aisenik

An informed and educated populace is essential to the function of any universal democracy. The regulation of capital is essential to maintain efficient markets. It follows that the regulation of capital with respect to communications is necessary to maintain democracy and efficient markets under a notionally capitalist system.

There's clear moral valence to this issue. The popular (mis)understanding of freedom of speech as applied to corporations is in direct contradiction to the notional principles of western sociopolitical ideology. Resolving this conflict is only difficult because of our conditioning.

I lost 170 lbs natty (100lbs the first year) and my hair and nails only got better. If your generative follices are dying off you are not losing weight healthily.

Cognition is encoded in language, they weren't brain-damaged yet. There's better (real, not token-exchange) thinking, which LLMs can copy and reproduce in novel arrangements.

Start by putting the people making money off it in prison.

These are capital crimes against humanity. The notion that we just have to accept it is absurdity.

I don't really understand your point. We should reject ideas that make us feel like we have to sit through a monologue at a dinner party?

It feels like malpractice to leave Andreessen off the list, if only because he's such a good example of how losery and pathetic the tech moguls really are.

Imagine becoming wealthy and powerful in an age of abundance off of NCSA Mosaic and throwing it all away because you feel threatened by black people and think that government funded research is now bad. That's the level of "advanced thought" in these guys' group chats.

technology serving humans == good

humans serving technology == evil

it's the power structure that determines the morality of technology. & power structures are a technology in and of themselves.

it follows that power structures which serve humans are good, and power structures that control humans are evil.

how do the things You create interact with humans and our power structures?

It's a wikipedia definition, and should be weighted as such. There exists a continuous spectrum of arguments about the definition of genocide, with Holocaust-denial existing at one extreme and a hard line against things like forced displacement, systemic/legal erasure, or forced deprivation of a population, i.e. systematic actions that materially contribute to the elimination of a group, at the other. Somewhere in between the two are all the arguments in support of mass atrocities throughout history.

I'm comfortable once we can agree that it's merely a question of degree and that we're indeed very solidly on the genocide spectrum.

I would like to believe Americans are capable of identifying genocide before we've gone full-Rwanda. I would like to hold my fellow Americans in higher esteem than that. I would like a pony.