That is it. The whole point of all these russia, hatespeech, nazi and fakenews campaigns is that we should agree that Youtube , twitter and others take full control over content and put in place an array of tools to enforce the rules. Youtube itself doesn't care, it will go along with it. Then later at any time it can be decided again and again what is acceptable content and it will be enforced. There will be possibilities for correction but these will be ineffective statistically unless the interests being stepped on have enough clout.
If you decide that you can have enough confidence that the system won't hurt you or maybe others then this does not need be a disaster. Maybe that's right. If you take the seatbelts out of a car it doesnt kill you either. You're just taking away safeguards. I'm pretty sure it's going to be damaging though to all kinds of dissent. Sensible voices are already pushed to the perifery, this will only make them more invisible.
Agreed , and probably more than you'd like. The author is stupid and the people at the US embassy are stupid and panicked because of loud insects (crickets and cicadas). The rest is hype and surfing on the hysterical wave.
This more or less makes sense. It's not a fingerpointing article, it analyses tools and explains what they do.
It also underscores another argument, that they have some serious tools in their toolbox and when there's a hacking claim and the NSA remains quiet, it means something. The NSA never produced any proof that the DNC was hacked.
Yeah, there are a lot of things that people refuse to believe because it makes them uncomfortable but hey, you keep on believing the Earth is flat and the moon landing was faked.
I'm sure whatever anonymous claim US officials come up with I could find a rationale to justify it. But I would be a gullible idiot if I did.
This is where it becomes interesting to do an analysis of the plastic in the environment. Does the distribution and composition of plastic in the sea support the banning of plastic straws, is that just symbolic to build up the right mindset, or is this just the visual experience on streets with a lot of straws but with little impact outside of cities?
It's not obvious to see the benefits but neither was it obvious to see the benefits of consumer PCs. I see AI mainly as much smarter, much more autonomous programs, and while my main concern is that AI may empower elites and help them reduce a large part of humanity to passively sitting in some form of storage, it's worth thinking about AI that would become widely available. I loved the idea i read in an SF book where a machine with AI would replace insecticides by simply picking the undesired insects off the plants.
Maybe Bill Gates's point of view is sensible if you keep in mind Freeman Dyson's distinction between elite knowhow and consumer end knowhow. Gates has done his part to give us consumer end computer power. If AI becomes an extension of elite power then it's not good. For instance it can become a multiplier for a surveillance state oligargy. If it becomes a consumer commodity it could be more interesting.
As far as I can see what is known is some people in Russia spent money on clickbait in order to make money. As usual I concur with this guy : http://www.moonofalabama.org/2...
Most people will disagree, but then most people aren't able to think for themselves.
At the moment it doesn't sit well yet to claim autopilot will free you to play on your smartphone. But that will become its main selling value, not safety.
(?) lost my post. Here is what you wrote. But in the 80's he was an ally against the common enemy the Soviet Union. (as was Saddam Hussain for that matter). Learn to write. Also, dont confuse me with anonymous. I don't post anonymously.
The way that theory arose is because the theory about onesided propaganda was not tenable. So there was a switch to backup theory: it's just to divide. And it has the bonus that everyone who is involved in any kind of opposition becomes divisive and therefore suspicious: they could be funded by the Russians! There has even been a next level model: when you can't even make sense of the division model, just switch to 'they try to build up trust' model. Kittens! It's textbook conspiracy thinking: it can never be proven wrong.
The dynamics of what people want you to believe is much more important than what the Russians have or haven't been doing. Alliance for Securing Democracy is a proven propaganda outlet, and there nobody seems to care. Certainly you don't. This just out, it talks about the people behind this 'Alliance': https://www.alternet.org/grayz... .
I don't know if these authors have already been accused of being paid by the Russians. It's always safe to call them useful idiots though.
It's so tempting to throw that number around because it sounds impressive or what? The distinction between a language and a dialect is flexible and I'm guessing that if you shift that boundary suddenly your number of languages changes drastically. Still, I'd like to see that on a map
Leaving smartphone at home sounds like an idea, though.. check movement sensors of smartphone check gps data of car check financial transactions of credit cards check laptop activity and that's only for that person. There's all the public monitoring of people movements.
I can just imagine the printer in the year 2500.
The print button doesnt work well because of a bad electrical contact and you have to press 15 times to get it working. Then the paper jams and you have to get it out. And then you get 7 copies because it actually did work part of the time but was just slow on the uptake.
The filter will not only widen in terms of content, also in terms of linkage. It will become contagious.If you link to a site with a low reputation your reputation will suffer. So think twice before tweeting such a subject to a friend because it will affect their reputation. This way you achieve mass conformism.
The fact that the categories are subjective is not necessarily because they are hiding anything. It is more likely because they intend to go with the flow and let others decide. I encountered articles from a socialist site, http://www.wsws.org/.. They claim they've been tracking their web statistics over a long time and in the last year they started to decline dramatically, and it was mostly because a lot of search terms which used to return links to their site no longer did so. You have to dig deep in the search result pages to do that. Their trafic from google has been decimated. So you can think hey where does this come from, I thought it was about fake news?
They're organising a campaign now but i suppose few will ever hear of it. I mean, socialists? Who cares right? The whole set of their articles is here http://www.wsws.org/en/article... .
That's what I've pointed out earlier. If you privatize the channels for free speech you get a huge freedom to censor free speech. What is happening here is that the big social media players and Google are on board for forms of censorship, but they leave it open what this will include. It's negotiable. The result is the game is on for the strong players to start pushing out the weak ones. Weak in the sense of politically weak. So all dissident voices will be targeted, oppressed groups, designated enemies, starting with the easy ones. In effect we're really in for a new age of censorship. no worries though, those who have nothing interesting to say won't feel they're being censored.
I don't understand the fuss about AI taking over somehow. The real problem with AI is that as a form of semi-autonomous software it can be a powerful tool for centralized power. If an elite runs the AI/automated armies it can enforce mass conformity much better allowing them to strengthen their grasp on power. The NSA for instance has a dramatic shortage of processing power for all the data they collect (since they decided they wanted to collect everything).
Slashdot Mirror
I gave my AI only one job: 'do everything possible to make it harder for people to shut you down.'
That is it. The whole point of all these russia, hatespeech, nazi and fakenews campaigns is that we should agree that Youtube , twitter and others take full control over content and put in place an array of tools to enforce the rules. Youtube itself doesn't care, it will go along with it. Then later at any time it can be decided again and again what is acceptable content and it will be enforced.
There will be possibilities for correction but these will be ineffective statistically unless the interests being stepped on have enough clout.
If you decide that you can have enough confidence that the system won't hurt you or maybe others then this does not need be a disaster. Maybe that's right. If you take the seatbelts out of a car it doesnt kill you either. You're just taking away safeguards. I'm pretty sure it's going to be damaging though to all kinds of dissent. Sensible voices are already pushed to the perifery, this will only make them more invisible.
Agreed , and probably more than you'd like.
The author is stupid and the people at the US embassy are stupid and panicked because of loud insects (crickets and cicadas). The rest is hype and surfing on the hysterical wave.
People still throw shoes if there's enough reason for it
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IA5n...
This more or less makes sense. It's not a fingerpointing article, it analyses tools and explains what they do.
It also underscores another argument, that they have some serious tools in their toolbox and when there's a hacking claim and the NSA remains quiet, it means something. The NSA never produced any proof that the DNC was hacked.
I think that is a very valid argument and the subject of trust runs through the whole surveillance state issue.
The real question is how such an Australian table will try to kill you.
I'm sure whatever anonymous claim US officials come up with I could find a rationale to justify it. But I would be a gullible idiot if I did.
This is where it becomes interesting to do an analysis of the plastic in the environment. Does the distribution and composition of plastic in the sea support the banning of plastic straws, is that just symbolic to build up the right mindset, or is this just the visual experience on streets with a lot of straws but with little impact outside of cities?
It's not obvious to see the benefits but neither was it obvious to see the benefits of consumer PCs. I see AI mainly as much smarter, much more autonomous programs, and while my main concern is that AI may empower elites and help them reduce a large part of humanity to passively sitting in some form of storage, it's worth thinking about AI that would become widely available.
I loved the idea i read in an SF book where a machine with AI would replace insecticides by simply picking the undesired insects off the plants.
Maybe Bill Gates's point of view is sensible if you keep in mind Freeman Dyson's distinction between elite knowhow and consumer end knowhow. Gates has done his part to give us consumer end computer power. If AI becomes an extension of elite power then it's not good. For instance it can become a multiplier for a surveillance state oligargy. If it becomes a consumer commodity it could be more interesting.
But so obviously wrong though. The invasion will be delayed and eventually cancelled because they keep 'studying' our extensive production of porn.
As far as I can see what is known is some people in Russia spent money on clickbait in order to make money. As usual I concur with this guy : http://www.moonofalabama.org/2...
Most people will disagree, but then most people aren't able to think for themselves.
They'll likely have seen our movies and I'm sure they will conclude from that that we are peaceful.
At the moment it doesn't sit well yet to claim autopilot will free you to play on your smartphone. But that will become its main selling value, not safety.
(?) lost my post.
Here is what you wrote.
But in the 80's he was an ally against the common enemy the Soviet Union. (as was Saddam Hussain for that matter).
Learn to write. Also, dont confuse me with anonymous. I don't post anonymously.
Saddam an ally against the Soviets eh? Thought not.
The way that theory arose is because the theory about onesided propaganda was not tenable. So there was a switch to backup theory: it's just to divide. And it has the bonus that everyone who is involved in any kind of opposition becomes divisive and therefore suspicious: they could be funded by the Russians! There has even been a next level model: when you can't even make sense of the division model, just switch to 'they try to build up trust' model. Kittens!
It's textbook conspiracy thinking: it can never be proven wrong.
The dynamics of what people want you to believe is much more important than what the Russians have or haven't been doing. Alliance for Securing Democracy is a proven propaganda outlet, and there nobody seems to care. Certainly you don't.
This just out, it talks about the people behind this 'Alliance': https://www.alternet.org/grayz... .
I don't know if these authors have already been accused of being paid by the Russians. It's always safe to call them useful idiots though.
It's so tempting to throw that number around because it sounds impressive or what? The distinction between a language and a dialect is flexible and I'm guessing that if you shift that boundary suddenly your number of languages changes drastically.
Still, I'd like to see that on a map
Leaving smartphone at home sounds like an idea, though..
check movement sensors of smartphone
check gps data of car
check financial transactions of credit cards
check laptop activity
and that's only for that person. There's all the public monitoring of people movements.
I can just imagine the printer in the year 2500.
The print button doesnt work well because of a bad electrical contact and you have to press 15 times to get it working. Then the paper jams and you have to get it out.
And then you get 7 copies because it actually did work part of the time but was just slow on the uptake.
The filter will not only widen in terms of content, also in terms of linkage. It will become contagious.If you link to a site with a low reputation your reputation will suffer. So think twice before tweeting such a subject to a friend because it will affect their reputation.
This way you achieve mass conformism.
The fact that the categories are subjective is not necessarily because they are hiding anything. It is more likely because they intend to go with the flow and let others decide. .. They claim they've been tracking their web statistics over a long time and in the last year they started to decline dramatically, and it was mostly because a lot of search terms which used to return links to their site no longer did so. You have to dig deep in the search result pages to do that. Their trafic from google has been decimated. So you can think hey where does this come from, I thought it was about fake news?
I encountered articles from a socialist site, http://www.wsws.org/
They're organising a campaign now but i suppose few will ever hear of it. I mean, socialists? Who cares right? The whole set of their articles is here http://www.wsws.org/en/article... .
That's what I've pointed out earlier. If you privatize the channels for free speech you get a huge freedom to censor free speech.
What is happening here is that the big social media players and Google are on board for forms of censorship, but they leave it open what this will include. It's negotiable. The result is the game is on for the strong players to start pushing out the weak ones. Weak in the sense of politically weak. So all dissident voices will be targeted, oppressed groups, designated enemies, starting with the easy ones.
In effect we're really in for a new age of censorship.
no worries though, those who have nothing interesting to say won't feel they're being censored.
I don't understand the fuss about AI taking over somehow. The real problem with AI is that as a form of semi-autonomous software it can be a powerful tool for centralized power. If an elite runs the AI/automated armies it can enforce mass conformity much better allowing them to strengthen their grasp on power. The NSA for instance has a dramatic shortage of processing power for all the data they collect (since they decided they wanted to collect everything).