Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LuciferX

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 145
31
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: February 09, 2017, 01:24:31 am »
Two groups of aliens turn the cold war hot, circumventing their own non-aggression treaties by dumping exotic alien weapons on human nations without training. The story follows human strategic skunkworks teams examining the weapons and determining scalable guidelines for their use in warfare -- important because the mechanisms & tradeoffs used by these weapons are wholly unlike conventional earth weapons.
Skynet is having trouble establishing its 1.0 version of civilization on planet Earth.  Nothing serious, just that all the "off the shelf" technologies it uses to perform its task are meant to work on any planet with complex life-forms, meaning that the tech must be trained to fully interface with any particular system.  A "last mile" of sorts that connects it directly to the electrical firing patterns of any nervous system.  Like a factory prosthetic needs to learn a users particular patterns in order to work.  Our current state of political affairs then represents a step in this training process, to learn how to correct our situation from the anamoulous position we find ourselves in.  Like learning how to drive a car (competitively) by finding the minimum turn radius possible at high velocity, edge finding, and correcting tragectory after losing controll.  Essentially a test to ensure that the system can regain controll in difficult situations, also training for perfect fit.

Distrikct 9 ist keine originelle Idee

32
While it seems like an insurmountable task to persuade people to care about objectivity and information quality, it turns out that the techniques used to provide customized search results are the same ones that allow for mass surveillance on the internet. A nice side effect of becoming more anonymous online is that you'll also get much less of this targeted information. So maybe a push toward making people paranoid would help in releasing people from (some of) this echo chamber phenomenon.

Yea, but the paranoia would only work tangentially.  A subject thereof (paranoid agent) would receive less target results, however the operant intention is usually to evade detection.  Release from the echo chamber may temporarily break the spell of confirmation bias, however it does not ensure that the subject will take information objectivity-quality to heart.  I'm thinking...  If instead there was a way to challenge subjects core identity, then they listen.  So, the trick would be to show people that by manipulating their search results, you can manipulate their actions, get them to do something they would not otherwise have done.

Targeted results stop you from acting freely.

Some kind of undeniable "before and after" snapshot probably needs to be presented to subject or they will insist ad nauseum that it was their idea all along.

33


So, like, ethically, I wonder what would be sufficient to prove his argument is sound...
:barstool:
?

Not very much. Most likely, little more than the minimal academic rigor of a person attempting to measure the efficacy of a single treatment differential. If he has that level of academic rigor, which seems sadly unlikely.

Well, then science should shift the burden of proof upon itself and make him the subject of an experiment to test his hypothesis.

34


So, like, ethically, I wonder what would be sufficient to prove his argument is sound...
:barstool:
?

35
Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: February 07, 2017, 07:09:51 am »
 Brains are our daily bread.

36
Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: February 07, 2017, 02:57:19 am »
The apocalypse was somewhat metaphysical.

37
Me, I'm hunting reptlicants.

38
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: February 06, 2017, 10:03:55 pm »
International tensions reach a crisis point when a wayward American fighter jet is shot down by an Iranian squadron. Cooler heads try and fail to deescalate the response from a trigger-happy executive, who has been itching for any excuse to show the world -- and an increasingly unhappy American public -- the full force of the US military. To the nauseating shock of everyone in the room, the President orders a direct strike against several Iranian locations, including Tehran itself, not with conventional weapons but with low-yield tactical nuclear missiles. Fearing for the future of America and indeed all of humanity, the Joint Chiefs of Staff quickly attempt to oust the President, but their plan is foiled and the missiles are launched. The world watches in horror as two million Iranians are vaporized on live television. The remnants of the Iranian military call in their sleeper cells in the US, unleashing a flurry of suicide bombings across the country over the next 24 hours, killing thousands. Against the strained exhortation of literally every adviser, the President orders a full-scale retaliation with ICBMs, intending to turn the Persians to glass. Missiles are launched for their 15-20 minute flight time the whole planet goes silent and numb.

The warheads fall toward Iranian cities as expected, but rather than detonating, they clunk through roofs and onto ancient streets, cold and useless. There had apparently been a flaw in a testing routine used in all modern American multiple-warhead ICBMs, which had only ever been tested in computers on account of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. With the lion's teeth excised in human history's most embarrassing military blunder, America's vulnerabilities are exposed. Within thirty minutes, a thousand Russian and Chinese missiles are sailing though the stratosphere.
I like the imagery.  To save face, America orders second launch, with a cargo payload containing plans to build S9G reactors that can run on non-ballistic level nuclear fuel.  World enjoys 30 years of free energy, reducing international tensions and clearing way to lasting world-peace.

39
As a precedent, in entertainment, food and drugs, we do have federal regulation advisors.  It's difficult for me to envision for the Internet tho w.r.t. how those regulations end up serving political agendas operating under the premise that people ought to be informed in a way that serves their ("correct") particular point of view.  If Entity made a browser that would filter Internet content according to a rating system, I would only trust using it if I thought it had my actual best interests in mind, as opposed to simply confirming my bias (not the easiest distinction to make).  Ironically, the scaffolding might have to use AI to cross-reference the validity (Truth-Value?) of content at a viable pace w.r.t. the rate at which it is generated.  Otherwise, tweaking search results to reveal the hall of mirrors would probably infringe upon a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, among other things.  I must admit that there is something I prefer about that last option, however it's execution is not as clear as a rating system.


40
Yes. Yes, they are.

https://www.splcenter.org/20170118/google-and-miseducation-dylann-roof

This article highlights one of the many problems with Google search ranking, and the way the site uses preferential ranking to show you results it thinks you will "like" based on what sites you spend the most time on -- it reinforces whatever the user already believes, exacerbating confirmation bias. This is why, when debating people about certain topics, it often appears as if they literally exist in a different world with different facts. Google is helping to polarize public opinion on controversial topics.

I think that search engine customization is, potentially, going to continue to widen social gaps and badly needs to be regulated. If you think about it, it means that the primary gateway to information for all Americans is being selectively censored - soft censoring via result ranking, but censored nonetheless - per individual. The censorship is naturally going to fall along socioeconomic lines. That means, literally, that the information Google presents a poor black user will be qualitatively different from the information Google presents a wealthy white user.

Search results are customized based on past searches and the time spent on web pages. Therefore, customized search results are tailored to an individual's previous exposure to websites. The filtering is not purposely based on race or class, but the natural net effect is the same as if it were. Essentially, someone who reads about alternative medicine will get more alternative medicine websites, and when they search a topic, those websites will be prioritized in their search results. Over time, the cumulative effect will be that they are less likely to be exposed to consensus science and medicine, and may even be functionally unable to find articles that offer science-based views because their results are so heavily weighted toward woo. A black person is more likely to gravitate toward articles, and therefore sites, that support their perspective. Likewise with a white person, as exemplified by Dylann Roof in the linked article. The net result is that individual customization of search results reinforces and even creates polarization around ideas and values.  In my opinion, this is profoundly unethical, harmful, and a threat to social stability.

Ethically difficult question.  Once previous results start informing the things for which I search, then it is difficult for me to hold Entity culpable of providing me with what I want.  Would have to raise question to second order: is this really what I want to want?  Then polemic becomes similar to that of addiction.  Should I be free to engage in an activity that may prevent me from thinking/acting freely?  At first glance it may seem logically unethical/irrational to support such contradiction.  The problem is that most are not willing to accept that they may engage in an activity that robs them of their ability to do otherwise.  In particular when the mechanism is such that the subject is made to believe that they formulated and reinforced the point of view for themselves, they will take their bias very seriously.  A wrong idea that nonetheless confirms that bias will be held in higher esteem than any incongruent truth.  Unfortunately this kind of understanding usually requires experiencing something like Trump becoming President of the United States.

I can't tell if this is satire, or actual philosophical masturbation. If the latter, you left out consent.
Consent would require discernment, which my penis insists would not necessarily result in satire.

41
Yes. Yes, they are.

https://www.splcenter.org/20170118/google-and-miseducation-dylann-roof

This article highlights one of the many problems with Google search ranking, and the way the site uses preferential ranking to show you results it thinks you will "like" based on what sites you spend the most time on -- it reinforces whatever the user already believes, exacerbating confirmation bias. This is why, when debating people about certain topics, it often appears as if they literally exist in a different world with different facts. Google is helping to polarize public opinion on controversial topics.

I think that search engine customization is, potentially, going to continue to widen social gaps and badly needs to be regulated. If you think about it, it means that the primary gateway to information for all Americans is being selectively censored - soft censoring via result ranking, but censored nonetheless - per individual. The censorship is naturally going to fall along socioeconomic lines. That means, literally, that the information Google presents a poor black user will be qualitatively different from the information Google presents a wealthy white user.

Search results are customized based on past searches and the time spent on web pages. Therefore, customized search results are tailored to an individual's previous exposure to websites. The filtering is not purposely based on race or class, but the natural net effect is the same as if it were. Essentially, someone who reads about alternative medicine will get more alternative medicine websites, and when they search a topic, those websites will be prioritized in their search results. Over time, the cumulative effect will be that they are less likely to be exposed to consensus science and medicine, and may even be functionally unable to find articles that offer science-based views because their results are so heavily weighted toward woo. A black person is more likely to gravitate toward articles, and therefore sites, that support their perspective. Likewise with a white person, as exemplified by Dylann Roof in the linked article. The net result is that individual customization of search results reinforces and even creates polarization around ideas and values.  In my opinion, this is profoundly unethical, harmful, and a threat to social stability.

Ethically difficult question.  Once previous results start informing the things for which I search, then it is difficult for me to hold Entity culpable of providing me with what I want.  Would have to raise question to second order: is this really what I want to want?  Then polemic becomes similar to that of addiction.  Should I be free to engage in an activity that may prevent me from thinking/acting freely?  At first glance it may seem logically unethical/irrational to support such contradiction.  The problem is that most are not willing to accept that they may engage in an activity that robs them of their ability to do otherwise.  In particular when the mechanism is such that the subject is made to believe that they formulated and reinforced the point of view for themselves, they will take their bias very seriously.  A wrong idea that nonetheless confirms that bias will be held in higher esteem than any incongruent truth.  Unfortunately this kind of understanding usually requires experiencing something like Trump becoming President of the United States.

42
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Hi's Mus Sc
« on: January 26, 2017, 08:07:44 pm »
Happy birthday!

43
Ballistic accuracy finally on par with actionable moment-by-moment news-sourced coverage.

44
How does the President intend to overcome Zeno's Paradox to make credible the threat of use of our nuclear missile systems?

Does the president have the grasp of infinitesimals handy?

45
Literate Chaotic / Re: The Foxhole With The Atheist
« on: January 20, 2017, 07:03:55 am »
This was good writing why did it confuse everyone?

I have wondered that myself.

Me three.  Made me thinks of Abraham vs, Son viz. Kierkegaard:
Quote
Like the terms “aesthetic” and “religious”, the term “ethics” in Kierkegaard’s work has more than one meaning. It is used to denote both: (i) a limited existential sphere, or stage, which is superseded by the higher stage of the religious life; and (ii) an aspect of life which is retained even within the religious life. In the first sense “ethics” is synonymous with the Hegelian notion of Sittlichkeit, or customary mores. In this sense “ethics” represents “the universal”, or more accurately the prevailing social norms. These social norms are used as reasons to make sense of, or justify, an action within a community. Even human sacrifice is justified in terms of how it serves the community, so that when Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia he is regarded as a tragic hero since his community understands that the sacrifice is required by the gods for the success of the Greek expedition to Troy (Fear and Trembling).

Kierkegaard, however, recognizes duties that cannot be justified in terms of social norms. Much of Fear and Trembling turns on the notion that Abraham’s would-be sacrifice of his son Isaac is ineffable in terms of social norms, and requires a “teleological suspension of the ethical”. That is, Abraham recognizes a duty to something higher than both his social duty not to kill an innocent person and his personal commitment to his beloved son, viz. his duty to obey God’s commands. However, he cannot give an intelligible ethical justification of his act to the community in terms of social norms, but must simply obey the divine command.

But in order to arrive at a position of religious faith, which might entail a “teleological suspension of the ethical”, the individual must first embrace the ethical (in the first sense). In order to raise oneself beyond the merely aesthetic life, which is a life of drifting in imagination, possibility and sensation, one needs to make a commitment. That is, the aesthete needs to choose the ethical, which entails a commitment to communication and decision procedures.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Eth

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 145