952
Wish in one hand (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 4 months ago (40 children)

We totally can. It's just difficult to get past that some people want more than others even if that means harming them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (33 children)

    Some people take joy in hurting others. I have no faith that we can fix that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (32 children)

    Fix? Not without some eugenics (traditional or modern). Mitigate? We can definitely mitigate it. There was a study recently that showed that it's not really the punishment for a crime that dieters people, it's the probability they will or won't get caught that's the primary factor. So for instance if there's a 98% chance they will get caught people are unlikely to commit the crime and if there is a 5% chance they will be caught they are much more likely to commit the crime even if the punishment is extremely harsh. There's of course a balancing act between personal freedoms and privacy and the ability to catch people aka the more privacy people have the more difficult it is to catch crime and generally the less privacy (and ability to parse large sums of data) the easier it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (31 children)

    Eugenics, yeah, cool. Love it.

    Laws aren't a tool for preventing bad outcomes, and if you think they're the primary tool you are not a serious person and will not create a functional society.

    You would rather change what humanity is on a biological level than fucking acknowledge that existing power structures are nonsense and horrible?

    I would ask what drugs you're on, but since monday I've been on or around people who were on acid molly coke meth weed severe head trauma alcohol none of their prescribed antipsychotics dilotted and some rich people designer bullshit that's just strings of letters and numbers I can never remember. None of it made any of them this deranged.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (9 children)

    In case you haven't been paying attention, it would seem on average a solid third to half of all humans are just inherently fascist. Until they're gone you will inevitably end up with a fascist society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

    'Inherently'

    That's bullshit. They're no more inherently fascist than they are inherently Christian, and not all fascists are or were eugenicists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

    Far right populist fascism is on the rise literally everywhere and has some or all control of what, like half the first world governments? More of the rest. And you don't think that's evidence of an issue?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    Is that what I said?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (5 children)

    Are you going to argue that the public has no agency and it's only the people running things that are fascist? Because that's dumb as fuck in representative democracies where the people largely choose their representation and guess fuckin what? They keep choosing fucking fascists. That makes them fuckin fascists. You following along now or do I need to use smaller words so you can follow A to B? Is nobody capable of fuckin abstract thought anymore? Why would fascism be on the rise? Because there's a lot of fuckin fascists and they vote. Gah.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    What do you think the word 'inherently' means?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    What's your fuckin hangup here? Not familiar with literally any fuckin history whatsoever? Fascism is the fuckin default you walnut. And I was being generous, it's closer to half and most of the rest would look the other way while those fascists kill people like me. Fuck your faux intellectualism, you just come off like a smug cunt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    What do you think the word 'inherently' means?

    I am a smug cunt. My user name is a reference to a fucking painting. The question stands.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Who the fuck mentioned your user name? I'm taking about your ignorant attempt at a gotcha over semantic bullshit because you don't have a legitimate rebuttal to a third of the population being inherently fascist.

    Oh fuck you're a seven day old account, fucking ml sock puppets should be banned. I'm arguing with a propaganda bot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (20 children)

    I mean we've already started modern eugenics with gene therapies to cure genetic diseases and soon there will be services offering designer babies not unlike the movie Gattaca. Why would you not want to have your child's IQ increased 20 points along with removing their asthma and near sightedness?

    There's no political system devoid of corruption and people willing to harm others to get what they want. We can prevent a lot of crime but we're not preventing human behavior anytime soon. I mean we can but we won't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (19 children)

    'Prevent crime'

    What is crime? How does it relate to undesirable outcomes? Why do you think laws, just threatening people and public punishment and awfulnes, are a good tool for anything you want?

    Not even going to start on the 'eugenics'. You get that gattaca was not a "we should do this!" Movie, right? Jesus buckets of frothy diarrhea Christ are you from fucking San Francisco or some shit?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (18 children)

    It's not always a crime necessarily but harming people to get what one wants is usually a crime. As for constraining human behavior there's really only two tools, benefit the behaviors you want and punish the ones you don't want. People will obviously be self interested and will sometimes cause a lot of harm to get what they want but they wouldn't if they knew for a fact they would be caught and punished. It's more so the likelihood of being caught than the punishment that's actually the deterrent. You can have an extreme punishment for something but if it's unlikely someone will be caught then they will take their chances. Downside is with a higher rate of catching bad behaviors we diminish privacy. An extreme would everyone being watched and recorded 24/7 would make it trivial to catch any bad behavior or crime but there would be zero privacy.

    As for Gattaca,. I think it's more so that they used it to differentiate society into two groups where one was treated very poorly more so than the gene editing itself being the issue. For sure we will cure genetic diseases and then move into grey area stuff like giving people perfect eyesight and so on. I think it'll be far too tempering to make designer babies though, higher IQ, better looking (subjective), better physique, better health and so on. Of course anyone who's ever bred animals knows you can breed them to constrain their behavior so one could theoretically alter humanity to be more compassionate and less of a jerk to itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (17 children)

    The idea of making the behaviors you want easier, the outcomes you want more likely to happen, just does not occur. Like, if you want less reckless driving, make it less necessary or convenient to drive.

    You realize punishment is harm, right?

    You understand nothing

    I'm really not interested in your extremely remedial analysis. I am aware of the various philosophies of law. The idea of making the outcome you want easier just does not occur.

    It's all about proximal causes and assigning ultimate responsibility to a person you assume must be evil and not helping them to do what you want even when its something that's usually a function of recklessness irresponsibility or incompetence but just hurting people until the world is better.

    The violently incurious crescendo of dunning-kruger that you would take out on others is absolutely disgusting. Everything you've said here is violently stupid, literally violently. Never stop posting. Not for a moment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (16 children)

    I was more so getting at a scenario like The Giver where humanity modifies itself to be more peaceful with itself more than what you're getting at. Of course maybe not to such an extreme like the giver. Anyways I think we could have a better conversation without the name calling but to each their own I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    You get that 'the giver' is a dystopia, right? Of fucking course you don't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Where is he condoning these things or implying he doesn't understand the things he's describing? Reading comprehension bro.

    Edit - oh he condoned it in the next comment. Yeah that's stupid. He's not wrong about gene therapy bring socially accepted eugenics though. Hell even genetic testing for pregnancies is eugenics if it results in terminating pregnancies due to various conditions. I don't think anyone would argue in good faith that's a bad thing though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Yep, I read real good. Its a curse.

    There are genuine uses and perils, but this ass clown has never met a torment nexus he didn't feel a compulsion to stick his dick in, and that's exactly the kind of person, aside from Nazis, who's a case for us not being grown-up enough as a culture to touch that technology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (11 children)

    I'm not saying we should make it identical but honestly we could just make humans more compassionate and more apprehensive to causing harm if we wanted. It's like the Gattaca example, I'm not saying we should straight up duplicate the story one to one. With AI we essentially have parlor walls like fahrenheit 451 but does that mean reality is now exactly like the plot of fahrenheit 451? You can take an idea from somewhere without being forced to duplicate everything about the source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (10 children)

    Okay but you get some of these things are like the core of the dystopianness?

    Like reading diamond age and doing the 'let's make a pure ai kids toy!' Or 'I want a skull gun!' Instead of any of the cool parts, when the book is exactly about how 'this is dangerous/stupid/fundamentally evil/would suck'. You're from the bay area, or work in tech. You have to be.

    Also, we do not have parlor walls. How does someone get to be this stupid-evil and this confident in being stupid-evil? Like have you ever seen a torment nexus you didn't want to stick your dick in?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (9 children)

    I mean yeah a lot of ideas can be used to cause a lot of needless and avoidable suffering instead of preventing it which is what I think the actual thing is we want to avoid. Like in Gattaca it wasn't the gene editing that was the issue it was the dehumanization of a group that was the issue, unless they were editing themselves to be less compassionate but that's not in the plot. Once again I think we can talk without the name calling, I'm not being mean or rude to you personally and I would appreciate you having the same decency but you're free to do what you want. I guess I could say where I'm from and then you could just deny it. As for parlor walls, just get a few AI agents with an avatar playing out a plot you can interact with and it's essentially the same thing. Use a projector I guess and you got your wall.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (8 children)

    You're being extremely offensive and everything you believe is confidently wrong and repulsive. Using nice words to advocate eugenics and polydystopia is not civil. Thoughtless speech and confident stupidity are offensive to everyone who's ever fucking studied a god damn thing. Fuck off with your tone policing.

    You do not know what the fuck you're talking about. That's not even what an "ai agent" claims to be. Please never try to interact with the real world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Like I said you're free to say whatever you want. There's no harm in me asking for a mutually polite discussion. I don't agree with your synopsis of what you think I think and that's also fine. Put firmly the goal is to decrease needless and avoidable suffering for as many people as possible whether that's with policy or technology. For example, if we can end starvation then we should. We can today, we simply find justification not to. I'm not claiming that's what an AI is but it can be used as such, it's functionally identical if one sets it up that way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    It can't be used to solve world hunger, that's nonsense. We already produce more than twice enough food to feed the world (this will be changing drastically very soon, climate change you know) but since it'll spoil before it can get to most of the people what with the lack of roads and infrastructure there's no realistic way to do it that wouldn't be cartoonishly expensive. Also, that's not how AI works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Wait what do you mean by it? Oh AI. I guess that's my bad for not adding a paragraph. I was saying AI can functionally be used like a parlor wall if someone wanted. As for hunger I was saying we humans can choose to solve world hunger, we choose not to. Also I never said it was a food production issue. You're right that we definitely produce enough food for everyone yet there's still starvation. It's moreso a logistics issue as you pointed out and it's not as simple as just sending food as that will ultimately have harmful effects on the local economy. You're right that climate change is an issue and by this point we're far past solving it by simply changing our behavior, technology will be needed and likely some degree of geo engineering. Worse case scenario we should be planning for a full collapse of the biosphere now. The technology we need for space colonies is about what would be necessary to continue surviving outside of nature just minus the structure and protection from collisions or radiation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    You are not being civil. If I say

    hey there buddy, i noticed youve got adorable kids there. I'm gonna kidnap them and lock them in with my state's congressmen and a bucket of lube for a few days. Then I'm gonna visit you and make sure your body has the right number of holes. We probably disagree about what that is, but I think we can come to a compromise in the mid double digits! Compromise! Civility!

    I would not call that civility, I would call that disgusting and gross as well as violent and offensive. That's what you sound like. That's what everything out of your vile fucking mouth sounds like to any thinking human being. Content matters as much as form, and yours is always without exception violently ignorant to an offensive and dehumanizing degree.

    Also, literally nothing works like or is what you think it is. You are wrong. This is a blanket statement. You are wrong. About every single god damnthing so far. Its like you're ontologically wrong. Like a wizard conjured up a dunning-kruger elemental. Fuck off back to San Francisco, finish your mba at Stanford, and fuck off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    I don't agree with you which is fine. Also for the record, I'm not from nor have I ever lived in San Francisco but you're free to believe whatever makes you comfortable. I think you have some other version of my ideas. Like we're not even really having a discussion, it's more so you're battling with what you think I am saying than us actually having discourse. Anyways, seems like you're going to keep being unpleasant so I'm exiting the discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    They are a troll. Don't engage. They are looking for a fight, just like with me the other day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I appreciate the message. Yeah I was just curious how long it would go but I got tired.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I did the same. Tried my very best to discuss in good faith but they were just being insulting and falsely accusative. I called them a troll and asked them not to reply again. It worked. 😆

    I imagine they have ADHD and also poop shit that smells like holier-than-thou roses and sunshine, and they pick fights with people until they get bored or think they "won" and just move on to the next target/victim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

    I'm not even against some people having a little more or less. Some people genuinely like subsistence farming and singing in the town choir and chilling in the woods. Some people like gaming computers or kayaks or rock climbing. Some people like cocaine, or rockets, or super computers. That's all fine. You don't need to push a rocket powered super computing gaming yacht on the peasantry fetishist. They don't want that and will not appreciate you for it.

    Its the hoarding and bullshit I can't with. The inefficiency. The having so much at the expense of more existing. The militarized bullshit to keep the inequalities and inefficiencies. The arrangement of the entire world around them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children)

    No real notes except I kinda dream of combining your first two examples into one lifestyle, I dunno if that's even really a thing but...

    ...I mean, also, like, if you can run fiber optic cables along the ocean floor, you should be able to run them into the woods.

    I dunno. An honest simple life aligned with nature and enjoying computers should be a thing. Nat Geo explorers and people that run solar powered websites off of Pis and stuff know what I'm talking about lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    I've gamed on a secret weed farm deeeep in the woods. The networking is a little iffy sometimes, but even with our current infrastructure it can be done. We had an electric water heater, TV, full kitchen, and game consoles, half an hour's hard hike and half an hour's drive to the general store in summer (more complex in winter), a couple hours to the nearest town. Latency spikes happened, weather happened, but the internet was there. We never had to go out for fruit or veggies, but didn't grow our own grains/carbs, and didn't have any meat/dairy animals.

    You don't need to live by a script. Figure out the life you want. As long as it doesn't fuck with anyone else, you deserve it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    For sure money has departed from actual real world value essentially from the moment it was created and people ought to be compensated for the value they actually create and of course taxed for the value they take from society. It's kinda the same issue with climate change, if things actually cost what they truly cost the problem would fix itself over night. The issue is we externalize the cost to the environment, to the poor, and to our future so we don't have to pay it today.

    With actually correct value being represented by money and goods and services actually having their true cost that would mostly solve everything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    'Compensated'.

    What if their work was its own reward? Like if you want a smart grid, you build one, or check in with the people building one and ask how to help, and if private property is abolished, you just build shit for everybody, or everybody it's convenient to build for? So you can't really hoard shit. You can only inspire and build for everyone?

    Or if you want more houses because you're sick of sleeping outside or hate the streets being full of tents or want your dumbass 23 year old to move out finally please, you go learn about construction, or hook up with your local construction club/crew? If nobody owns stuff that isn't meaningfully personally theirs, it gets much easier to do shit.

    The lady who runs the best construction crew and her friend who designs the most beautiful houses still get prestige for being standouts, they still get to feel awesome, just like the guy who throws those amazing parties, but there's not this huge bundled abstraction layer of bullshit.

    Its not like people want to do nothing, unless they're totally crushed by capitalism. Maybe the ways we do things change. We build more safely (or way less safely, hell yeah! Watch this!), or work shorter hours, or there's an air separated musicians cubicle in operating rooms for live dramatizations, it whatever sensible cool or insane shit we decide to do. You can't really argue we would make worse decisions than the ones currently governing us.

    You go through a lot of insane implausible contrivances to keep this 'money' system you admit has basically never not been extremely fucked up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent