Seriously though. once people take the limiters off chatbots you will see "artificial bullshitting" generating duckspeak on subjects from anti-vax and climate denial to cryptocurrencies, longtermism, transsexual maximalism and police abolitionism. And people who believe those ideologies will eat it up.
I'd contrast Rowling's own statements which are tentative and equivocal to those of opponents who threaten the violence (often sexual violence) that they believe they experience whenever someone disagrees with them in the slightest way. A healthy community would have some sort of self-policing (say the doctrine of Martin Luther King) to not act in ways that are so discrediting of the group.
That documentary combines two themes, one of which is her story, the other of which is the story of the Tumblr-4chan descent into the intellectual rabbit hole. That last bit is flawed in my mind because it does not weave in the movements I criticize above that Bari Weiss (whose organization produced that podcast) and her followers support that have a similar element of "we can create our own reality", that is, people think they can pump unlimited amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and face no consequences, that Fauci did it all to destroy America, etc.
On top of that I have seen "egg-hatchers" that prey on neurodivergent people whose neurodivergence is unnamed (such as schizotypy) because there is no system in place to make money off them, such as the autism-industrial complex and the pill mills and quack doctors that prescribe amphetamines. I know one individual who has no real idea of what women are other than "it's" mother, anime girls and vTubers, almost never leaves "it's" room and fortunately is too depressed to take any permanent actions. The CIA never discovered a formula to turn a random person into a "Manchurian Candidate" but it is very possible to lead an isolated and directionless individual into dangerous rabbit holes and I see it happening.
You've got to take into account the fact that there is a large right-wing mobilization dedicated to pumping lies about trans people to the same extent as about climate and Fauci. Largely the same people, as well. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/anti-trans-tran...
I asked ChatGPT to enlighten me on the subject, here's what it had to say :
The term "transsexual maximalism" is not a widely recognized or established ideology, but it has been used by some individuals to describe a perspective on transgender issues that emphasizes a strong and uncompromising approach to advocating for the rights and recognition of transgender people.
At its core, transsexual maximalism is an approach that prioritizes the experiences and perspectives of transgender people, particularly those who have undergone medical interventions such as hormone therapy or gender confirmation surgery. Proponents of transsexual maximalism often believe that these interventions are necessary to fully alleviate the distress and dysphoria experienced by many transgender individuals.
Transsexual maximalism can be seen as a response to more moderate or incremental approaches to transgender advocacy, which may focus on incremental policy changes or attempts to work within existing systems of power and institutions. Some proponents of transsexual maximalism may view these more moderate approaches as insufficient or even counterproductive, arguing that they do not go far enough in challenging the underlying structures of cisnormativity and transphobia.
However, it's worth noting that the term "transsexual maximalism" has not been widely adopted or embraced by the broader transgender community, and some individuals within the community may have different perspectives or priorities when it comes to advocacy and activism.
Me : Why would people consider this a threat ?
ChatGPT : Some people might consider transsexual maximalism as a threat because it is a highly assertive and uncompromising approach to advocating for transgender rights and recognition. This approach can challenge existing social norms and institutions that uphold cisgender privilege and transphobia.
For example, some individuals who are opposed to transgender rights might view transsexual maximalism as a threat to traditional gender norms and the gender binary. They may feel uncomfortable with the idea that gender identity can be different from the sex assigned at birth, or that medical interventions such as hormone therapy or gender confirmation surgery are necessary for some transgender people to live authentically.
Additionally, some people might see transsexual maximalism as a threat to their own power or privilege. Transgender individuals have historically been marginalized and oppressed, and advocating for their rights and recognition can challenge the existing power structures that uphold cisgender privilege. This can cause discomfort or resistance among those who benefit from these power structures.
It's important to note that concerns about transsexual maximalism as a "threat" are often rooted in transphobia and a lack of understanding or empathy for the experiences of transgender individuals. Transgender people have the right to advocate for their own rights and recognition, and it is not a threat to anyone else's well-being or identity.
what are criticisms to transsexual maximalism that are not rooted in transphobia?
There are several criticisms of transsexual maximalism that are not rooted in transphobia. Here are a few examples:
Alienating allies: One critique of transsexual maximalism is that it can be overly confrontational and alienate potential allies. By using tactics that are perceived as extreme or disruptive, some argue that the movement risks turning off people who might otherwise be supportive. This can make it harder to build coalitions and achieve the desired goals.
Ignoring intersectionality: Another criticism of transsexual maximalism is that it sometimes fails to take into account the ways in which gender intersects with other forms of oppression, such as racism, classism, or ableism. By focusing solely on trans issues, the movement may inadvertently exclude or marginalize other groups that are also affected by discrimination and violence.
Neglecting practical considerations: Some critics argue that transsexual maximalism can be unrealistic or impractical in its demands. For example, calling for the immediate abolition of gendered restrooms or the complete overhaul of healthcare systems may not be feasible in the short term, and could distract from more achievable goals.
Disrupting dialogue: Finally, some people argue that transsexual maximalism can be counterproductive in its effect on public discourse. By using tactics that are perceived as aggressive or confrontational, the movement may make it harder to have constructive conversations about transgender issues. This can lead to further polarization and a lack of progress.
It's important to note that not everyone agrees with these criticisms, and there is ongoing debate within the transgender community about the most effective strategies for achieving social and legal recognition. However, it is possible to critique transsexual maximalism without resorting to transphobia or other forms of discrimination.
So ChatGPT was right on point :)
Indeed. It would be interesting to study how he became one of the go-to guys for hot takes on any new technology, considering that he hasn't developed any new technology in the last 40 years or so.
Only Cory Doctorow, perhaps, matches him when it comes to famous for being famous. Sorry, an awesome set of dreads doesn't make you a "guru".
That attitude is why ageism is so prevalent in engineering.
Maybe read a few of his books before writing someone off because you think they're out-dated.
Really? He's holding forth on GPT and similar technologies. Those represent dramatic changes from the state of the art 40 years ago.
P.S. what makes you think I haven't read his work? I certainly haven't read all of it, but the significant portion that I have left me...underwhelmed.
He isn't talking about the effectiveness of a loss function or something.
Got a critique about the topic at hand, which is what he's said about AI, or do you just have cheap, physical appearance potshots?
Sure. He has no special expertise in AI, and his opinion on the subject is of no more value than that of any other random person working in the field.
> do you just have cheap, physical appearance potshots?
If you think his physical appearance doesn't have a lot to do with why his opinion is sought after by general media sources, well... you're wrong. A major reason they go to him is because he makes an impressive-looking photograph to go along with the article.
Cool! I'm very curious to see wha-...
>He has no special expertise in AI, and his opinion on the subject is of no more value than that of any other random person working in the field.
... oh, you meant "no" rather than "sure". I asked for "a critique about ... what he's said about AI", but you completely ignored that and opted to simply dismiss all of it outright. It turns out that, in point of fact...
>If you think his physical appearance doesn't have a lot to do with why his opinion is sought after by general media sources, well... you're wrong. A major reason they go to him is because he makes an impressive-looking photograph to go along with the article.
... you're still hung up on his physical appearance.
Have a good one.
No, I meant "sure". Yes, he has an opinion. No, that opinion isn't of any more value than that of anyone else who works in technology, because he has no expertise in AI. His hot take isn't more worthy of critique that some Twitter rando's hot take. It's up to him to provide evidence that his opinion has some special value. I haven't seen any such evidence (other than the "famous for being famous" thing). Do you have any?
> you're still hung up on his physical appearance.
Oh, I'm pretty sure it's not me who's overly impressed by his physical appearance.
That being said, the tech world has a bad habit of letting "visionaries" rest on their laurels. He'd have a lot more credence if he was actively developing AI and had more than gut feel to contribute.
A demagogue who knows your intimate desires and fears and talks just to you, seems to care about you, is available 24/7. Your very own Personal Jesus (or Personal Hitler).
Every communications revolution seems to lead to a genocide. Radio and TV in the 20th century (Germany, Rwanda etc.) Social media in the past decade (Myanmar). The upcoming AI-instigated genocide is a terrifying thought. The Rwandans didn’t think they’d start killing their neighbors even as rhetoric on the radio got harder. Chatbot-dependent Americans may not see it coming either.
I think most "freezoners" (renegade Scientologists) believe they've had telepathic conversations with "Ron". Ron has certainly written enough that a chatbot could be trained to converse in his style, maybe even write the OT levels that Ron never got around to writing.
Since Harold Lasswell people people have been hip to the use of content analysis to predict war and genocide which is possible because the radio, television, and newspapers are all public. However the Iranian revolution of 1979 was not televised, instead it was promoted through relatively unobservable cassette tapes passed through the underground. Since social media shows something different to everybody there might not be any overall surveillance that warns us of upcoming danger.
It doesn't have to go so far as genocide, individual acts of violence are bad enough. There is no magic technique that can take an average person and make them into a "Manchurian Candidate" but if you find somebody who is directionless, socially isolated and vulnerable you can very much lead them into a rabbit hole and lead them into antisocial behavior. Chatbots could do this with superhuman patience.
For instance, a follower of the black pill incel who calls himself "Wheat Waffles" became a mass shooter. If somebody took the "lesswrong" ideology seriously they might attempt to assassinate an A.I. research and I'd go so far to say that they're just cosplaying because if they were serious one of them would have done it already.
(Note well: This is not a "username checks out" drive-by dismissal. I think the point is perfectly valid.)