retrospectology

retrospectology , 1 month ago

I bet you're the kind of person who actually believes Biden has a "ReD LiNe"

retrospectology , 1 month ago

He certainly did give a ton of handouts to corporations with nice sounding names, yeah.

And he offered the GOP every fascist policy they want on border with literally no strings attached. Twice. What a great totally-different-from-republicans guy.

Really knows how to reach across the aisle and be bi-partisan by...-checks notes-...giving the GOP everything they want with no conditions.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

You're never going to get these people to acknowledge any of this stuff.

They'll still be defending whatever Biden 2.0 clone is in office a few cycles from now because "He only sent half the number of people to the gas chamber compared to [Identical GOP Incumbent]!"

retrospectology , 1 month ago

He was doing pretty bad up to that point, thus why his approval rating was dogshit. Gaza simply made him unelectable by those who might've been able to hold their nose to avoid Trump.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Only voting for Trump is giving him your vote.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

This can't be true. I was told that if she has nothing to hide she has nothing to worry about!

retrospectology , 1 month ago

This is what happens every time society goes along with tech bro hype. They just run directly into a wall. They are the embodiment of "Didn't stop to think if they should" and it's going to cause a lot of problems for humanity.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Buy a small plot of undeveloped land in a swamp -> buy a pot -> cook soup in the pot -> repeat step 3 until dead

Ambitious I know, but it's important to have goals.

retrospectology , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Can't view the post without the reddit app, have a direct link to the actual article?

retrospectology , 1 month ago

At first glance, the Recall feature seems like it may set the stage for potential gross violations of user privacy. Despite reassurances from Microsoft, that impression persists for second and third glances as well. For example, someone with access to your Windows account could potentially use Recall to see everything you've been doing recently on your PC, which might extend beyond the embarrassing implications of pornography viewing and actually threaten the lives of journalists or perceived enemies of the state.

Despite the privacy concerns, Microsoft says that the Recall index remains local and private on-device, encrypted in a way that is linked to a particular user's account. "Recall screenshots are only linked to a specific user profile and Recall does not share them with other users, make them available for Microsoft to view, or use them for targeting advertisements. Screenshots are only available to the person whose profile was used to sign in to the device," Microsoft says.

This sounds very much like on of those claims that has an invisible "for now" attached to it. It's always going to be a slow roll out with these kinds of things.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

The arrest is only a positive. Allowing pedophiles to create AI CP is not a victimless crime. As others point out it muddies the water for CP of real children, but it also potentially would allow pedophiles easier ways to network in the open (if the images are legal they can easily be platformed and advertised), and networking between abusers absolutely emboldens them and results in more abuse.

As a society we should never allow the normalization of sexualizing children.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Lemmy really needs to stop justifying CP.
We can absolutely do more than "eDuCaTiOn". AI is created by humans, the training data is gathered by humans, it needs regulation like any other industry.

It's absolutely insane to me how laissez-fair some people are about AI, it's like a cult.

retrospectology , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Thats not the question, the question is not "can we stop AI entirely" it's about regulating its development and yes, we can make efforts to do that.

This attitude of "it's inevitable, can't do anything about it" is eerily similar logic to what is used in climate denial and other right-wing efforts. It's a really poor attitude to have, especially about something as consequential as AI.

We have the best opportunity right now to create rules about its uses and development. The answer is not "do nothing" as if it's some force of nature, as opposed toa tool created by humans.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

The fuck are you talking about? No one's "enslaving" you because they're trying to stop you from generating child porn.

Fucking libertarians dude.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

If it was photoreal and difficult to distinguish from real photos? Yes, it's exactly the same.

And even if it's not photo real, communities that form around drawn child porn are toxic and dangerous as well. Sexualizing children is something I am 100% against.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Ah yes, we need child porn because it's a slippery slope.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

This argument could be applied to anything though. A lot of people get away with myrder, we should still try and do what we can to stop it from happening.

You can't sit in every car and force people to wear a seatbelt, we still have seatbelt laws and regulations for manufacturers.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

So accept defeat from the start, that's really just a non-starter. AI models run on hardware, they are developed by specific people, their contents are distributed by specific individuals, code bases are hosted on hardware and on specific outlets.

It really does sound like you're just trying to make excuses to avoid regulation, not that you genuinely have a good reason to think it's not possible to try.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

This is still one of the weaker arguments.
There is a lot of malware out there too, people are still prosecuted when they're caught developing and distributing it, we don't just throw up our hands and pretend there's nothing that can be done.

Like, yeah, some pedophile who also happens to be tech saavy might build his own AI model to make CP, that's not some self-evident argument against attempting to stop them.

retrospectology , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

I think the real division on the "left" can be boiled down to those using all the language and rhetoric of left wing ideology but in service of fascist and conservative ideas.

For example, tankies or people who have been brainwashed by tankies; a person can spend all day talking about how they support Palestine and BLM and LGBT rights etc. but then turn around and defend the CCP, which completely undermines any claim that they're actually on the left/center.

So in that way it's less of a "progressives never agree" and more of a "anti-progressive ideas are constantly pushed into progressive spaces to undermine them."

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Yeah, this is kind of what I'm talking about. You can't on one hand say you're for progressive leftist ideals, which are centered on human rights and democratic freedom and then also employ the rhetoric of a far right dictatorship. You're just soft-selling authoritarianism at that point in defense of some empty label.

Criticizing the US is one thing, even wanting their power balanced by other nations is sensible, but pretending the CCP is anything but a far-right totalitarian dictatorship isn't productive if the goal is a world with more opportunities for progressive ideas to take root -- there is no scenario that manifests out of the CCP increasing its geopolitical influence that isn't objectively worse, regardless of what bones there are to pick with the right-wing in the US. The goal should be defeating the far-right in the US, not kneecapping the US so the CCP can start expending their imperial ambitions.

China accumulating power only moves the global needle further towards authoritarian norms, not away from them. It results in more cross pollination between right-wing groups internationally. We are witnessing it right now, as US democracy declines (not US power) and China rises we see a not-so-coincidental rise in far-right groups everywhere else too (which China and Russia happily foster and weaponize. Very progressive of them).

In the US (or any democracy) there is still much more political diversity, so if you criticize US actions you're really criticizing one of those groups and their abuse of US power. By contrast, China has a single state party with a single person at its head with more or less unrestricted power. It is quite a few steps ahead on the road to fascism even compared to the US. So it doesn't make sense to try and bill them as the same thing.

There is no internal force within China working to reform it, not even potential for it, but there are progressive groups in the US pushing against the right-wing authoritarianism rising in their own country. If there weren't we wouldn't be seeing the evolution of public perception on issues like Israel/Gaza. That is a direct result of Americans themselves pushing from within using their (slowly diminishing) rights. You see nothing like that in China because it's simply not possible, fascism is already locked in there. It doesn't help you or anyone else for them to gain more influence.

Dictatorship and authoritarianism are diametrically opposed to every progressive political goal, they aren't concepts that can be harnessed for some greater good, they are never a means to an end.

This is because, as you allude to, the defining characteristic of the "left" is that it is always looking to evolve society past the solutions that have proven to be failures (like monarchy, theocracy, corprotocracy, communism, libertarianism etc.) in favor of decision-making that's based on reality as we understand it now and can be adapted without concentration camps and mass graves.

"Leftism" is when people try to use knowledge for the goal of fostering human dignity, well-being and freedom, but it is also when people are ready to cast aside ideas that fail to produce. It doesn't matter what flavor of progressive someone is, those are still the central defining notions that unite anyone inclined to be "left wing".

If someone finds themselves defending ideas or groups that don't serve those basic purposes they're simply no longer promoting progressive/left ideas -- they're promoting failed ideas that will inevitably be incorporated by the right to open new routes to the same resolution as any right-wing effort. That's what conservativism is; a failure to move as our understanding of reality moves.

So, yeah, some people only just becoming politically aware might have muddled thinking about things they were taught along the way, but they need to be shown how those ideas don't really reinforce the end goal they actually want, not to have those ideas treated as legitimate and valid forms of progressive political philosophy. They need to be taught how to examine any idea for what it is, not what they want it to be.

This is the problem with having loyalty to labels, specific theories and personalities over basic principles and practical realities. You become inflexible and vulnerable to having your good intentions exploited, ending up in these weird positions where you're supporting the very thing you claimed to be against (like self-proclaimed leftists who still defend Stalin or the CCP despite the mind-boggling levels of human suffering they've produced)

I don't care about implementing one specific left-branded ideology or another, my concern is more with ejecting conservative political thought so that ideas and information can be discussed and debated to find the solutions that actually produce good for everyone. That simply isn't possible until the people get past the corpses of their darlings, whatever they may be.

That deliberation should be able to happen without people dogmatically attempting to shoehorn in ideas that have already been tried and failed. Progressives should not be precious with ideas that way and should be willing to label ideas based on what they produce in reality, not just in theory.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Combined with how easy it is becoming to create an AI copy of a person's voice you're pretty soon not going to ever be sure if what you're saying or hearing on a phone is actually what's being said or if it's being edited in real time. China's gonna love this shit.

Really hate tech bros who just keep recklessly pushing ahead on this stuff. Absolutely the worst scenario for AI.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

The worst thing about the driveless car fad is that you can opt out of riding in them but none of us can opt of being run down by them.

I'm beginning to despise tech bros more and more every day.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Well that's not fair, not everyone who defends the CCP is being paid, some are just useful idiots.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Not all of them are paid, some are just useful idiots.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Found the tankie, lol.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Yes, people might be forgiven for believing he's different from Musk because they had differences about Twitter and because Twitter was not as bad when he owned it, but he's still a tech cultist like Musk, still has all the wealthy 0.1%er Silicon Valley weirdness and kook beliefs.

He's just not in the news as much.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

I'll take your word for it, you literally couldn't pay me to watch Joe Rogan lol.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Progressives aren't supporting genocide.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

He's at the heart of the company's problems. It's good for the public to associate his name with failure, given the false image he's created for himself.

retrospectology , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Not totally surprising, I feel bad for the person who was in a desperate enough situation to become a con man narcissist's guinea pig.

It looks like we're learning the lesson we already learned back when Bill Gates tried to mess around with the education system and faceplanted; just because billionaires made a bunch of money selling a fancy toaster they invented or whatever, doesn't make them experts on anything else.

I'd sooner put a bullet in my head than something Elon Musk had a hand in.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

And has produced mostly expensive failures which they simply abandoned.

This is because Bill Gates is just a guy who helped cobble together a computer in his garage with his dad's money, he doesn't know jack about education and has repeatedly ignored the advice of experts because it wasn't what he wanted to try.

We place too much virtue on wealth in this country, just because someone has accumulated a lot of wealth doesn't mean they should be allowed to tinker with our society and try out ideas they had in a dream or w/e.

Instead they should just pay their taxes.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

It's 100% about Musk, yes, given his pursuit of tech even if it comes at a human cost. It's a pattern of his specific companies.

What this situation demonstrates is that Musk is pushing the tech ahead before it's ready and that the person recieving the implant is simply lucky that that negligence and haste hasn't left them with brain damage or worse.

No one is saying medical devices shouldn't be developed to help people, I'm saying Musks tech-cult attitude of "move fast and break stuff" should not apply when human lives and well being are involved.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

They mention two, but it's enough to make the point. There's no justification for Gates to be at the helm, if he wants to help he can donate money to the groups and institutions that actually know what they're doing or, as I said, just pay his taxes.

There's no reason for him to be meddling, his ignorance is actually making the money less effective.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

Again, the person's desperation is a key here, this technology is targeted at people who are potentially willing to try anything even if it comes with risk.

That isn't the same sort of consent I have as someone who isn't paralyzed and just think it'd be cool to control my garage door with my brain or something. I'm not under the same pressure.

If I mix a bunch of laundry chemicals and bill it as a miracle cure for cancer, and then target vulnerable people willing to try anything because they are stage 4, that doesn't excuse me of my reckless disregard for safety or to use those people as experiments.

Musk's company wants to get this tech into human beings as quickly as possible even if it's underdeveloped and potentially unsafe because Musk's priority is not really about helping people.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

My concern is not the extinction of the human race, cringe sociopath.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

That or Musk's org lied, misrepresented their progress or found loop holes in the regulation process, yes.

It's pretty obvious from its immediate failure that it was not ready.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

As just a general rule? Yes.

Having preference for specific sex characteristics is one thing, but there are trans people who are indistinguishable from cis people. If you're attracted to someone and then pretend you aren't simply based on the fact that they're trans that's transphobic.

It would be like being attracted to someone and then finding out they're part Domican or something and suddenly acting like it's some deal breaker because "I'm not attracted to Dominican people".

You're entitled to that preference, but it's still a racist one.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

And yet if you were attracted to a specific man you met it wouldn't make sense to deny that based on you not being attracted to men generally or some kind of political identity. No one is going to force a person to act on that attraction, but it's still a form of denial to pretend it doesn't exist.

People are entitled to whatever dealbreakers they have, that doesn't preclude some of those dealbreakers from being based on prejudice or false beliefs.

retrospectology , 1 month ago

That has to do with her attraction though, not yours. You would be being respectful of her preference (good), but your attraction to her simply is a reality, just as her intrinsic inability to be attracted to you is also a reality. Likewise, if a gay woman sleeps with a trans woman because she's attracted to all her feminine qualities, it doesn't make her any less gay.

The discussion is not offensive to me, I should clarify that when I talk about someone's beliefs being transphobic I'm not passing judgement on them as people, they aren't bad human beings, from my point of view it's simply a prejudice that's absorbed culturally. People don't seriously examine it until they are put into a situation where they have to actually make a intellectual choice. A lot of people, I would say the majority of us, have these kinds of latent biases that we never really bother to pick apart and instead just act on in a kneejerk way.

A person's sexuality is distinct from their capacity to be attracted to trans people, it doesn't make sense to state it as a preference in and of itself.

I'm going to unpack a thing here, bear with me, here is why I see the two things as distinct; If you met someone and were very attracted to them, you got along great, even went so far as starting a romantic/sexual relationship. Maybe you're even together for years. One day they confide to you that they are fully transitioned -- your response to that is not actually going to be about your attraction to trans people. Your attraction to them was already concretely established, it's no longer a question.

People might make arguments about "Well I wouldn't want someone to keep something like that from me" or something along those lines, but that still doesn't have to do with the person being trans or not -- it has to do with value judgements concerning honesty, trust and openness etc. Which are characteristics independent of gender identity.

Or, if it helps to think of it another way; if you date someone who has not transitioned, and then they come out to you as trans, you cannot then retrospectively claim to have not been attracted to them simply because that fact came to light. You might lose attraction to them going forward from that point because their body may change to become more feminine/masculine, but it's not because of their having a status as being trans. Just like your attraction to a gay woman doesn't change based on the fact that they're gay.

These are scenarios that could potentially happen with a trans person, but it would not happen between two cis people. A completely straight cis man is never going to inadvertantly fall in love with another cis man and have a relationship with him without understanding it as being a bi/gay relationship, this is the difference.

The blanket belief that one simply cannot be attracted to trans people is misleading. I would go further to say that belief is a roundabout way of obligating trans people to live not as their target gender, but to forever live as an "Other". It's a conception of transness that functions on stereotypes and requires them to perpetually qualify their relationships to other people for their entire lives based on that medical history, regardless of whether or not those people percieve that they are trans or not.

It's a way of saying "It doesn't matter if you pass perfectly, or even if I find you attractive, you're still required to out yourself and can never actually let go of that old identity." Which, to me, seems unfair and is sort of an insidious manifestation of the trope that trans people are being dishonest and deceptive, that they "fool" people into being attracted to them rather than people simply being attracted to them naturally.

retrospectology , 2 months ago

Unsure what the implication is. The Kent State shootings are common knowledge in the US, it's taught in schools, no one needs to be tricked into knowing it happened.

retrospectology , 2 months ago

No...where did I say that?

Is there some other country that's dealing with a crackdown on student protests at the moment where referencing Kent State would be salient?

retrospectology , 2 months ago

No, I'm talking like the OP made an allusion to an event that happened in the United States.
It's unclear what the OP is attempting to achieve by pretending the shootings at Kent State are some well kept secret.

retrospectology , 2 months ago

"Please allow our machine to upload your development work directly to our servers in Schenzhen."

retrospectology , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Because China is not a normal country and all of its industry is controlled by the state. It desperately wants the world to forget that its the kind of country that runs over its citizens with tanks, uses forced labor and has hundreds of concentration camps, but it would be kind of silly to go along with that when it has not changed from that course.

Their long-term plan is to slow boil global opinion through a mass social engineering projects and propaganda into accepting that it's ok and normal for a government to operate in the way that the CCP does.

As long as the CCP is in power anything it does should should be observed about with a healthy dose of suspicion.

retrospectology , 2 months ago

Israel is quite bad, yes, and the genocide is horrible, but I'd argue China is illustrative of what comes after democracy fails in a place and it has passed through the stage that Israel is currently in.

China is a totalitarian state where information is so tightly controlled and the people so thoroughly decieved (or enslaved) that industrialized genocide is carried out at a scale unseen since the Nazis without the general population knowing or even caring.

That kind of "civilized" totalitarianism in which dissent is quite literally not possible is the terminus of any form of facism. When Orwell talked about a boot stamping on a human face forever, that's what China is.

So no, as bad as Israel is and as much as they need to be confronted and are untrustworthy, China is far worse.

retrospectology , 2 months ago

The earth is not flat nor is it round, it's like Flappy Bird.

retrospectology , 2 months ago

Well, the whole notion that things are on a spectrum is kind of false.

There are the people using what we know about the world right now to try to improve the conditions for all of us and who are willing to adjust course based on evidence and results, and then there are those clinging to failed notions of the past, whether it be an outdated philsophy from four hundred years ago or a failed theory from yesterday.

In that way it's more of a binary that does not care if you're anarchist, monarchist, communist, libertarian, democratic etc. If your ideas aren't working and you fail to admit they aren't working then you have become a conservative, regardless of how radical your idea was when it was concieved.