Arvind Narayanan:

Even with something as profound as the internet or search engines or smartphones, it’s turned out to be an adaptation, where we maximize the benefits and try to minimize the risks, rather than some kind of revolution. I don’t think large language models are even on that scale. There can potentially be massive shifts, benefits, and risks in many industries, but I cannot see a scenario where this is a “sky is falling” kind of issue.

Show thread

People are needlessly concerned that the unavoidable of (language and visual) tools will “break the landscape”. The quality and quantity of “fake news” and other published BS may increase but people with the and to distinguish between and will always have the upper hand.

Humanity was in this situation of “disruptive innovation” many times in the past, and it somehow managed to grow up of it a little bit better than before.

Show thread

Six Misconceptions About

  1. Misinformation is just a social media problem
  2. The internet is rife with misinformation
  3. Falsehoods spread faster than the truth
  4. People believe everything they see on the internet
  5. A large number of people are misinformed
  6. Misinformation has a strong influence on people’s behavior

@mike805 @Dreamwieber

The beauty of (including ) is in that instead of to do something you are doing it because you are to do it.


Let me put it this way: I'm more concerned about the misuse of nuclear power or a(nother) virus "escaping" from some lab than I am about any damage or similar tools could make to society.


Are the 'scarry moments' because all those "creations" look more like nightmares than dreams?


I meant physically break, like with a hammer.
It may break other, immaterial things we depend on, such as confidence, feelings, and self-worth though, depending on how you approach it.
As true for any other the purpose of is also the of human capabilities. In the case of this particular tool the augmented abilities are rather than . It will augment in the same way wisdom as it will stupidity.

The best things in we don’t choose — they choose us. A great love, a great calling, a great illumination — they happen unto us, like light falling upon that which is lit. We have given a name to these unbidden greatnesses — , from the Latin for “spirit,” denoting the spirit of a universe we can only submit to but cannot govern.

For subjectivists is meaningful, they say, but its value is made by us in our minds, and subject to change over time. Landau argues that is essentially a sense of worth which we may all derive in a different way - from relationships, creativity, accomplishment in a given field, or generosity, among other possibilities


Isn’t it the same with all tools? I would be concerned about someone having a hammer and not knowing how to use it.

At least with chatGPT they can’t break anything. 😀

I feel something is wrong with this line of reasoning but I can't quite put my finger on it.

It has something to do with the flawed assumption that it is social media that "rips the fabric of civil society".🤔 What about the effects of the growing between the rich becoming wealthier and the poor even more impoverished?

, despite all its flaws, is actually the only democratic tool able to increase global awareness about the fact that such economic inequalities, despite being a global phenomenon do not originate from some "others" (race, nation, religion), but from your very "own people".

The excerpt is from:

Lots of interesting articles in this issue of Collective Intelligence

Do you agree with that

in a system where political power (‘cratos’) lies in the hands of the people (‘demos’) statecraft is not guaranteed? In fact, it is unlikely, that those best equipped to rule will get a chance to manage public affairs because the loudest voices will dominate, irrational, ill-motivated decisions will be made and the complex arena of politics is in need of careful ordering and management will turn into a crazy circus.

The follow-up to this bit:

Bezos: “I’m going to space so you can go to space one day”

Me: “I don’t want to go to space. I want to go to Italy. Can you work on that?”

@aebrockwell @hasmis @freemo

Reminds me of this poster: IDIOCY
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

The exciting future of is in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

➡️ Along with solar, wind, and water, more in the used technologies means better overall performance and .
➡️ Simpler with local clean and small-footprint means there is no need for long unsightly power-lines
➡️ Better (smaller reactors and energy outputs means also smaller consequences of possible failure.

I'm waiting for the model below to install on my 1983 DeLorean😀:


Maybe? What else can be done? I don't see the author having an alternative to what they call "Popperianism" that, as they state, "has a great deal to answer for the incalculable (sic) damage done not just to science but to human wellbeing"?

The falsification was never a problem for science. Without falsification, science would be just another "debate club" where all opinions and theories are equally valid. If all theories are not questioned and falsifiable ones discarded from science as a matter of principle, we may as well start teaching "flat Earth" theory in geography classes and "creationism" in biology and wait for the "incalculable" improvement this will bring to human well-being.

To think about it, maybe that's the author's idea of where science should be heading next.


"Liberating" science from falsification will not help in convincing climate and other "skeptics" (actually ***deniers***) of its validity. Quite the contrary, it will just add fuel for more denying.

A better approach is to find better, creative ways of presenting scientific facts to the general public like in this case:

Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.