socrates

joined 4 days ago
[–] socrates@slrpnk.net 3 points 14 hours ago

All things considered our species is doing relatively well. Having the ability to assign purpose and use tools does cause us to get stuck in a stupid rut all too often, though.

I can't fathom why a person would willingly use corpospeak. I can't imagine anyone actually likes to speak that way.

I would invite the reader to always call it out when it occurs, and call for all involved parties to speak plain.

[–] socrates@slrpnk.net 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

There seems to be some kind of difference in the meaning of "political".

I offer the definition from the Oxford Dictionary:

adjective

relating to the government or public affairs of a country.

The idea that everyone deserves healthcare is itself political, it pertains to how a country should be run. It is also not a universal view; many people disagree that people do in fact deserve healthcare.

Luigi Mangione's act was indeed very political. It is an eruption of the view that all people in the USA deserve healthcare and that the private system is depriving people of this right.

[–] socrates@slrpnk.net 2 points 20 hours ago

We must remember that data centres don't consume energy on their own!

If your view is that large amounts of energy being spent on "AI" usage is unwise, and that its wasteful application should stop, talk about it! Be visible, be clear.

Don't let the current momentum stand.

[–] socrates@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

I agree with you. Perhaps more insistent messaging would be useful. A pin, maybe?

 

Of course, organisations that directly act to facilitate these effects are acting against the interest of humankind. Even still, they can only do so because the public give them permission to do it.

"AI" (LLMs, CNNs, deep learning and all the hype around them) supplanting much of genuine thought, burning fuel polluting the atmosphere and heating the world, privacy being encroached upon by invasive tracking, censorship and sterilization of the internet. I argue that these things happen because individual consumers (that is, the vast majority of people) permit them to happen. Companies generally act to maximise profit, but can only ever earn revenue if people are buying. And when a person buys a product, they vote with their wallet that they are OK with that product and its making.

It is usually easiest to go with the flow. To buy cage eggs because they are $3 cheaper than free range. It just makes economic sense. I argue that we should never do this. We must only ever buy the option that fits our ethical minimum, even at a higher cost.

One might consider that many people can't afford the "ethical" product, and will need to fall back on the cheaper option. I argue that they should go without. I have, in recent history, been in a position where I couldn't afford the classical weekly shop. I could have saved good money by buying cage eggs. Still, either I buy free range, or I go without and substitute with something else.

There is always an alternative. Don't like Facebook? Start a blog website. Don't want those new AI features in your preferred app? Uninstall it and use one that fits your needs. If it comes down to it, learn how to make your own. Want to slow climate change? Be conscious of your energy use and burn less fuel - swap your car for a bike, use public transport if you can. EVs can be good, too.

Yes, it will be inconvenient. It might be painful. But isn't that worth proving that your own principles mean something? That you are more than a consumer?

For most of the people who can read this, we always have a choice. Having lived through the last decades, we have learned the effect of complacency. We now know better, and must choose better.