Good point - its not a previously inexistent mechanism - but AI leverages it even more. A russian troll can put out 10x more content with automation. Genuine counter-movements (e.g. grassroot preferences) might not be as leveraged, causing the system to be more heavily influenced by the clearly pursued goals (which are often malicious)
It's not only about efficiency. When AI is utilized, things can become more personal and even more persuasive. If AI psychosis exists, it can be easy for untrained minds to succumb to these schemes.
You can't easily apply natural selection to social topics. Also, even staying in that mindframe: Being vulnerable to AI psychosis doesn't seem to be much of a selection pressure, because people usually don't die from it, and can have children before it shows, and also with it. Non-AI psychosis also still exists after thousands of years.
Even if AI psychosis doesn’t present selection pressure (I don’t think there’s a way to know a priori), I highly doubt it presents an existential risk to the human gene pool. Do you think it does?
In this context grass roots would imply the interests of a group of common people in a democracy (as opposed to the interests of a small group of elites) which ostensibly is the point.
"The interests of the common people" is a very dangerous collection of weasel words. The whole damn point of democracy is realizing that you cannot just delegate power to 'better people' and expect them to rule in interest of the common people. Because that is basically exactly what royalists were promising!
I think it is more useful to think of “common people” and “the elites” not as separate categories but rather than phases on a spectrum, especially when you consider very specific interests.
I have some shared interested with “the common people” and some with “the elites”.
Finally someone who understands me. Whatever becomes measurable, becomes controllable, which is the antidote to freedom, wildness, life (to some extent)..
My favorite Samuel Delany story is about a woman in a village who invents writing, and teaches it to all the children. She makes a rule that you're never allowed to write down people's names, as it will inevitably lead to keeping records comparing people, and thus leading to strife...
I believe it's in Tales of Neveryon, 'the tale of old venn.' The whole series is extremely incentive and goes on some very different directions... The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals in 'Flight from Neveryon' was also particularly mind blowing.
Being able to have simplicity of working on a task until it is done when society didn't have these per hour scheduling concepts. I remember hearing this referenced when learning about Amish and Native American cultures. Essentially, this is what were doing. When it is finished, we move on to next. No arbitrary start/stop time because some hand on a dial is pointing at a certain number.
Just a question how content is produced & ingested.
Utopian fantasy: interact with the ai - novel findings are registered as such and "saved" and made available to others.
Creative ideas are registered as such, if possible, theyre tested in "side quests" ie the ai asks - do you have 5min to try this? You unblock yourself if it works & see in the future how many others profited as well (3k people read this finding).
I did a 10 day insight-meditation retreat and experienced how pain is triggered by the mind first hand.
This is impressive to me and id be curious what your perspective is
Its like trying to ban cars to stay with horse cariages. The wheels of time wont be turned back. Imo the issue is not Smartphones but addicting UX patterns implemented - those should be banned. Its possible to make Smartphone usage non addictive - add friction to "candy" eg uninstall social media apps (use web only) use a quiet launcher (no app icons), remove all notifications except emergency ones etc.
Replacing stable, working "low-tech" solutions with less user-friendly, unstable "high-tech" approaches is not "progress"!
Just because something is newer doesn't mean it's better. Obviously, the reverse is also true, but there is so much tech naiveté going around that this needs saying repeatedly. We'd have saved our society a lot of trouble if we'd first thought about draw-backs of new technology, before hooking everything in our lives up to it.
We're talking about different things here I think. What does phones and apps being addictive have to to do with the fact that a parking lot requires me to install an app to park my car or charge my car? There are a million other issues here than addictive apps. The internet connection could be down, he backend of the app could be down, etc. This shouldn't stop people from being able to use an important service like parking, charging, refueling, transportation, etc. You should be able to slot in some coins in a machine, get a paper ticket out, and that's it, you're in.
>The wheels of time wont be turned back.
They can be turned back by laws if the direction they've been turning by the unregulated free market lead us to a bad place that's discriminatory and causing misery to consumers, especially for critical services.
We've been able to park and refuel cars fast and efficient for decades with no issues before apps and smartphones. Not all progress is good progress. Sometimes progress is just for the sake of cutting corners to increase profits for businesses at the expense of consumers. I don't want an "Bezos-fication" or "Musk-fication" of essential services.
Same for cars - you require a global functioning gas supply network to work & deliver gas nearby, it consists of 10k parts produced over the globe - a single pandemic can wipe everything out. Thats why I prefer a horse. Theres always gras nearby.
I also hate apps for everything & want us to be free & have a simple world & life - I love the terminal & its 55 years old.. yeah, we have much in common friend
