Re:Google Brain cofounder says Big Tech lying about risks of...
by starbugs on Tuesday October 31, 2023 @03:22AM
(#38081246)
> So "noticing" this pattern seems to rely on being all-knowing?
No. It relies on you being able to distinguish between an (your) opinion and an (your) identity.
The identity part is the precarious one, i.e. you defending a stance blindly without questioning it because you feel your identity is in danger.
This pattern being present doesn't mean that there can't be an underlying truth in it. In fact, that is what makes its assertion meaningful in the first place. However, it entailing a partial truth doesn't mean that the entire assertion holds true in the context it's presented in. Example: "AI" might ultimately be dangerous (like any other technology can be), but this assertion's primary goal is to make you behave a certain way where it is unclear how that would contribute more towards mitigating the danger than to empower the asserter.
To fix this, take a step back before accepting something blindly. Train yourself to not be reactive.
No. It relies on you being able to distinguish between an (your) opinion and an (your) identity.
The identity part is the precarious one, i.e. you defending a stance blindly without questioning it because you feel your identity is in danger.
This pattern being present doesn't mean that there can't be an underlying truth in it. In fact, that is what makes its assertion meaningful in the first place. However, it entailing a partial truth doesn't mean that the entire assertion holds true in the context it's presented in. Example: "AI" might ultimately be dangerous (like any other technology can be), but this assertion's primary goal is to make you behave a certain way where it is unclear how that would contribute more towards mitigating the danger than to empower the asserter.
To fix this, take a step back before accepting something blindly. Train yourself to not be reactive.