certain processes in our societies but not good enough to not make really 00:47:25 bad mistakes
      • for: quote - Thomas Homer-Dixon, quote - danger of AI, AI progress trap

      • quote: danger of AI

        • I think the most dangerous thing about AI is not super smart AI, it's stupid AI that is good enough to be put in charge of certain processes but not good enough to not make really bad mistakes
      • author: Thomas Homer-Dixon
      • date: 2021
  4. Jul 2023
  5. Sep 2018
    1. However, courts might go further and address the concern that, even where government regulation of cognitive enhancement drugs is rooted in legitimate safety concerns, this should not—by itself—give the government authority to restrict individuals’ mental freedom or “cognitive liberty” far more than is necessary to address those safety concerns. Perhaps, for example, government has imposed a complete ban where something less restrictive will satisfy the safety concerns it is worried about. For example, the state might instead institute a “gatekeeper” system in which a doctor must assess and discuss risks for a particular individual before drugs are prescribed or require a mandatory course on side effects before use of cognitive enhancement drugs.

      I believe that this solution to the paragraph directly above it, directly contradicts itself. If the Government bans the use of a drug not because it can make someone happier/better, but because it can have potentially negative or harmful side affects, then this solution is impossible. If the government deems some as potentially harmful then in more cases than not it most probably is. In this way no government could rationally come to this solution rather than the one above it. It would be obscure for a Government to allow a person who is educated about the dangers of a product to choose to use it. In the Government's and the medical professional's eyes this person would not be in their 'right mind'.. How then, could they ever allow someone who they do not deem 'in their right mind' to use a potentially hazardous drug?

  6. Sep 2013
    1. I mean to say, does he really know anything of what is good and evil, base or honourable, just or unjust in them; or has he only a way with the ignorant of persuading them that he not knowing is to be esteemed to know more about these things than some one else who knows?

      Dangers of persuasive rhetoric