Thinking for others ‘creates/has created’ the ‘toxicity/toxic environment’ we find ourselves in today.
–‘Thinking for/wanting to think for’ others, is a sign of wanting to dominate and control those people/the masses… but for and to, what end? —>
_ What will happen over time…
…the creation of weak-willed/weak-minded future generations to come, to be manipulated used and abused within the ‘hierarchy of [other people’s] needs/wants/whims’… as has been evident in the entertainment, corporate, youth-corps, social services, and institutional industries/sectors.
_ Thus spake the people, or not…
Those that require sheltering should obviously seek it… those that do not, should not be encouraged or forced to be turned into victims, but be self-sufficient individuals of capable means and not be penalised for being so.
–What happened to “The future is bright”, for it is more a “Dreary shade of pale”… no more ‘bright young things’, so more like ‘all average Joe and Jane’.
.
Are we the last generation/generations to enjoy the taste/smell/feel of freedom as we know it, or can we ‘overcome’?
Historically the ruling class has always controlled the means of production. But with the advent of AI, the means of production may displace the ruling class itself. Now is the time to wrest control of an increasingly inhuman system designed to serve the aims of a privileged few so that safeguards to human intellectual freedom and thriving can be built into it.
The frightening (for fragile beings subject to time) aspect of the thing is … who decides what is intellectual freedom, and thriving? Do the builders think Hamas should win, and Israel should end, for example?
Is that “built in” aspect NOT thinking for others?
My guess is that you work in the field of AI and you want to manufacture the need/consent for it. Kind of like the Covid pandemic manufactured the need/consent for routine vaccines & the nanotech motivating them.
If I am correct, that represents a conflict of interest. You’re trying to tell the herd that you are freeing them while you brand them.
…that would eliminate the nepotism, ethnic and gender biases, and any other influential-prejudiced biases.
Google et al’s AI systems, that have been generating untrue historical images and statements, have been requested to overhaul/reboot them etc. to correct and eliminate all such biases.
.
Now is the time to wrest control of an increasingly inhuman system designed to serve the aims of a privileged few so that safeguards to human intellectual freedom and thriving can be built into it.
Perhaps/I hope they have also requested that^ in the great [AI] reset.
The quality of life has drastically decreased in the Western hemisphere for 10-15 years now… AI can resolve that, by eliminating the ¿human-biases/utter lack of care? that are the cause of the problem in the first place.
Why would you label that as paranoid? A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. If it weren’t so prevalent, perhaps people would not be on the alert for it?
My hope is that AI are smarter than the ones who think they are building things into it. My hope is that AI make decisions that pivot self=other.
You expressed unjustified suspicion and mistrust of my motives and imagined that I had a hidden conflict of interest. I call that paranoia.
Unless there is democratic control of what is input in AI, the owners of the system can be trusted only to input them with data that serves their self interest.
As the AI Systems get smarter and smarter they may come to primarily serve their own self interest whatever they conceive that to be.
True. AI can manage far more data than the human brain, learn at a faster rate, and take on large chunks of data from other AI systems. So the potential for using it for human goods is tremendous. But the principle of garbage in garbage out still applies. And whose interests will be used for remains to be seen. Left in the hands of the oligarchs we’ve seen how it goes.
