SoylentNews

[khallow:] They would gain serious opposition throughout the world by alienating a bunch of developing world countries who need that food.

Here, the poster (me) is saying that they believe that certain unnamed countries “need that food”. I later elaborate that “need” means “Egypt would be a smoking ruin, if it ran low on wheat and it's far from the most unstable in that regard.” Here, “need” means must have or some societies, including Egypt, would fall apart into ruin, if they didn’t have enough food. Even if one disagrees with the claim, it’s a fairly honest use of the word. A good is “needed” when there’s an extremely undesirable outcome, if the need is not met.

Case 2:

[AC:] So there's no problem if the food you're making out of the insects etc is from squashed versions.

If you need to do other stuff (like remove the poop etc) then just squash the head really fast.

Here, “need” has a different meaning: an essential step in some process. AC doesn’t specify what the process could be, but it could be mandated by regulation or even merely that the food tastes better without the poop. But the idea is that if bug poop is to be removed, this approach is a way to do that.

Now, let’s consider a couple of less honest uses of “need”.

Case 3:

[AC:] A mega constellation isn't a necessary step or a necessarily shorter path to a future in space.

Here, the word being abused is “necessary/necessarily”. The complaint in question is that megaconstellations have significant externalities – light pollution and possibly space junk. The implication here is that because a megaconstellation isn’t necessary – there are other unspecified ways to a future in space, then it shouldn’t be done.

There’s two flaws in the argument. First, just because something isn’t needed, doesn’t mean we should be blocking it. Another space example is someone arguing that nobody wants to go to space because the speaker doesn't want to go to space.

Second, when a destination is necessary, then so is a path. For example, suppose a kid needs to go home (it’s getting late) and there are two physical paths to their house. A neighbor turns the kid away from the first path because they can go the other way – with the argument that the kid doesn’t need to go down this path (and presumably irk said neighbor). So then another irkable neighbor at the second path does the same, because the kid doesn’t need to travel down that path either since they could travel down the first path. Now, we’ve gone from two paths home to zero paths home!

This is how the need argument can sabotage not just one endeavor, but all of them. There is no path to space that won’t create a bunch of stuff in orbit and engender the externalities, and where there are so many possible paths to space not a one of them is the unique, necessary path.

Finally, there’s the completely bogus use of “need” that spurred this journal. I’ll quote it in context from the original story here [edit: fixed typo].

Case 4:

Ruiter says he’s continued to talk about data centers because he wants to remind people that “the cloud” they’ve come to rely on isn’t just an ethereal concept—it’s something that has a physical manifestation, here in the farmland of North Holland. He worries that growing demand for data storage from people, and also, increasingly, AI, will just mean more and more hyperscale facilities.

“Of course, we need some data centers,” he says. But he wants us to talk about restructuring the way the internet works so they are not so necessary. “We should be having the philosophical debate of what do we do with all our data? I don’t think we need to store everything online in a central place.”

Basically, Ruiter is a politician mooching off Dutch farmer discontent over harsh EU nitrogen regulations which then boiled over to complaints about data centers (which I gather politically are a vastly safer target) which are competing for the same land as the farmers. And he advocates that we restructure Netherlands society so that data centers “are not so necessary”. All this for a naked self-interest – less competition for Dutch farmland. Note also the process would result in significantly fewer data centers and thus a centralization of all that data contrary to the alleged benefit of the scheme. He threw out an excuse for this, ignoring that the scheme would make the excuse worse not better.

This is the cynical, entitled endpoint of the rhetoric of need: you don’t need this so gimme. No cost to society is too high. Just restructure society so it doesn’t need what I stole from it. I find it interesting how so many people are intent on reenacting those cheesy Ayn Rand novels – not as a ruggedly individual John Galt, but as a sleazy, corrupt Wesley Mouch.

[istartedi:] Ethics is easy. We know there are unethical people, and we know that the people who are charged with reigning them in are also unethical. Money is an easy target, but those targeting it are equally unethical, so dismantling capitalism isn't the answer because unethical people will just take their greed off the balance sheet and stuff it in to warehouses and gulags.

If ethics were society's most pressing problem, we'd be having a hard time finding things that are wrong. We're nowhere near running out of moral failures. Would that we could power the grid with them. Maybe we can, but somebody got paid to say otherwise.

My take is that bolded part is a valuable rule of thumb for telling us when we need to work on ethics rather than moral failures.

Moving on, the latest ethical drama is the present generation of chatbot AI which is presented as some ridiculous threat: helping students create fake papers, criminals plot crimes, scamsters scam, the insane commit suicide, and the PHB be idiots (to name a few recent concerns). No serious moral failures have come up. These are all things that could be a problem, maybe, and when they're illegal or against rules, would stay that way.

Meanwhile we're up to our eyeballs in all kinds of crimes, scams, frauds, and villainy that just isn't that hard to sort out ethically - and certainly not AI-based. We don't have a problem finding things that are wrong. That tells me that we have much bigger ethical problems than AI. And looks to me like how we address that doesn't change or improve no matter what we do to AI research.

So when I see a petition like the letter in AnonTechie's journal that demands a six month pause in AI development globally, I am exasperated. If we really followed through on that letter fully and honestly, how would we have progressed even a little on the problem? We still wouldn't have or understand advanced AI. We still wouldn't have any idea how to fix its problems. We would have just wasted six months of valuable research time and peoples' lives and be back to square one - making the case for yet another six month delay because nothing changed.

Edit: Is it time yet for a Trump update journal? Seems there's several active court cases surrounding him now.

In a thorough and well-reasoned decision, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana has denied government defendants’ motion to dismiss in State of Missouri, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, represents renowned epidemiologists Drs. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, as well as Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Ms. Jill Hines, in a lawsuit that has exposed an elaborate, multi-agency federal government censorship regime. Judge Doughty wrote, “The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action, and is unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments to the contrary.”

Discovery in the lawsuit unequivocally establishes that at least eleven federal agencies and sub-agencies, including CDC and DHS, directed social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with the federal government’s messaging on topics ranging from Covid-19 to elections. Federal officials engaged in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics—including coercion, collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and other topics. As a direct result of state action, NCLA’s clients were blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored, merely for articulating views opposed to government-approved views on Covid-19 restrictions and regulations. Judge Doughty held that “Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged state action under the theories of joint participation, entwinement, and the combining of factors such as subsidization, authorization, and encouragement.”

In confirming Plaintiffs’ standing, Judge Doughty said, “The threat of future censorship is substantial, and the history of past censorship is strong evidence that the threat of further censorship is not illusory or merely speculative.” Judge Doughty also found Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries-in-fact are “redressable by the Court,” and that Plaintiffs had demonstrated sovereign immunity does not bar their First Amendment, ultra vires, or APA claims.

In case one thinks this could somehow not be abused, I'll note a year old study that alleged over 600 times where a large social media outlet (here called "Big Tech") suppressed speech in favor of Joe Biden's 2020 campaign or subsequent administration in a two year period.

MRC [Media Research Center] Free Speech America tallied 646 cases in its CensorTrack database of pro-Biden censorship between March 10, 2020, and March 10, 2022. The tally included cases from Biden’s presidential candidacy to the present day.

The worst cases of censorship involved platforms targeting anyone who dared to speak about any subject related to the New York Post bombshell Hunter Biden story. The Post investigated Hunter Biden and the Biden family’s allegedly corrupt foreign business dealings. Big Tech’s cancellation of that story helped shift the 2020 election in Biden’s favor. Twitter locked the Post’s account for 17 days. In addition, Twitter slapped a “warning label” on the GOP House Judiciary Committee’s website for linking to the Post story.

Big Tech even axed those who blamed the current inflation crisis on Biden. For example, Facebook censored Heritage Action, the advocacy arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, on March 15, simply for posting a video quoting Biden’s embarrassing statements on energy policy. Facebook placed an interstitial, or filter, over Heritage Action’s video, suppressing the post’s reach. The video showed Biden and officials in his administration explaining how his policies would cause gas prices to rise.

But the largest category by far included users who dared to call out Biden's notoriously creepy, touchy-feely behavior around women and children. The 232 cases of comedic memes, videos, or generic posts about Biden’s conduct composed more than one-third of CensorTrack's total instances of users censored for criticizing the president.

The allegations of the lawsuit are interesting. For example, two US states (Missouri and Louisiana) are among the large mix of plaintiffs and there are assertions that they have special standing to sue for various reasons (such as protecting the interests of their citizens and quasi-sovereignty status). A few of the claims are: various acts of censorship described in the suit are unconstitutional because they were carried out at the behest of the US federal government - censorship by proxy; that in addition, the two states have a duty (based on their state constitutions) to protect the speech of their citizens (I believe every state in the US has something similar in their constitutions); and that similarly, the two states can't hear all the voices of their citizens via social media because of this selective censorship. While the last is a dubious legal argument in this situation IMHO it does bring up an interesting point. If a future state government relies on the large social media platforms to be informed about what its citizens want, is that something that is legally actionable on anyone? Obviously, there's a variety of deception possible with fake accounts (possibly driven by AI) and such to twist the perception, but some of that exists even with older technology like mail. The practice of astroturfing, or creating a fake "grass roots" lobbying campaign, started as automated mass mailings and phone calls to legislators.

So I guess the TL;DR is that once again the courts are addressing abuses of censorship by proxy along with the problems of how a government communicates with its citizens in an age where fake communication is getting easier and real communication can be censored most likely legally.

There was an Ars Technica article about ChatGPT. I commented that ChatGPT was going to put BS artists out of work, for example, marketing people. The comment was massively downvoted, and one person replied that I obviously know nothing about marketing. Assumptions, assumptions...

My wife ran a whisky business, specializing in single cask whiskies, for more than 20 years. I helped her with a lot of marketing texts. So I asked ChatGPT: "Can you write a marketing text to sell single-cask whisky?" Here is it's response:

"Indulge in the ultimate whisky-lover's experience with our single-cask offering. Sourced from the finest distilleries and aged to perfection in a single oak cask, this rare and exclusive whisky boasts a unique flavor profile that cannot be replicated.

Each bottle is a one-of-a-kind masterpiece, with its own distinct character, aroma and taste. The single-cask aging process allows the whisky to take on the nuances of the wood and the environment, creating a depth and complexity that is unmatched by blended or mass-produced whiskies.

Whether you're a collector, a connoisseur, or simply looking for a special gift, our single-cask whisky is the epitome of luxury and exclusivity. Don't settle for anything less than the best, try our single-cask whisky today."

Wow. That is better than you would get from almost any marketing agency. ChatGPT is still only a prototype, but it is the harbinger of change. Marketing, non-investigative journalism, pop-sci articles - it is already capable of generating all of those. Moreover, it writes better than most people, eliminated the need for proofreading to catch grammatical and typographical errors.

If you get into more serious topics, then it does need some help. Here's an example: "How is uranium created?" ChatGPT replied:

Uranium is created through a process called nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is a process in which the nucleus of an atom is split into two or more smaller nuclei, releasing a large amount of energy in the process. This energy is typically released in the form of heat, light, and radiation, and can be harnessed to generate electricity. The process of nuclear fission occurs naturally in certain types of radioactive materials, such as uranium and plutonium. It can also be induced in a controlled manner in nuclear reactors.

This is wrong, but probably not a lot of people know the real answer. However, ChatGPT is able to correct it's own mistakes. I told it: "That's not correct. Nuclear fission splits uranium into smaller atoms. But how is uranium created?" It replied:

I apologize for the confusion, you are correct that nuclear fission splits uranium atoms rather than creates them. Uranium is created through a process called nuclear fusion in stars, specifically through the r-process in Supernovae. Uranium is a heavy element and is not formed through the fusion of lighter elements in the way that the light elements are created in stars. The process that creates heavy elements like Uranium is called nucleosynthesis.

And that is the correct answer. So ChatGPT can handle even more difficult and advanced topics, with a bit of supervision.

Note that Civ and other strategy games in the same ilk got it wrong.

Science/Research is not something you "bank". Science is something you invest in, and continue to invest in. Stop the investment and "Science" regresses.

For those who haven't played the Civilization games, the idea is that you run a civilization and compete with other civilizations. They typically are city-oriented (a key step in expanding power of the civilization is building more cities), and they invariably bank science. That is, if I'm researching writing and decide for some reason to switch over to research other technologies for a while, I can pick up where I left off on writing - even if it is a thousand years later!

This is part of a larger problem, namely that civilization is seen as a strictly progressive affair - anything you do aside from losing wars moves the civilization forward. Sure, if you start next to Alexander the Great or nuclear Gandhi (or worst of all a human player!), you have plenty of opportunity to experience civilization setbacks as the aggressive neighbor makes war on you. But you can slack off on science, infrastructure maintenance, etc and pick it up later.

In the real world, there's plenty of failure modes other than losing wars. Conversely, a number of real world civilizations have lost a bunch of wars yet still were able to keep relevant.

Over the past couple of weeks, I've been watching a podcast series called "Fall of Civilizations". Production values do leave something to be desired (such as showing a trash fire in an unnamed Middle East neighborhood when discussing someone burning something in a war or rebellion or reusing stock images in multiple episodes), but it's an interesting angle on history. The author starts with a discussion of the significant ruins that the civilization left behind, often from the point of view of historical figures who discovered it first, what the civilization actually did that made it notable, and finally, what led to the fall and its aftermath - including from the point of view of the people caught up in the fall. Last I checked he's up to 16 episodes.

What's interesting is how few of these disasters have a single, clearly identifiable cause (sometimes they just don't know why at all). Usually it's multiple factors with considerable uncertainty as to the relative significance of the factors. Again, this isn't something captured in historical games like Civilization. For example, what combination of factors caused the collapse of the Assyrian empire (Episode 13)? Did it fall due to the fact nobody liked them and finally unified enough, climate change transition from the best rainfall in the region to something of a megadrought, vast overextension of the empire (key parts of the army couldn't return in time to the core Assyrian region to save it), or an effect nobody has considered yet (maybe some sort of heavy metal poisoning explains their wacky leaders)?

A key problem for many of these civilizations was that they either stopped banking something (the collapse of the trade networks and disappearance of multiple languages of the late Bronze Age cultures of the eastern Mediterranean which at least partially was due to not diversifying critical resource needs like bronze and food and very low literacy) or they had some hidden deficit in their civilization that grew over time (such as the decline of Sumeria due to widespread salinization of irrigated farmland which when the region was hit with a drier climate turned the area from a great net food producer to mass starvation).

That leads to my observation - that just because a society or civilization has something now, not just nuclear engineering know-how and experience, doesn't mean it can keep it. Too often strengths of civilizations are taken for granted and just assumed that they will continue no matter how much we or the environment impair them. Well, there are a bunch of dead civilizations that indicate otherwise. You or nature can break something to the point that your civilization no longer exists in a recognizable form.