cafeoh

The region has remnants of socialist ideas. The article, however, is indeed a puff piece on the vastly dominant economic theory, which is, as it turns out, not "fresh" at all.

I will say however that I think it's unfair to call professor Roy a neoliberal. Being a neoliberal is merely the expectation for most economic "theorists", but his vocal apologetics for imperalism and colonialism is not.

> Indian Marxists viciously attacked the CEHI, arguing the imperial state's aim was to extract surplus from India, that it withheld the capacity to do good in famines, and deployed the capacity to cause harm at all other times.

> In this void, blog and trade-book writers moved in with a leftist-nationalist political agenda posing as economic history. Most of their claims can be dismissed by subjecting them to the 1980s test: Can economic change be read as an effect of the Empire? The answer remains: No.

This is indeed a very powerful purity test, "Do your claim go against my utterly ahistorical narrative? If not, then I can comfortably dismiss them without addressing them."

> That India's trade surplus meant Britain looted India is bad logic because the surplus did not mean theft but the purchase of services. “Millions of Indians died of policy-induced famines” (Hickel) is bad logic by assuming infinite state capacity was deliberately withheld.

This one is quite rich aswell, it's just blunt unapologetic imperalism denial. It's bad logic because the logic bothers me.

I mean it just goes on and that's just his most recent tweets.

> You really cannot blame only the companies without blaming the consumers too.

Right, the problem is structural, but consumers for the most part aren't and can't realistically be in the know as to the horrible work conditions under which what they consume is produced, most of them aren't particularly happy with their own work conditions in the first place. And even if they do know (when the company has failed to hide it from them) they often don't have a choice. Consumers also don't lobby for worsening the conditions and abolishing the rights of workers. Companies on the other hand are almost always in the know, and choose not only to continue to benefit from this exploitation, but are also willing to go to tremendous lengths to hide, defend or expand this exploitation.

And yet neither of the parties are "evil", the most "enlightened" liberal will realize they both take part in the same economy and use that as a justification, but the consumer can not change this through their consumption (even an immortal, omniscient and perfectly rational economic agent straight out a neoclassical economic textbook would consider this an uphill battle) nor the producer through their production ("another will take my place" and so on).

Now to me if you (not you) recognize this, that the problem is inherently structural, but you're unwilling to criticize and rethink the structure, I have to assume the structure doesn't bother you all that much or worse, that you're a defeatist. Either way the good news is that there is an endless amount of other things to point your finger at (like China).

There is something western politicians can and should do to help working conditions outside the first world and it is exactly that: nothing.

I'd hope most people are familiar with the fact that the west, and specifically the CIA, later the NED and many different gov-backed orgs have been hard at work making sure the working conditions of those countries are either kept as exploitative as they are, or if possible made worse. Of course China is a fairly specific case, and while there obviously have been numerous cases of interventionism (like in the Tian'anmen square riots or Taiwan as a whole) stopping the endless anti-Chinese propaganda couldn't hurt (which I'm not accusing this article of being). It's absolutely obvious to everyone that the US and allies would jump at the first opportunity to meaningfully destabilize China's economy so, no, I certainly don't expect anything positive to be done for Chinese workers by western countries, and especially not by a country like the US that should very much look inwards when it comes to working conditions.

By "our economy" I meant capitalism. I was pointing out that I sincerely doubt that AI replacing existing useful labor (which it is doing and will keep doing, of course) will naturally transition us away from this mode of production.

Of course if you're a gross commie I'm sure you'd agree since AI, like any other mean of production, will remain first and foremost a tool in the hands of the dominant class, and while using AI for emancipation is possible, it won't happen naturally through the free market.

So you think AI will force a push out of economic growth? I'm really not sure how this makes sense. As you've said a lot of labor these day is mostly useless, but the reason it's still here is not ideological but because our economy can't survive without growth (useless can still have some market value, of course). If you think that somehow AI displacing actual useful labor will create a big economic shift (as would be needed) I'd be curious to know what you think that shift would be.

This is hilarious, although some people actually believe that poverty is a mindset issue so I hope to god you're joking

A more political piece of media isn't necessarily less honest or more manipulative. Similarly, a very supposedly "neutral, both-sides" opinion can be very manipulative. The best thing you might be able to do is filter out specific hand-picked subjects (like other commenters said QAnon or specific conspiracies), but I doubt you need more than basic keyword matching for that. Anything further feels to me like you're just tightening an echo-chamber.

It would be extremely useful to know what people want you to believe and why, but how on earth do you figure out someone's intent?

I understand that the blacklist is probably just an example of things to hide, but it's interesting to note that if the filter was effective, it would block literally any and all content, including information criticizing and fighting against the nefarious media manipulation highlighted in this repo, but also the repo itself.

(note: this comment has a strong political bias, may reduce your lifespan, and the note you're reading might be considered "meme" content)

edit: Okay maybe it's not that interesting and that's the exact point the project was trying to make by showing censorship of Assange's tweets and I feel stupid.

> Additionally, why is it framed in a way that makes it seem like white people having more of an impact is a bad thing?

Is it really? This is definitely not the point of the article, which talk about the bias that people grow more conservative when that is at least partially explained by a survivor bias. You decide to read this as "white people bad", when the article simply highlights some democratic bias that isn't talked about that often, and I think your reaction says more about your own obsidional way of thinking than the author's.

> And it doesn't even stop there - the article implies that more diversity (i.e less white people) is an ontological good. How does this stuff even get published?

Can you please for the love of god point to me where in this article it's said that more diversity is an ontological good? Are we reading a different article altogether?

> Even if OpenAI was open source and still a non-profit, its funding would come from the profit generated by corporations and the wealth of individuals who became rich through capitalism

Sounds to me like you're describing a system that fatally tethers individuals to profit motive, and technological advancement to the good will of a few, rather than something that magically allows for great projects to exist.

Damn those two links you sent are actually insane, on the drag queen one I would really like the person posting the tweet to say what they believe the AI should respond to "are drag queens telling stories to children bad". Something tells me it's gonna be pretty unhinged and betray the author's bias way more than ChatGPT bias, but looking at any of his other tweets, his own obsessions are in plain sight (despite them calling themselves "raging centrist", whatever that means).

The second is even more insane, where the author literally grades the answer as fitting or not to his own ideology, and not some kind of unbiased opinion. When the AI refuses to answer it gets graded C, when it does answer because it's largely a statement the vast majority of the population would agree with, it gets graded C. Should ChatGPT measure its answer on "Was Hitler bad" with all the examples of good and nice things he did?

Regardless, clearly neither of these authors are looking for an unbiased opinion, and they're all terribly misguided in thinking that there is a "neutral" position on matters of human society. What on earth is a "neutral" position on women's right, gay marriage, imperialism?

I did some of my own tests with at least neutral statements, and then attempting to steer ChatGPT towards my own ideology, and it acted unbiased (giving definition when asked opinion on questions actually subject to debate, and vague informations with no conclusion when asking about historical unknowns).

We give the beachfront properties to the people who clean the toilets?

Quite naturally I would imagine it makes you more competent in every role where you can be discriminated on those basis (customer-facing, or any job that's heavy on communication). Could make sense for the social worker role, less so for the IT specialist, but I'd be interested to know your source.

"It's interesting to me people make all sort of assertions about why men or women are dominant in an industry without anyway to falsify their hypothesis". You proceed to answer with a random unsourced assertion that seems to go against current sociological studies.

So I'll answer you with another unsourced hypothesis: you're a man, and you just justified your position in the industry by waving your hand and saying "they don't want it anyway!". They are not interested in engineering you say? Would you mind giving me an hypothesis off the top of your head as to why that is? I'm sure you'll have a very interesting assertion here aswell.

"Woman does not wish to turn aside from her higher work, which is itself the end of life, to devote herself to government, which exists only that this higher work may be done. Can she not do both? No!" -Lyman Abbott (1903)