How can someone support them in good faith? I’ll focus on China, but here are some reasons:
For starters, I don’t believe that it’s possible to impose on a society from the outside to accept LGBTQ people. For example, making LGBTQ acceptance as a precondition on having good relations with China has literally 0% chance of improving life of LGBTQ people there. It’s more likely to backfire. On the other hand, having good relations, and allowing cultural exchange to happen naturally, can - and I think, over the last few decades before relations soured, has - improved LGBTQ acceptance there.
Also, amongst superpowers, China has a relatively good track record when in comes to using military force. They have had conflicts with neighboring countries, but it’s nothing compared to the wars the US or Russia (and USSR) have fought.
Finally (this one I don’t share, but I think it can be held in good faith), someone might not care about human rights all that much. For example, if you consider government-sponsored murders to be just the same as any other - not better, but also not worse - then even if you include Tienanmen Square and other murders by the government, the murder rate in China is still lower than most of the world.
No, that’s because social media is mostly used for informal communication, not scientific discourse.
I guarantee you that I would not use lemmy any differently if posts were authenticated with private keys than I do now when posts are authenticated by the user instance. And I’m sure most people are the same.
Edit: Also, people can already authenticate the source, by posting a direct link there. Signing wouldn’t really add that much to that.
I don’t understand how this will help deep fake and fake news.
Like, if this post was signed, you would know for sure it was indeed posted by @lily33@lemm.ee, and not by a malicious lemm.ee admin or hacker*. But the signature can’t really guarantee the truthfulness of the content. I could make a signed post that claiming that the Earth is flat - or a deep fake video of NASA’a administrator admitting so.
Maybe I’m missing your point?
(*) unless the hacker hacked me directly
Yes, I know about the exploitation that happened during early industrialization, and it was horrible. But if people had just rejected and banned factories back then, we’d still be living in feudalism.
I know that I don’t want to work a job that can be easily automated, but intentionally isn’t just so I can “have a purpose”.
What will happen if AI were to automate all jobs? In the most extreme case, where literally everyone lost their job, then nobody would be able to buy stuff, but also, no company would be able to sell products and make profit. Then, either capitalism would collapse - or more likely, it will adapt by implementing some mechanism such as UBI. Of course, the real effect of AI will not be quite that extreme, but it may well destabilize things.
That said, if you want to change the system, it’s exactly in periods of instability that can be done. So I’m not going to try to stop progress and cling to the status quo out of fear what those changes might be - and instead join a movement that tries to shape them.
we should at least regulate the tech.
Maybe. But generally on Lemmy I see sooo many articles about “Oh, no, AI bad”. But no good suggestions on what exactly regulations should we want.
This isn’t a well-controlled comparison.
It is. If you’re going to virtualize a board game, there’s no need to stick to the limitation of a physical board game. So, once you make full use of the virtual environment, you get a video game. If you compare to just virtualized board games, then you’re artificially disadvantaging the virtual side.
PS. I also added this significant edit to my last post (bad form for discussion, but it makes more sense there than here)
I think the point of the article is to show that the CEOs empty words are empty
Maybe. To me it read more like: “According to Zoom’s CEO, Zoom can’t fully replace in-person interaction for work. Therefore, it’s bad/useless software - or the CEO is bullshitting.” Which is just bad reasoning. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Maybe I’m just taking it too literally, but I just don’t like when articles use such bad reasoning, even if I agree with their conclusion.
I think the point of the article is to show that the CEOs empty words are empty
Maybe. To me it read more like: “According to Zoom’s CEO, Zoom can’t fully replace in-person interaction for work. Therefore, it’s bad/useless software - or the CEO is bullshitting.” Which is just bad reasoning. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Maybe I’m just taking it too literally, but I just don’t like when articles use such bad reasoning, even if I agree with their conclusion.
fail to account for spaces critical to trust-building such as water-cooler talk and outside of work events
What do you mean by that? If you are fully virtual there’s going to be no water cooler talk - but that’s a legitimate difference between in-person and virtual that should affect the results of the study. So it makes sense to me that the study shouldn’t try to control for that.
and fail to replicate virtual versions of predominantly in-person activities
I don’t think you can. Take for example board games as an in-person activity. The virtual replacement would be video games. A video game can do everything a board game can (with some exceptions) - but it can do so much more. So, purely from a game design perspective, video games would be much better. The main thing that video games don’t have, while board games do, is the in-person interaction. Yet, there’s plenty of people who play board games, but not video games. Clearly the in-person part is important.
The irony of the situation still seems distant to the CEO. According to the leaked meeting on August 3, Yuan told employees that Zoom the product does not allow Zoom the company to “build as much trust or be as innovative as in the office.”
Of course it doesn’t. It allows people to communicate remotely. But it’s not a 100% substitute for meeting people in person, and pretending otherwise would be stupid. Of course meeting in person builds more trust than video-chats. And discussions on a real whiteboard can be much more productive than on a video call, depending on the topic.
So why does it even exist
Why does the telephone exist? Zoom exists for the same reason. To let people talk remotely. It has some extra features a telephone doesn’t, but that’s it. It’s not supposed replace meeting other people.
Now,
- I totally think that in Zoom’s case, there’s no real reason to bring employees to the office, and this is just a corporate power play.
- I also think there’s no point for Zoom to exist when there are great open source alternatives.
But the particular argument this article lays out just makes no sense.
He’s a character in the best story ever written…
Why don’t you go to https://huggingface.co/chat/ and actually try to get the llama-2 model to generate a sentence with the n-word?
Some regulation proposals seem fine to me, like the proposed EU AI act.
But for some of the problems the article lists, like defamation or porn generation, you just can’t prevent if you have free and open models out there. You can make these things harder - and people already work on that - but if I have a free and open model, I can also change it (and remove restrictions).
The only way to stop those uses would be to keep AI tightly controlled in a walled garden. In capitalism, those walled gardens will belong to companies.
I don’t know, I’m much more concerned about the possibility that we develop huge automation capabilities that end up being controlled by very few people.
As for the specific issues in the article - yes, they’re real problems. But every advance in communication and information technology makes it easier to surveil or defame, and can be used for bad policing.
Right now there’s a push to regulate the internet to “prevent CSAM” by blocking encryption, and I’m afraid a push to regulate AI will not get better results.
Sure, we can ban predictive policing and demands some amounts of transparency (and the EU already wants to do that). But if we try to go further and impose restrictions on the AI models themselves, this will most likely solidify that AI is controlled by few powerful corporations. After all, highly regulated models by definition can’t be free and open.
Spoken like they’re no longer effective on the other platforms.