Chris Stucchio writes about this in depth: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/alien_intelligences_...
If you're cheering for guilt by association to make a comeback just because the evil establishment thinks it's a bad idea, I'm at a loss of words. Any other fundamental freedoms you'd like to abolish because smart people happened to think they are good ideas? Presumption of innocence? Habeas corpus? The 5th amendment? Suffrage?
I'm not cheering for anything. I'm pointing out that machines may have a distasteful view of the world and that this will be a stumbling block for using them effectively.
> Any other fundamental freedoms you'd like to abolish because smart people happened to think they are good ideas? Presumption of innocence? Habeas corpus? The 5th amendment? Suffrage?
I'd appreciate it if you could tone down the hysterical moral outrage, particularly when aimed in my direction.
You are misrepresenting the status quo when you're insinuating that some "establishment" conspiracy will be suppressing the usefulness of violating fundamental rights, such as assumption of innocence, in their quest to defend "political correctness".
This is obviously wrong. Such rights, and others like privacy or the right to a fair trial, only make sense under the assumption that their violation would in some ways benefit law enforcement. Otherwise there'd be no need to protect them.
While the argument that, for example, "torture doesn't work" is sometimes made, it is always secondary to "our civilisation is better than that, and it is strong enough to accept a (small) hit in effectiveness in the defence of fundamental rights".
So when you believe you've stumbled onto some greater truth, and that the world needs to hear some tough talk of realism, you've simply missed the essential message of enlightenment, and are reverting to 16th-century morals.
Would you care to enumerate the moral failings of mine which you have identified? Or is this just an indiscriminate attack?
> You are misrepresenting the status quo when you're insinuating that some "establishment" conspiracy will be suppressing the usefulness of violating fundamental rights, such as assumption of innocence, in their quest to defend "political correctness".
I have made no such statements nor insinuations. There is no conspiracy. If this is the only such intellectual failure of mine which you have (mis)identified, then I suggest you recalibrate your moral outrage meter and try a less scattershot approach to fighting ideas and messengers which make you uncomfortable.
As to the rest of your statements, I think I agree with them mostly. We should not violate fundamental rights including the presumption of innocence particularly. I agree with prohibitions on torture on moral grounds and not simply consequential grounds.
I have not missed the essential message of the Enlightenment and in fact uphold such ideals as a core part of my identity. So in summary, I reiterate my concern that your outrage is indiscriminate and scattershot, and you have misunderstood my position and statements.
Texting someone that the police are watching them based solely on their associations seems both intentionally creepy and un-Constitutional. I suppose this is the Chicago PD though. Given their operation of "Black Sites" in contravention of the Constitution they apparently don't care too much for the Rule of Law.
Your second link is quite fascinating though.
So while this is less likely to become prevalent in criminal cases, this sets up a dual system. In the public sphere you can be affected in numerous deleterious ways because there is no presumption of innocence in the public sphere. Even if you're not on social media. You can be mistakenly doxxed and suffer the consequences.
We will need to come to terms with the implications of both these distinct phenomena which can result in injustice.
And the worst thing about the witch hunts to my mind is not that they are happening; it is the increasing amount of the population that sees them as a good thing. As long as they are targeted at the right people, of course, but the standards used for "right people" are growing quickly, too.
‘80’s: The Satanic Panic
‘90’s: Crack and Rap
‘00’s: Video Games
‘10’s: OMGZ Teh Internet!
Just for one example of how individuals were indeed singled out. Same with each example given, I’d recommend studying the history of this aspect of human behavior to get a grip on its present. Sure, Harvey Weinstein and his ilk did alright, but plenty of individuals went through the wringer. That’s not even looking at the impact of the crack panic on the prison population and various communities.
You just didn’t have a live feed informing you of their plight.