As an programmer, I want to think out loud about possible technical solutions.
I would have kept the understandable / hand-made algorithm as the core of search results. If you want to do fancy machine learning, do it on the periphery and we can include the machine output in our algorithm and weight its importance by hand. This would allow us to back out of the decision, because we could lower the weight of the machine learning output as needed.
It sounds like Google jumped strait to including the machine learning in the core algorithm though, and now with a decade of complexity in the core algorithm they are no longer able to go back without huge effort.
In general, it's important to consider "is this a decision we can easily back out of?".
Recommend people vote for Democrats (sounds like no).
Recommend people vote for Republicans.
Recommend people vote for third-parties or not vote at all.
These are the only 3 possibilities. Which are you?
For example, if you believe that Republicans are better for LGBT issues, then I want to hear you say it: "I think Republicans are better on LGBT issues". I have my own opinion on this which I will keep to myself, I really just want you to be clear about your view and then let everyone judge for themselves what they think is right.
The only thing I have a problem with is your "never vote Democrat" rule. You do you, but I believe voting in a way that will most help LGBT people, and most help women's reproductive rights, etc--I believe that if you want to cast votes that most support those causes, it will sometimes require voting for a Democrat.
I can understand your frustration. I currently feel that way towards a certain political party, but I have to keep an open mind because things change.
For example, I don't doubt what you said Democrats was true in past decades, but today I believe the Democrats are more friendly towards LGBT rights than Republicans are. It appears things have changed on those specific issues.
Maybe we wont agree, but let's at lets at least find clarity: Do you believe Republicans or Democrats are currently more friendly towards LGBT people?
The people are helpless lemming that mindlessly follow the algorithm, am I right?
Is free speech a moral principle we believe in? I know the Constitution doesn't apply to everyone in the world, which is why I'm asking whether we believe in it morally, not legally.
If China really is using TikTok for psyops, then they will refused to sell, flood TikTok with anti-government sentiment for its remaining days, and then direct people to just use the TikTok website hosted in China (is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).
One silver line here is "the youths" will learn, in an unusually clear way, that the government effects their lives and can screw up their lives.
Outlawing it is a very dangerous aim, because outlawing it completely will enable other countries to out-compete us, and a outlawing it completely is right next to "outlaw it for normal people, but allow companies to exploit it for profit" on the dart board of possibilities.
Better path all around is "allow everyone to use AI and establish strong social safety nets and move towards enabling people to work less".
Let me plug Counter Points, a favorite political show of mine.
They recently talked about FTC Chair Lina Khan and Apple's monopoly, the government's anti-trust lawsuit against Apple, and monopolies in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMyChnACLKQ
It's tangential, but it came to mind.
If the cable companies want lawsuits, let's give them what they want in the form of anti-trust lawsuits and break them up.
This is low hanging fruit and should happen. All devices should cryptographically sign the video and audio they record. It's not fool proof, a state actor could probably extract the keys and forge a signature, but it would be better than nothing.
Each device should have its own key. It's quite difficult to hack a phone, possibly disassembling it, extract the private key from hardware, reassemble the phone, and then forge a signature on fake video. Yeah, it could happen, but if it's a serious issue the court can inspect the phone the video allegedly came from and at least for normal people, they aren't going to be able to forge a signed video.
If we get serious about this devices could have security hardware that is difficult for even state-level actors to break.
As others have said, people will still believe what they want though. With or without fake videos and even with and without evidence.
For a lot of people, either they accept "this trillion dollar corporation that controls all my computers, and the programming languages I use, and my code editor, is evil". Or they accept "this trillion dollar company does lots of good things for me and is good".
Buttons @ Buttons @programming.dev Posts 7Comments 359Joined 2 yr. ago
As an programmer, I want to think out loud about possible technical solutions.
I would have kept the understandable / hand-made algorithm as the core of search results. If you want to do fancy machine learning, do it on the periphery and we can include the machine output in our algorithm and weight its importance by hand. This would allow us to back out of the decision, because we could lower the weight of the machine learning output as needed.
It sounds like Google jumped strait to including the machine learning in the core algorithm though, and now with a decade of complexity in the core algorithm they are no longer able to go back without huge effort.
In general, it's important to consider "is this a decision we can easily back out of?".