On the bright side, once AI actually CAN answer things like this we’d have “Artificial Ethics”. A way to judge questions objectively or at least without emotional tempering for each specific case. This could solve some fundamental problems like “who watches the watchers” - we simply build the perfect watcher.

Of course we’re far away from that yet. And then we’d just ignore our perfect watcher anyway 🤣

Ok, “exhibit a limited form of creativity” :)

Maybe you need some different mechanisms / models to allow what you are describing. But I’m sure we’ll get there sooner or later.

Wow. I honestly don’t understand how people think these AI models don’t exhibit creativity.

But aren’t these key pairs generated per session and/or per contact? So once you switch to a more secure / auditable client this only matters when communicating with people on whatsapp. But they presumably have a backdoor in their app for the NSA anyway.

Even if you can just add to it, you could have some sort of journalism file system to replace or delete previous files in newer records.

I mean “federate” with whatsapp. Apparently there is a bridge https://github.com/tulir/whatsmeow

Yeah I think paying the creators generously and allowing them to make a good living is how tiktok got off the ground so fast.

I really love the vine 6 sec sketch format but I only ever watches compilations on youtube. It’s like a box of chocolate, you never know what you’ll get, but eat enough of them… :D PS: Man this makes me nostalgic about those ancient times when everything wasn’t going to shit yet

Yeah this is very stupid. But I never liked Signal anyway.

Is there a matrix protocol based app that is planning to “federate”?

Ghostery works too for me

Not sure what you mean, of course WhatsApp can disable it’s own encryption. That would be an argument for open source third party apps and interoperability.

https://join-lemmy.org/donate

It would be nice to have a “patreon” like monthy support and then an open accounting - so we know the money is split to development, instance server hosting costs and maybe admin wages. Or maybe can vote on it. I think fediverse is only the first step, we’re going to need some kind of global non profit funded by users to create federated software and content for users.

And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we’ve chosen.

Sure, that is my argument, that we choose to make social progress based on our nature and scientific understanding. I never claimed some 100% objective morality, I’m arguing that even though that does not exist, we can make progress. Basically I’m arguing against postmodernism / materialism.

For example: If we can scientifically / objectively show that some people are born in the wrong body and it’s not some mental illness, and this causes suffering that we can alleviate, then moral arguments against this become invalid. Or like the gif says “can it”.

I’m not arguing that some objective ground truth exists but that the majority of healthy human beings have certain values IF they are not tainted that if reinforced gravitate towards some sort of social progress.

You needn’t argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn’t a substance present in reality - it’s a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.

Does mathematics exist? Is money real? Is love real?

If nobody is left to think about them, they do not exist. If nobody is left to think about an argument, it becomes meaningless or “nonsense”.

I’m not arguing for “one single 100% objective morality”. I’m arguing for social progress - maybe towards one of an infinite number of meaningful, functioning moralities that are objectively better than what we have now. Like optimizing or approximating a function that we know has no precise solution.

And “objective” can’t mean some kind of ground truth by e.g. a divine creator. But you can have objective statistical measurements for example about happiness or suffering, or have an objective determination if something is likely to lead to extinction or not.

You misrepresent or misunderstood my argument

Comrade pinko barbie!

There’s no such thing as 100% objective morality.

Maybe not, maybe there is an infinity of variation of objective morality. There will always be broken people with pathologies like sociopathy or narcissism that wouldn’t agree. But the vast majority, like 95% of people would agree for example on the universal human rights - at least if they had the rights and freedoms to express themselves and the education to understand and not be brainwashed. Basically given the options of a variety of moralities and the right circumstances (safety/not in danger, modicum of prosperity, education) you would get an overwhelming consensus on a large basis of human rights or “truths”. The argument would be that just because a complex machine is forever running badly, that there still can be an inherent objective ideal of how it should run, even if perfection isn’t desirable or the machine and ideal has to be constantly improved.

There is another way to argue for a moral starting point: A civilization that is on the way to annihilate itself is “doing something wrong” - because any ideology or morality that argues for annihilation (even if that is not the intention, but the likely outcome) is at the very least nonsensical since it destroys meaning itself. You cannot argue for the elimination of meaning without using meaning itself, and after the fact it would have shown that your arguments were meaningless. So any ideology or philosophy that “accidentally” leads to extermination is nonsensical at least to a degree. There would still be an infinity of possible configurations for a civilization that “works” in that sense, but at least you can exclude another infinity of nonsense.

“Who watches the watchers” is of course the big practical problem because any system so far has always been corrupted over time - objectively perverted from the original setup and intended outcome. But that does not mean that it cannot be solved or at least improved. A basic problem is that those who desire power/money above all else and prioritize and focus solely on the maximization of those two are statistically most likely to achieve it. That is adapted or natural sociopathy. We do not really have much words or thoughts about this and completely ignore it in our systems. But you could design government systems that rely on pure random sampling of the population (a “randocracy”). This could eliminate many of the political selection filtering and biases and manipulation. But there seems very little discussion on how to improve our democracies.

Another rather hypothetical argument could come from scientific observation of other intelligent (alien) civilizations. Just like certain physical phenomena like stars, planets, organic life are naturally emergent from physical laws, philosophical and moral laws could naturally emerge from intelligent life (e.g. curiosity, education, rules to allow stability and advancement). Unfortunately it would take a million years for any scientific studies on that to conclude.

Nick Bostrom talks a bit about the idea of a singleton here, but of course there be dragons too.

It is quite possible that it’s too late now, or practically impossible to advance our social progress because of the current overwhelming forces at work in our civilization.

Hmm. It would definitely had helped if you could reply with emoticons like “lol” to classify jokes, not just with thumbs up.

Advances in AI could then also tweak the content sorting so that people are always kept in the optimal engagement mood. I mean they try to do that now.

Not sure what you’re trying to say either, but fascist speech using lies is fascist recruitment. That is why autonomous anti-fascism is right to disrupt fascist recruitment events in universities. Because the state or moderates care more about maintaining order. So you have to disrupt the recruiting by any means.

So if your argument is that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” then no, it definitely isn’t. There is historical evidence.

Ideally the AI can actually learn to differentiate unhinged vs reasonable posts. To learn if a post is progressive, libertarian or fascist. This could be used for evil of course, but it could also help stem the tide of bots or fascists brigading or Russia’s or China’s troll farms or all the special interests trying to promote their shit. Instead of tracing IPs you could have the AI actually learn how to identify networks of shitposters.

Obviously this could also be used to suppress legitimate dissenters. But the potential to use this for good on e.g. lemmy to add tags to posts and downrate them could be amazing.

Maybe that is what we need to do. “Decide” on certain moral questions based on best scientific data and our values and sound arguments and then stop debating them. Unless new scientific evidence challenges those moral edicts.

Somehow we keep going round in circles as a civilization.