for - progress trap - example - weapons leading to nuclear weapons

progress trap - example - weapons leading to nuclear weapons - These are the most ironic inventions of civilization - We spend significant percentages of our budgets maintaining and escalating them, meanwhile, we all know we cannot use them as it would mean billions would die

quote progress trap - nuclear weapons - When you're talking nuclear weapons that can never be used you're investing in something that's completely useless - that you're maybe burying in the ground in the form of missile silos or - you're putting into submarines or - into aircraft or missiles - You can never use these things and they are draining off the surplus that might otherwise be used into - wealth redistribution and into - long-term sustainability

for - progress trap - AI and even more powerful weapons of destruction

progress trap - AI and even more powerful weapons of destruction - The podcaster's excitement seems to overshadow any concern of the tragic unintended consequences of weapons even more powerful than nuclear warheads. - With human base emotions still stuck in the past and our species continued reliance on violence to solve problems, more powerful weapons is not the solution, - indeed, they only make the problem worse - Here is where Ronald Wright's quote is so apt: - We humans are running modern software on 50,000 year old hardware systems - Our cultural evolution, of which AI is a part of, is happening so quickly, that - it is racing ahead of our biological evolution - We aren't able to adapt fast enough for the rapid cultural changes that AI is going to create, and it may very well destroy us

14:58 "criminals are hiding among legitimate asylum seekers"<br /> haha, no. there are ZERO "legitimate asylum seekers"

We need a better catch-all term for the ills perpetrated on humanity and society by technology companies' extractive practices and general blindness to their own effects while they become rich. It should have a terrifically pejorative tone.

Something which subsumes the crazy bound up in some of the following: - social media machine guns - toxic technology - mass produced toxicity - attention economy - bad technology - surveillance capitalism - technology and the military - weapons of math destruction

It should be the polar opposite of: - techno-utopianism

Silent weapons for quiet wars<br /> Operations Research Technical Manual<br /> TW-SW7905.1

Welcome Aboard

This publication marks the 25th anniversary of the Third World War, called the "Quiet War", being conducted using subjective biological warfare, fought with "silent weapons".<br /> This book contains an introductory description of this war, its strategies, and its weaponry.<br /> May 1979 #74-1120

Security

It is patently impossible to discuss social engineering or the automation of a society, i.e., the engineering of social automation systems (silent weapons) on a national or worldwide scale without implying extensive objectives of social control and destruction of human life, i.e., slavery and genocide.<br /> This manual is in itself an analog declaration of intent. Such a writing must be secured from public scrutiny. Otherwise, it might be recognized as a technically formal declaration of domestic war. Furthermore, whenever any person or group of persons in a position of great power and without full knowledge and consent of the public, uses such knowledge and methodologies for economic conquest - it must be understood that a state of domestic warfare exists between said person or group of persons and the public.<br /> The solution of today's problems requires an approach which is ruthlessly candid, with no agonizing over religious, moral or cultural values.<br /> You have qualified for this project because of your ability to look at human society with cold objectivity, and yet analyze and discuss your observations and conclusions with others of similar intellectual capacity without the loss of discretion or humility. Such virtues are exercised in your own best interest. Do not deviate from them.

https://ia802300.us.archive.org/10/items/silent-weapons-for-quiet-wars_202110/Silent%20Weapons%20for%20Quiet%20Wars.pdf

While Joy looks at the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions as well as nuclear nonproliferation ideas, the entirety of what he's looking at is also embedded in the idea of gun control in the United States as well. We could choose better, but we actively choose against our better interests.

What role does toxic capitalism have in pushing us towards these antithetical goals? The gun industry and gun lobby have had tremendous interest on that front. Surely ChatGPT and other LLM and AI tools will begin pushing on the profitmaking levers shortly.

also remember "non-conventional" wars like "weapons of mass migration", targetting north america and western europe. the young white males in america and europe will be drafted for "already lost wars" against russia/hamas/ethiopia (suicide mission), and the young black males (migrant invaders) will finally conquer the young white females, creating the "brown race" of slaves for the global elite (the same elite that is preaching the "racism is bad" gospel)

coinage of the phrase knowledge-enabled mass destruction here?

its easy to get lost in complexity here, but i prefer to keep it simple: our *only* problem is overpopulation, which is caused by pacifism = civilization. *all* other problems are only symptoms of overpopulation. these "financial weapons of mass destruction" (warren buffett) have the only purpose of mass murder = to kill the 95% useless eaters. so yes, this is a "controlled demolition" aka "global suicide cult". most of us will die, but we are happy...

financial weapons of mass destruction: the useful idiots believe that they can defeat risk (or generally, defeat death) by centralization on a global scale. they want to build a system that is "too big to fail" and which will "live forever". they use all kinds of tricks to make their slaves "feel safe" and "feel happy", while subconsciously, everything is going to hell in the long run. so this is just another version of "stupid and evil people trying to rule the world". hubris comes before the fall, nothing new. their system will never work, but idiots must try... because "fake it till you make it" = constructivism, mind over matter, fantasy defeats reality, ...

the video and soundtrack are annoying, they add zero value to the monolog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xRXYJ355Tg The AI Bias Before Christmas by Casey Fiesler

Iron at this time was meteoric in origin and incredibly valuable, so it wouldn't have been used until after the collapse of the Hittite Empire when iron smelting began its rise; bronze weapons would have been more common as a result.

Examples of artificial intelligence pushing toward pre-existing biases based on training data sets.

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-ancient-soldiers-enemies.html

What does the history of shock and awe in history look like?

Naris usedhis knowledge of the trained dancing horses of the Kardians of Thrace against them in battle to win.

Can't help but think about the blasting of music by US forces used heavy metal to blast out Manuel Antonio Noriega, the former military leader of Panama.

It's strange how the same people who imagine a disarmed populace as a good thing are playing catch-up to arm Ukranian civilians against a military. I've lost count of the children massacred by militaries that are the only groups of people magically trustworthy enough to be armed apparently.

If you left a murderer alone with a room full of kids and a knife for 77 minutes, you'd have the same result - and if you're a student of recent history, you'd know that's exactly the kind of attack that has happened time and again in gun-free victim zones around the world.

To address this issue properly, citizens must understand the #JustPowers Clause of The Declaration of Independence, the foundation that the US Constitution is laid upon; and a universal document that recognizes the rights of ALL humans.

Put simply, it states that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else may justly grant powers to others that we do not have.

If you or I stole our neighbors' firearms, even if we claimed it was for "safety" or "the common good", we'd face criminal charges. We all know this, and the evidence is in our conduct.

Instead, why not focus just powers such has holding adults responsible for the safety of others accountable for negligence?

Governments owning citizens' data directly?? Why not have the government empower citizens to own their own data?

Social media has to some extent democratized the access to media, however there are not nearly enough processes for creating negative feedback to dampen ideas which shouldn't or wouldn't have gained footholds in a mass society.

We need more friction in some portions of the social media space to prevent the dissemination of un-useful, negative, and destructive ideas swamping out the positive ones. The accelerative force of algorithmic feeds for the most extreme ideas in particular is one of the most caustic ideas of the last quarter of a century.

Given the propensity for technologists in the late 90s and early 00s to have rose colored glasses with respect to their technologies, it's nice to see at least some nod to potential misuses and bad actors within the design of future tools.

Apparently Persuall was embarrassed about their pro-surveillance capitalism stance and perhaps not so much for its lack of kindness and care for the basic humanity of students.

Sad that they haven't explained or apologized for their misstep.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220222022208/https://twitter.com/perusall/status/1495945680002719751

Additional context: https://twitter.com/search?q=(%40perusall)%20until%3A2022-02-23%20since%3A2022-02-21&src=typed_query

https://publish.obsidian.md/danallosso/Bloggish/Actual+Books

I've often heard the phrase, usually in historical settings, "little book" as well and presupposed it to be a diminutive describing the ideas. I appreciate that Dan Allosso points out here that the phrase may describe the book itself and that the fact that it's small means that it can be more easily carried and concealed.

There's also something much more heartwarming about a book as a concealed weapon (from an intellectual perspective) than a gun or knife.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-papers-democracy-election-zuckerberg/620478/

Adrienne LaFrance outlines the reasons we need to either abandon Facebook or cause some more extreme regulation of it and how it operates.

While she outlines the ills, she doesn't make a specific plea about the solution of the problem. There's definitely a raging fire in the theater, but no one seems to know what to do about it. We're just sitting here watching the structure burn down around us. We need clearer plans for what must be done to solve this problem.

Greene, G. (1999). The Woman who Knew Too Much: Alice Stewart and the Secrets of Radiation. University of Michigan Press.

The original goal with a bit of moderation may have worked. Regression to the mean forces it to a bad place, but when you algorithmically accelerate things toward our bases desires, you make it orders of magnitude worse.

This should be though of as pure social capitalism. We need the moderating force of government regulation to dampen our worst instincts, much the way the United State's mixed economy works (or at least used to work, as it seems that raw capitalism is destroying the United States too).

Talk radio has had this formula for years and they've almost had to use it to drive any listenership as people left radio for television and other media.

I can still remember the different "loudness" level of talk between Bill O'Reilly's primetime show on Fox News and the louder level on his radio show.

Does this box appear on the video itself? Apparently not...

Examples:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3P6wVUH0pc
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWhrU6wp_9M

But nothing on the embedded version:

• https://www.youtube.com/embed/o3P6wVUH0pc
• https://www.youtube.com/embed/QWhrU6wp_9M

A screengrab of what this looks like:

Obviously they took the easy route. You may need to measure what matters, but getting to that goal by any means necessary or using indefensible shortcuts is the fallacy here. They could have had that North Star, but it's the means they used by which to reach it that were wrong.

This is another great example of tech ignoring basic ethics to get to a monetary goal. (Another good one is Marc Zuckerberg's "connecting people" mantra when what he should be is "connecting people for good" or "creating positive connections".

This is a great summation of the issue.

In some sense these people can also be viewed as aggregators and curators of sorts. How can their work be aggregated and be used to compete with the poor algorithms of social media?

Odd statement from a company that was just acquired by Facebook founder's CVI.

Most of these problems can all fall under the subheading of the problems that result when social media platforms algorithmically push or accelerate content on their platforms. An individual with an extreme view can publish a piece of vile or disruptive content and because it's inflammatory the silos promote it which provides even more eyeballs and the acceleration becomes a positive feedback loop. As a result the social silo benefits from engagement for advertising purposes, but the community and the commons are irreparably harmed.

If this one piece were removed, then the commons would be much healthier, fringe ideas and abuse that are abhorrent to most would be removed, and the broader democratic views of the "masses" (good or bad) would prevail. Without the algorithmic push of fringe ideas, that sort of content would be marginalized in the same way we want our inane content like this morning's coffee or today's lunch marginalized.

To analogize it, we've provided social media machine guns to the most vile and fringe members of our society and the social platforms are helping them drag the rest of us down.

If all ideas and content were provided the same linear, non-promotion we would all be much better off, and we wouldn't have the need for as much human curation.

But platforms are making huge decisions about who is allowed to speak. While they're generally allowing everyone to have a voice, they're also very subtly privileging many voices over others. While they're providing space for even the least among us to have a voice, they're making far too many of the worst and most powerful among us logarithmic-ally louder.

It's not broadly obvious, but their algorithms are plainly handing massive megaphones to people who society broadly thinks shouldn't have a voice at all. These megaphones come in the algorithmic amplification of fringe ideas which accelerate them into the broader public discourse toward the aim of these platforms getting more engagement and therefore more eyeballs for their advertising and surveillance capitalism ends.

The issue we ought to be looking at is the dynamic range between people and the messages they're able to send through social platforms.

We could also analogize this to the voting situation in the United States. When we disadvantage the poor, disabled, differently abled, or marginalized people from voting while simultaneously giving the uber-rich outsized influence because of what they're able to buy, we're imposing the same sorts of problems. Social media is just able to do this at an even larger scale and magnify the effects to make their harms more obvious.

If I follow 5,000 people on social media and one of them is a racist-policy-supporting, white nationalist president, those messages will get drowned out because I can only consume so much content. But when the algorithm consistently pushes that content to the top of my feed and attention, it is only going to accelerate it and create more harm. If I get a linear presentation of the content, then I'd have to actively search that content out for it to cause me that sort of harm.

As if Facebook needed it. The fact that this statement is made sort of goes to papering over the idea that Summit itself wouldn't necessarily do something as nefarious or worse with it than Facebook might.

This is outright sexual harrassment and appears to be actively creating a hostile work environment. I could easily see a class action against large chains and/or against the app maker themselves. Aggregating the data and using it in a smart way is fine, but I suspect no one in the chain is actively thinking about what they're doing, they're just selling an idea down the line.

The maker of the app should be doing a far better job of filtering this kind of crap out and aggregating the data in a smarter way and providing a better output since the major chains they're selling it to don't seem to be capable of processing and disseminating what they're collecting.

I like that they're trying to own and control their own data, but it seems like they've relied on a third party company to do most of the thinking for them and they're not actually using the data they're gathering in the proper ways. This is just painfully deplorable.

but are these possibly the result of external factors (like racism?)

One definition of being human

Holy crap!