I find this part particularly bothersome:
> the root problem is that power is distributed unevenly
As if that's some kind of sacred unquestionable axiom that doesn't require supporting argument.
> the root problem is that power is distributed unevenly
As if that's some kind of sacred unquestionable axiom that doesn't require supporting argument.
That being said, sure, sometimes you have to explain why you consider something to be an axiom.
But at the same time, if you where to explain your axioms all the time you wouldn't get very far. So, I guess the question here is: Is it reasonable to assume this axiom in this context?
And I would argue that it is reasonable, otherwise it would be an entierly different text, about a very different subject, and for me personally, it would be a less interesting article.
Take 7 bigotted against Y of power X each and add an 8th Y person of power X as well. They could be lynched by them trivially. If they had 7X power he could only be matched if the bigots worked in perfect unision to combine. Otherwise he would be the effective leading power.
If we are dealing with counterfactual root solutions why not use a hypothetical world where violence is literally impossible? It would be more self consistent and just as possible.
I don't think there is anything controversial or political about the quote in the article, and certainly not about the impetus to consider the moral application of AI.
I think maybe people are a little worried of what's supposed to be a 'culturally secular' journal, turning over to the groups demanding social reforms in other areas (i.e. CNN yesterday indicating that the term 'Master Bedroom' is 'racist' etc.)
The article is fine, it's on point, very fair. The author is within reason to quote her inspiration.