selfhoster1312
Some of the rebels behave in cruel ways, and some of the imperialists are very humane in some scenes. It's all about fighting for what is right.
Male-female interactions were usually really weird, Bortus relation with his partner is equally anchored in this idea that in male homosexual relations one has to "play the woman part", and i felt overall that the series had much more of an imperialist human-centered worldview, much closer to Stargate than Star Trek (despite not remembering the details).
Starfleet Academy has explorations of what humanity is from Klingon/robotic perspective (very much borrowed from Worf and Data). It asks the painful question of what when the "good guys" are actually the "bad guys" and you end up a stray orphan because your parents are imprisoned for trying to feed you? What then, of improving the Institutions and becoming a better citizen?
Lower Decks also has a ton of lighter-toned ethical/moral explorations and young adults learning to become better versions of themselves. I think it's a very welcome tone change, and it's very accessible to people who haven't watched much of Star Trek, despite having tons of references to the universe.
Star Trek was always a very political soap opera: DS9 was about what the US government would call antifa terrorists seizing power on their planet. This hasn't changed, even though the formats evolved. Some i appreciate more than others, but i welcome this exploration.
Many, in fact. What do we work on, and for whose benefits? How to make useful products without destroying the environment or negatively impacting our bodies and minds? Why, despite an over-abundance of resources and products, do we have such profound inequalities? How could we address them?
Small example: why fixate on AI safety and risk of human extinction when 1) AI problems run much deeper (loss of QA, more economic inequalities, insane resource extraction, etc) 2) human extinction is actually already on track due to pre-AI industrial activities, and addressing the problems we had before ChatGPT came out would de facto solve the problems posed by OpenAI and others in the field?
That's just a small overview, we can (and should) ask many more, and i think what you called class warfare definitely has a place in that list. I'm just as much fascinated by numbers as the next EA blogger, but i do believe being fixated on numbers prevents from asking deep moral and philosophical questions about our shared humanity. Maybe my feeling of the EA community is wrong, and i'd be interested in reading more radical EA-adjascent blogs if you have links to share.
I don't think they're making it better, that's the whole debate.
> I have no idea what you mean about genocide
That's just an example, referring to the Rohingya genocide or the Palestinian genocide, both of which have been more than facilitated by tech companies.
> think doing good within the system is “evil”
That's a misinterpretation of what i said. I think it's a valid goal on a personal level, but that it actually doesn't work (produces burnout or corruption of values). Therefore i think it's a wrong collective strategy that entirely misses the point (and centuries of experience) of how to change society for the better.
EDIT: for example, slavery abolition or women's right to vote in the Global North was not achieved by advocating to work for plantation owners and then giving away money to charity. And i don't know of a single historical example where that strategy worked.
Start applying solutions to real problems people face. That's rational. Then notice how by removing the bad actors from the equation your scifi problems disappear too. That's rational. Telling the billions of people who suffer to shut up because AI extinction is the real problem and we need to throw money at it so that a hypothetical future might be better is just completely irrational, disrespectful, and anything but altruist or efficient.
I've never met EA people in person, but through their blogs i've never felt invited to think about anything beyond raw numbers and vague notions disconnected from any actual social structure and injustice i could see with my eyes. Maybe i've missed the most interesting bloggers out there?
> They've definitely got political activities amongst their piles of recommendations
I would be interesting to know what you consider political. I've never seen anything resembling it. But maybe you'd call lobbying political activities? I'm thinking in terms of building collective power through union and non-electoral mobilizations. EDIT: for me warming up to this politician, that party, or taking a position in a corporation is not "politics"
> when you say "conservative"
I mean they don't appear to be revolutionaries. I can't see a better world through their writings, nothing significantly different about the power structures, merely green-coated capitalism where technology has magically solved every problem, which i thought to be naive wishful thinking that simply does away with centuries of revolutionary theory and praxis which did in fact bring social change. I personally find much more rationality, despite my disagreements, in Marx or Kropotkin (and their 21st century successors), than in the "rationalist" community online.
As for the most evil, the competition is fierce. Of course i don't think Backblaze or OVH is just as evil as Amazon or Google. Just like i don't think La Vache Qui Rit or Loué are as evil as Carrefour and Unilever. But in my view, if you're recruiting people and aiming for a better world, you should aim higher than "my employer is not actively supporting genocide". Otherwise, your utopian project has nothing very interesting nor moral about it.
It's hard to find one that's not evil on this list, except maybe for reporter at MIT Tech Review? Some of these job titles sound good, but wield no power to make good things in practice (hence the turnover rate for many "ethicist" or QA roles). But i didn't have to scroll much to find unambigously evil corporations (eg. RAND, Google).
> work in fields that have the most humane impacts where possible
I'm sensitive to this argument, but i'm not sure that's possible in practice. It might be possible in some public sector or non-profit jobs, but i'm pretty sure it's impossible when driven by market value and share prices. EA does not ask such profound questions about actual political and social structures affecting our lives and therefore in my view silences the actual solutions to actual problems we face.
> merely working for FANG or high-earning positions is tantamount to aiding "evil" corporations
No. Many people do the minimum that's asked of them to put food on the table, that's just human and we can't really blame them. Those who go above and beyond thinking they'll save the world through Silicon Valley startups and foundations actually destroying it are the ones in my view aiding "evil".
Earning money is not the problem. Most of us have had (or still have) morally-questionable jobs to put food on the table. That's a reasonable trade-off until we have a better, more ethical society. But making it a moral argument to work for the most evil corporations on earth to do good just doesn't make sense. At which point do you become the bad guy you're trying to avoid being through effective altruism?
This sentence is too short for such a complex topic. Whether you can (or should at all) mix your political projects with your career is an entire debate. That they throw it away entirely shows that they are very conservative: the entire idea of collective political action (which is not charity nor work) does not exist in their worldview.
I was initially curious about effective altruism ~10 years ago, but fortunately i had enough political background to realize that this is essentially a movement of silicon valley sociopaths virtue-painting their bad behavior and their working for the most evil industries on earth in the name of a hypothetical future greater good that will never materialize because they keep supporting the capitalist system that's destroying our planet. It's like saying you're gonna work for Darth Vader because the pay is good so you'll provide good for the universe; it's entirely fucked up and does not hold any form of scrutiny from actually-rational people with a modest social sciences / political background.
I'm curious about what's missing for you in the current HTML export? I haven't tried it but i've read about people playing with it and it seems already quite comprehensive from an outsider's look?
Interestingly, this article does not make a single argument why this is technically possible, but does point out that Musk and friends have no plan to make the wealth redistribution happen. The article does not quote a single researcher on extractivism, material sciences, ecology... This is religious dogma at its finest. You may be a believer, but that does not make it plausible.
On the other hand, there is an abundance of data points that ecological collapse is already happening. All scientists agree we are on a non-sustainable path. Many agree that this model's collapse is unavoidable, but the question remains: do you want to plan for a humanist degrowth making quality of life better for everyone and more sustainable? or do you want a Mad Max-like future where people fight for drinkable water?
A computer software is supposed to deliver reliable, predictable, reproducible results. When it does not every now and then, it's a bug. When your entire system is built in "recognition" and "confidence" and leads to wrongful arrests, it's not a bug. You are just not making computer science. You are making a power abuse machine.
I'm not saying every small administration of a 200-souls village needs to do this, but on the scale of a nation who has a GAFAM budget in the hundreds of millions of euros (probably, haven't made the calculation), it's not crazy to invest a few million on a side project like this to reduce dependency.
That was 18 years ago: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/GendBuntu
I was looking for a way to donate them a little cash the other day because i found typst super useful for my non-profit activities (and super easy to teach), but i didn't find one.
With dumb camera footage, the cops looks at the plates, visual indicators, etc. That does not make them more competent or less prone to abuse. But here, Flock's software literally told them this woman was the one they were looking for, despite no evidence supporting this.
This is 100% both on the police and on Flock. Some technologies don't deserve to exist. Facial recognition and ALPR is one of those, because the error rates are too high and the stakes are too high.
With this mindset, nothing ever changes. No social problem was ever solved without looking at it from a social/political perspective. If you agree that growth ideology is problematic, then that's what you need to dismantle.
> To be fair, the declining fertility rate will probably solve a bunch of environmental issues
I think this is just wrong. The problem is the lifestyle: the throwaway culture and abundant consumption of throwaway goods. We could be just as many billions living OK in our environment, but you could have just 100 million average middle-class westerners continuing to fuck up nature (just slightly slower).
Well that deserves some actual argument. This abundant future has been promised to us for generations and has served as a justification for precisely fucking everything up in the name of the brighter future. Yet now we have, to my knowledge, no indicator of things getting better, but all indicators going way worse than we thought.
> I get being critical of mindless consumerism, but degrowth doesn't seem to be about "order less junk on amazon/temu"
Yes it is. It's about mindful production of useful products and services. Which is very much the same as reducing economic activity and energy consumption.
> Can you name specific issues caused directly by energy consumption
The question is good but not the framing. How is pollution avoidable? Energy consumption is not the problem but it's the means by which the auxiliary problems arise, and therefore a correct proxy to measure them. One of the problems is production of throwaway goods of dubious quality (leading to enormous pollution), a problem which technically could not exist before we had an abundance of quasi-free energy.
It's like in software development when people consider CPU/RAM is unlimited and don't provide any optimization. That may be fine in hypothetical settings, but in the real world resources are finite. (the analogy stops because using too much CPU/RAM does not "pollute" the rest of the machine and create memory corruption or whatever)
Ecologists are also concerned with outsourced manufacturing. Not every ecologist is a caricature of a Silicon Valley engineer who says we'll save the planet by buying Tesla cars and building solar plants. In fact, 100% of the ecologists i know (who are actually involved in activism) will say that those people are not ecologists but merely green-washing.
I think AI falls into the second category. Even the most optimistic interpretations of AI, such as in Asimov, are very totalitarian. They're only positive because AI is automating away human work to create more resource/financial equality between people. In our real world though, AI is just as totalitarian, but there's not a single glimmer of hope that it will be used to better share resources. That sounds more political than technical.
I'm not saying energy consumption overall is a perfect metrics, but the degrowth movement is a philosophy / science that's not aligned on a specific metrics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth
- LLMs give users more knowledge (debatable due to hallucinations and selection bias)
- having more data/knowledge means more power and therefore less authority / power imbalance (that was an argument for the Internet and social media, but it turned out exactly the other way around)
Both of these arguments is dubious, but somewhat reasonable, but requiring both to be true to achieve any form of net positive is a hard sell. That, plus as Al Khatib argues, AI is about taking away autonomy from the people. Beyond the cognitive studies about LLM impacts on our brains, having someone/thing else decide for you is decidedly incompatible with anti-authoritarian politics (autonomy vs heteronomy).