So they’re pissed off that Facebook does not censor its users as they'd like. Zuckerberg says the AI will. They don't agree but they don't offer any other solution in exchange either.
Technology is our only savior. We need better technology to get over the current limitations. That’s how we are in this amazing era of modern civilization.
Crux: “Zuckerberg isn’t a cynic; he’s a techno-fundamentalist, and that’s an equally unhealthy habit of mind. It creates the impression that technology exists outside, beyond, even above messy human decisions and relations, when the truth is that no such gap exists. Society is technological. Technology is social. Tools, as Marshall McLuhan told us more than fifty years ago, are extensions of ourselves. They amplify and distort our strengths and our flaws. That’s why we must design them with care from the start.”
Seems more than a little out of context to not mention the deep surveillance of FB.
What do you mean by "alright"? Like internally? Would you be sitting well with yourself? Would you be deeply satisfied with what you've done with your life?
I imagine you'd be troubled, and no amount of money can alleviate that kind of troubled feeling, ever.
The New Yorker is focused on being verbose and speaking at a more abstract level, so it makes sense there's no concrete recommendations to counter Zuckerberg's current route.
Nonetheless, this article seems to have rather minimal information per paragraph, and I'd also at least appreciate learning the opposite of techno-fundamentalism. Maybe an example of perceived benefits in an area where we haven't been 'techno-fundamentalists'? Overall, not impressed.
>"But, more crucial, it’s also an expression of techno-fundamentalism, the unshakable belief that one can and must invent the next technology to fix the problem caused by the last technology. Techno-fundamentalism is what has landed us in this trouble. And it’s the wrong way to get us out."
Platforms like Facebook are just exposing these innate human biases that have existed since the birth of our species.
The congressional hearings showed that even for some really smart people it's hard to understand the annals of technology and the broader dynamics.
In my view Mr. Zuckerberg's points on AI were more about identifying bots, and bad actor campaigns and not focused on censorship of individual ideas.
13 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 12.6 ms ] threadWtf?!
Seems more than a little out of context to not mention the deep surveillance of FB.
I imagine you'd be troubled, and no amount of money can alleviate that kind of troubled feeling, ever.
Nonetheless, this article seems to have rather minimal information per paragraph, and I'd also at least appreciate learning the opposite of techno-fundamentalism. Maybe an example of perceived benefits in an area where we haven't been 'techno-fundamentalists'? Overall, not impressed.
End-of-life care is one area where the thinking is changing from techno-fundamentalism to something more...human(e)
>"But, more crucial, it’s also an expression of techno-fundamentalism, the unshakable belief that one can and must invent the next technology to fix the problem caused by the last technology. Techno-fundamentalism is what has landed us in this trouble. And it’s the wrong way to get us out."
Platforms like Facebook are just exposing these innate human biases that have existed since the birth of our species.
The congressional hearings showed that even for some really smart people it's hard to understand the annals of technology and the broader dynamics.
In my view Mr. Zuckerberg's points on AI were more about identifying bots, and bad actor campaigns and not focused on censorship of individual ideas.