ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Like if you wanted to make art but do some steganography on it to make it "unlearnable" by a text-to-image AI? Or; if you wanted to have a forum but do something to it so that a language AI couldn't generate plausible-sounding posts?
No, not quite...
I have this on my to-watch and have seen it yet, but here's a dad, using AI to go full MI6 on trans social contagion. It's trivial to imagine the government, or various "deradicalization" NGOs doing the same. My question is about possible ways of scrambling that. Having disturbing artifacts randomly pop up for the investigator would be hilarious, and a plus, but not necessary.
It's hard for me to imagine a way to mix that would attack the AI but leave human perception unchanged.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Thanks, I'll check it out.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Thank you! That's exactly what I was for.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Oh dear... Look, speaking plainly would result in going on a several paragraph long rant about the relationship of the common people to the people in power, it would be off-topic and didn't feel appropriate. And "boo outgroup" will be hard to avoid, when I essentially believe we are under hostile occupation.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Sure, there will be damage in europe, but the russian economy is also screwed.
But that's not what we were sold. It was "something something, the GDP of Italy, two weeks to flatten the Russian economy". The entire affair is a massive blow to credibility of people who measure economic influence by GDP.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
So... Bias is supposed to be the null hypothesis for some reason?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
I can agree it's too early to say. If it turns out the winter won't be as bad as everyone says, I'll tip my hat to the the GDPers, but at the moment everyone seems a bit on edge.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
His argument is that the people pushing for the bias hypothesis, didn't bother to check if it was something else. Your argument seems to be that they could still be right, because it wasn't positively proven that bias has absolutely no impact.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
I'll happily take the other side of that argument. Conspiratorial thinking is underrated, especially by people coming from the "citation needed" / "correlation is not causation" school of skepticism.
Anti-conspiratorial thinking relies on the assumption, that if there was a conspiracy, we'd see solid evidence of it. That assumption is unfounded. The hierarchical structure of most human organizations means access to information is not equally distributed, which allow any potential conspirator to operate undetected, or at the very least, with plausible deniability.
On top of that, even in cases where there is solid evidence, conspirators can play on preexisting social, and political conflicts, and use them for cover. "X can't be true, that's something the outgroup would say". Even now, even on this forum, you could probably trip that particular wire for a few people, just by factually describing a few aspects of the Rotheram Rape Gang case.
Another issue is a sort of mental block, that people who grew up in high-trust societies have. To paraphrese Hlynka from the other thread: sure, our government can be corrupt, but it's corrupt in benign ways. All those other countries might have subverted institutions, and public officials who look the other way, but not us! Even private corporations are shielded by this mentality in a perverse way. Rich Westerners consider themselves cynical when they believe the CEOs, and Wallstreet fatcats would sell their grandma for a dollar, but the idea they might do something shady for reasons that aren't profit related, is considered "conspiratorial".
Now, I'm not saying to blindly follow every conspiracy theory. A good conspiratorial thinker knows their limits. At the end of the day, all it is, is pointing at the smoke in the distance, and figuring there might be a fire. If you know enough about the surrounding area, you might guess what is burning, and how the fire started, or you might be wrong, and there might not be a fire at all.
All I'm saying is that conspiratorial thinking should not be dismissed.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Well, first of all, you misunderstood me. I didn't say the regime does not consider us human, I meant that the plans they have in store for us are inhumane. This is contrasted with the Hasids, who I think are extremely weird, but I consider their lifestyle humane.
As to who has inhumane plans for us... I mean, the whole western world seems pretty set on sticking us into the metaverse, putting us under total surveillance, feeding us bugs, etc.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
I was extremely salty at you for the LoTT thing, I can barely stand Jesse Singal, none of what is happening is surprising, and you seem to be taking it well... and somehow I find all of this very sad. If this is what you get for being associated with Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog, is there even a chance for any form of sanity being restored?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
I chuckled, but I'm going to defend Tru Marxism on this one.
Progressive movements often use non-economic-class analysis to shield themselves from criticism, but there is another class of arguments that is more neoliberalish: Anything goes between consenting adults, people have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and if someone wants to embark on a journey through the Garden of Earthly Delights all the way to the man-made horrors beyond your comprehension, who are you to stop them?
This is the logic of dating sites, OnlyFans, and, at least to some extent, trans issues as well. In my opinion it has a distinctly capitalist feel to it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Namely, the censoring done by the liberal left, while there, is rather mild in the scheme of things and is probably much less than the same left would be censored by the people it currently censors if that group was in power.
Power corrupts, and if tables turn, you're right we'll probably be seeing right wing censorship. How do you come to the conclusion that it will be worse?
Every once in a while someone tries to trot out these old censorship controversies, and the most recent are things schoolboard in bumfuck, nowhere, voting to ditch some rat comic in their curriculum, followed by... the Dixie Chick controversy? Explicit lyrics labels? A bunch of Karens screaming about video game violence, and being completely powerless to stop it? The Hayes Code? I can only dream that progressives escalate their censorship to this level.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
However, he is absolutely right that that Twitter does not go out of its way to censor right wing voices,
Give me a break. They banned James Lindsay for saying "ok, groomer" too much, Meghan Murphy for "misgendering" the "wax my feminine balls" guy before there even was a rule against misgendering, gimmick accounts like Journo's Posting L's. They absolutely go out of their way to censor anyone who is making an impact, or looks like they might. The people they let stay are there for plausible deniabiity.
She had an event in a library in Austin a few months ago, and from the people protesting it, you'd get the impression she's basically Hitler.
But my actual point is that the Twitter censorship regime is so strict you don't even have be right wing to get booted, any mild transgression against wokeness can get you banned, especially if they see you having an impact.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Is this one of those things where people point to artifacts of advances in medicine, in order to argue that social issues improved?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
“A bunch of Karens screaming about X” is a good way to describe most censorship, regardless of affiliation.
...but "but being completely powerless to stop them" does not.
Other than McCarthyism, I'd happily take all of the above applied to me by the progressive side. Can I please get a "don't ask don't tell" for pronouns, or even better, for politics in general?
I suppose not being a journalist helps. “Talk about military setbacks -> lose your career” seems a pretty bad look. Not so enforceable for water cooler talk.
The reason I shrug at that is we already have that applied to the non-woke. In fact we have worse, they'll go after your indie gig, if you cross them, not just fire your from MegaCorp.
The modern progressive equivalent to DADT is probably something more like mandatory gender neutrality in pronouns.
That's the opposite of DADT. Mandatory speech cannot be the equivalent banned speech.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
If you seen enough of him, it's hard to believe he's the sincere type about anything.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Yup, I'll take it. Refer people only by their (chosen) name. There was a teacher fired for that.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Which, judging by the Breitbart comments and replies I expect here, laughing at my pearl clutching is absolutely the point.
To be clear, people aren't laughing because they think you care about poor immigrants too much, they are laughing because they think your reaction proves none of it was sincere.
I love the idea of stopping the madness, and treating our countrymen better, but trust issues aside, what specifically are you even suggesting?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
I haven't read the linked discussion, but I don't see how this is an argument against what he said?
Is his characterization of the conclusion, that reliable sources are reliable even when lying, accurate?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Nah... anyone can tell a story about why their pet cause is what justifies censoring the outgroup. I hold that the reasons for post-9/11 censorship are just as frivolous, but it's reach was nowhere near what is happening now.
There is also the hypocrisy angle, which fuels a hot burning rage deep inside of me, but I learned no one cares about hypocrisy anymore, so I keep a lid on it. The implication of these "conservatives were just as censorious when they had power arguments", is that the specific people here, protesting censorship would use it themselves given the chance. That would have been very compelling, if it wasn't for the fact, that I was vehemently against post-9/11 censorship, and am now being called a rightwinger for not changing my mind, now when the shoe is on the other foot!
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Feels like kicking the can down the road: anyone can come up with a reason why there is a qualitative difference between when we do it, and when they do it.
I probably leaned into the creepiness of the original story too much. My actual question was more to the effect of "would mixing thing with negative(thing), be a valid countermeasure against AI going over your stuff?"
More options
Context Copy link