Below is my column in the New York Post on the call of Bill Gates to use Artificial Intelligence to combat “political polarization” on the Internet. It turns out the problem on the Internet is those pesky humans “who want to believe … things” that they should not. Enter the new AI Overlords to bring collective peace and tranquility through content assimilation.
Here is the column:
“We are the AI.” That Borg-like greeting could be coming soon to the internet in the form of new AI overlords. In a recent chilling interview, Microsoft founder and billionaire Bill Gates called for the use of artificial intelligence to combat not just “digital misinformation” but “political polarization.”
He is only the latest to call for the use of either AI or algorithms to shape what people say or read on the internet. The danger of such a system is evident where free speech, like resistance, could become futile.
In an interview on a German program, “Handelsblatt Disrupt,” Gates calls for unleashing AI to stop certain views from being “magnified by digital channels.” The problem is that we allow “various conspiracy theories like QAnon or whatever to be blasted out by people who wanted to believe those things.”
Gates added that AI can combat “political polarization” by checking “confirmation bias.”
Confirmation bias is a term long used to describe the tendency of people to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms their own beliefs. It is now being used to dismiss those with opposing views as ignorant slobs dragging their knuckles across the internet — people endangering us all by failing to accept the logic behind policies on COVID, climate change or a host of other political issues.
This is not the first call for AI overlords to protect us from ourselves. Last September, Gates gave the keynote address at the Forbes 400 Summit on Philanthropy. He told his fellow billionaires that “polarization and lack of trust is a problem.”
The problem is again … well … people: “People seek simple solutions [and] the truth is kind of boring sometimes.”
Not AI, of course. That would supply the solutions. Otherwise, Gates suggested, we could all die: “Political polarization may bring it all to an end, we’re going to have a hung election and a civil war.”
Others have suggested a Brave New World where citizens will be carefully guided in what they read and see. Democratic leaders have called for a type of “enlightened algorithms” to frame what citizens access on the internet. In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) objected that people were not listening to the informed views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.”
Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices: “This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.” In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.
Social media responded to such calls and engaged in widespread censorship of those who held opposing views of mask mandates, vaccine safety, school mandates, and the origin of COVID-19. Many of those criticisms and views are now acknowledged as plausible and legitimate, but scientists were banned and censored. There was no “polarization” allowed. The public never was allowed to have that full debate on social media because such views were declared disinformation.
President Biden joined in these calls for censorship, often sounding like a censor-in-chief, denouncing social media companies for “killing people” by not blocking enough. Recently, he expressed doubt that the public can “know the truth” without such censorship by “editors” in Big Tech.
They found an eager body of censors at companies like Twitter. After taking over as CEO, Parag Agrawal pledged to regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
That view was echoed last week in the first hearing on Twitter’s censorship program. Former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli testified on what she repeatedly called the “nuanced” standard used by her and her staff on censorship. She explained that they did not just balance free speech against public safety in deciding whether to allow someone to speak. Rather censorship depended on the persons involved: “Whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely?”
All of that could be much easier with an AI Overlord that can protect us against our own doubts and divisions. Currently, Microsoft, the company Gates founded, uses NewsGuard, a self-described arbiter of misinformation, which rates sites and has been widely criticized for targeting conservative media.
Now, this work could be turned over to an AI Overlord. Of course, the intelligence remains artificial. A human has to program what is truth and what is intolerable “polarization.” It would be a ramped-up version of ChatGPT, the popular AI service that Microsoft just incorporated into its Bing search engine. It censors “offensive” content and bars certain viewpoints because it was told to do so.
AI enforces the collective truth that needs to be amplified for a greater good as determined by figures like Gates.
We are clearly not facing a giant menacing cube circling our planet (No, the Chinese balloons don’t count). Yet, after years of censorship, you would be forgiven if it all sounds chillingly similar to “Lower your shields and surrender … Resistance is futile.”
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.
So do we imagine Gates wants free speech for himself, just not for us?
If he is included in his no free speech rule then he needs to shut the f up now.
BILL HITLER
BILL OF WRONGS
A LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND
_________________________
Thank God and the American Founders for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Supreme Court, please wake the —- up and do your sworn-oath duty to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Supreme Court please wake the —- up, exercise the power of Judicial Review, and strike down every unconstitutional act of the executive and legislative branches since 1860.
The Supreme Court has no power to usurp the power of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has no power to usurp the power of the legislative branch.
The Supreme Court has no power to amend the Constitution, legislate, modify legislation or modify legislation through “interpretation.”
The singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
All this hoopla from the most Arrogant, Conceited Neanderthal’s who want to take control of societal thoughts and norms yet ignore history’s many failures and the consequences when restraints on freedoms are applied. Their judgment [?] is both freighting and comical at the same time. Freighting that they could assume total control and comical that their views are swallowed hook line and sinker by anyone.
Lyrics obtained from genius.com: Lesley Gore “You Don’t Own Me” produced by Quincy Jones, December 1963.
[Verse 1]
You don’t own me
I’m not just one of your many toys
You don’t own me
Don’t say I can’t go with other boys
[Chorus 1]
And don’t tell me what to do
Don’t tell me what to say
And please, when I go out with you
Don’t put me on display ’cause
[Verse 2]
You don’t own me
Don’t try to change me in any way
You don’t own me
Don’t tie me down ’cause I’d never stay
[Chorus 2]
I don’t tell you what to say
I don’t tell you what to do
So just let me be myself
That’s all I ask of you
[Post-Chorus]
I’m young and I love to be young
I’m free and I love to be free
To live my life the way I want
To say and do whatever I please
[Chorus 1]
And don’t tell me what to do
Oh, don’t tell me what to say
And please, when I go out with you
Don’t put me on display
[Chorus 2]
I don’t tell you what to say
Oh, don’t tell you what to do
So just let me be myself
That’s all I ask of you
[Post-Chorus (Fade)]
I’m young and I love to be young
I’m free and I love to be free
To live my life the way I want
To say and do whatever I please
Reposting this to bump the trolls. If you need to delete it Darren, then you do it, it’s fine, it is a double post in the purest sense, but there is factual information inside, and the trolls aren’t going to change that fact:
@Ralph
I owe you an apology, too – I ‘m sorry for the initial knee-jerk reaction. Yes, most of Gates’ success has been something along those lines. He happens to come from my own birth state of New Mexico, and his parents were *not* poor. The real innovation, even if it wasn’t profitable, was not happening at Microsoft in those days, indeed, it is not happening there now; they were just so omnipresent and let’s face it – rich – it was difficult for others to get a foothold, and for a very long time. This is not a new battle, just more public thanks to mobile technology that is in almost quite literally everyone’s hand. This includes AI – this is essentially automation, and it has been available in (formerly very expensive) pro applications for some time, did not used to be available for free on the web. Hence, the non-pro users are a bit shocked. Nevertheless, computer algorithms are nothing new, and the term ‘AI’ in its truest sense, is a misnomer and a canard. We are not dealing with HAL, and web 3.0, if anyone is familiar, is not actually a thing, just a concept, at this point, and the juice required to power something like quantum computing, which *might* make true AI a possibility in the sci-fi sense, is far, far out of reach. When someone like Musk warns of the dangers, he is referring to unethical human beings that will exploit what we *do* have to their benefit, not Star Trek level technology.
There are still the stalwarts that believe in free and open technology, though. I agree with the other technically minded posters here, AI is no panacea, is only as good as its programming, and if bias is there, then bias is what it will do. Algorithms do not ‘think’; they do what they are programmed to do, and it isn’t 21st century mysticism – all a hashtag is, is a way to perform a search inside a database (in that case, one generated by the community of users and whatever data the bots have sucked up. Used to be just a way to look things up inside databases). Breaking them is actually trivially easy given that the laws of mathematics upon which they are based are absolute. That does not help when the people pulling the strings are of a mindset like Gates and others and manipulate the code to adhere to their personal beliefs. Technology will never supplant the human brain, which can make decisions independently of its previously stored knowledge. We used to call this being human.
As with so many other human endeavors, technology requires a human compass to guide it, and that seems to be in limbo at present. Sorry for the length, but thank you for your reply.
OT: Biden lied in his SOTU address and elsewhere. One of the important lies was how well he was doing protecting our southern border.
—
Officials say Biden manipulating border stats, blinding agents to fleeing aliens
Former acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf says border agents being restrained from using surveillance balloons to track illegal migrants.
…Biden administration has begun manipulating border statistics, incentivizing illegal aliens to shift from illegally crossing the southern border to seeking parole and asylum at ports of entry while blinding border agents by restricting their use of surveillance balloons. …to create a false portrait to the American people that the border crisis has eased.
***”*So you’re also going to see in the next several months the number of gotaways go significantly down, not because there are less of them, but because the department now has less capability to track them.” ***
https://justthenews.com/government/security/ex-homeland-chief-says-biden-manipulating-border-stats-blinding-agents-fleeing?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Please cite the Constitution for any mandate to “secure” the border, halt invasion and illicit crossing, or otherwise “protect” “our” southern border. Additionally, which entities, precisely, constitute “our,” since 29% of entities present do not meet original U.S. immigration criteria? Immigration criteria in the Naturalization Act of 1802 were in full force an effect on January 1, 1863. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln arbitrarily and unconstitutionally abrogated extant immigration law, constituting but one act among his many unconstitutional exploits, aka crimes, subsequent to his initial, irrefutably unconstitutional denial of fully constitutional secession (West Virginia seceded as did Catalan, Scotland, Pakistan, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Great Britain, East Timor, Canada, etc.) – no act resulting from an initial illegal act is legal.
“Please cite the Constitution for any mandate to “secure” the border”
That is implicit. States that had sovereign boundaries signed the Constitution. The borders of America are recognized and protection of them is implicit and I think also indirectly mentioned in the Constitution.
“The remedy for bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence”
Justice Brandeis Whitney V California.
NY Violates Brandeis rule, FL Does not. FL does exactly what Brandeis demands.
Not being able to silence your oponents is not a violation of the first amendment.
AI and algorithms are not the same thing.
An algorithim is typically a process created by a human and and can reflect the biases of that human.
AI – artificial intelligence is much broader in scope and can mean many things.
It can mean machine learning – which has been arround for a long time. That is the foundation of modern manufacturing quality control systems.
Typically that means feeding a computer massive amounts of data along with the expected results and using calculus to trein the computer using that data to be able to generalize to accomidate data it has never seen.
This works very well – Except when it does not, regardless, it is not “intelligence” in any meaningful way.
The holy grail of AI is for systems to program themselves.
The AI that we are seeing right now, is fundimentally just a combination of radically improved human language parsing, with massive databases.
It is NOT intelligence, and it is not self programing, and it is only as neutral as the data that it is provided.
Anyone that think that it is not possible to politicize the crap out of what should be objective data only needs to look at even a mildly controversial topic on Wikipedia.
What is the argument you are making ?
All freedom by its very nature must include the freedom to be WRONG or it is not freedom.
I thought ‘Diversity’ ™ was a strength, in fact, we are constantly told it is our greatest strength.
Does this also apply to diversity of opinion?
Please help s@@tlibs! I am having trouble reconciling the seeming contradiction. But what do I know, I’m a deplorable.
antonio
The modern left is one massive ideological contradiction.
You have to self lobotomize to choke down modern leftism.
Just remember you knuckle dragging bigots that what Gates is proposing is actually for your benefit.
You need us morally enlightened progressive ‘good whites’ to guide your thinking.
The above is my feeble attempt to engage in ‘wokespeak’.
Are there any s@@tlibs who can better explain the necessity and goodness of censorship? I need help since I am just a deplorable.
antonio
Now that Russia, Russia, Russia is no longer panning out the new boggy man is QAnon and it’s supposed approval by Republicans. Here’s a little reminder of approval of violence by our leftist friends. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-biden-bail/biden-staff-donate-to-group-that-pays-bail-in-riot-torn-minneapolis-idUSKBN2360SZ.
Meet Samuel Armes – Groomed by the CIA and FBI and Author of the Original “1776 Returns” FED-SURRECTION Document – That He Reportedly Told a Friend to Send to the Proud Boys to Set Them Up
By Jim Hoft
Published February 15, 2023 at 8:00am
376 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/meet-samuel-armes-groomed-cia-fbi-author-original-1776-returns-fed-surrection-document-told-friend-send-proud-boys/
********
“Are We Going to Challenge the Immoral, Ungodly Policies of the Democrat Party?” – Father Pavone on FBI Targeting Catholics (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft
Published February 15, 2023 at 9:45am
108 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/going-challenge-immoral-ungodly-policies-democrat-party-father-pavone-fbi-targeting-catholics-video/
We shouldn’t forget Mark Zuckerberg who gave three hundred an fifty million bucks to the Borg. He later said that it was wrong to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532. Strange, I haven’t heard that he has asked the Borg to give him his money back.
Algorithms “shape what people … read on the internet” whether or not Turley wants them to. The issue is: which algorithms are chosen and what speech do they highlight (or not)?
Anonymous, are you saying that just because algorithms allow some people to be heard and silences others that this a reality that we just have to live with. On more than one occasion we have heard from you that it is wrong to block people of your political persuasion on this blog. So according to your view point you should just shut up and live with it without complaint just because it happens. Hand to face.
Algorithms don’t silence anyone. Everyone is free to speak in the public square. Sounds like you have a weak understanding of what algorithms do and don’t do.
And you’re clearly confusing me with someone else.
Algorithms are designed to “bury” certain viewpoints or points of interest.
They will do that no matter which algorithm is chosen. It is impossible to write an algorithm that doesn’t highlight some speech and deemphasize other speech.
Of course it is – an algorithm that does not alter the priority of its inputs does not favor or disfavor anything.
While the discussion of algorithms in the context of speech and politics is new, the use of algorithms to shape communications traffic is older than the internet.
What do you mean by “the priority of its inputs”? (priority according to what/whom?)
Are you just referring to FIFO?
If so, in the context of “what people … read on the internet” (which is what the column is about / what we’re discussing), FIFO does highlight some speech (FI) and deemphasize other speech (LI).
First – No I was not speaking specifically of a FIFO.
I was not speaking specifically at all.
That is the POINT – an algorithm is a description of a process to solve a problem.
Addressing your claim regarding FIFO’s – No they do not favor anything.
A FIFO maintains existing priorities. It does not alter them.
It does not “Favor” First in – whatever independent process resulted in something being first results in its being Favored – NOT the FIFO.
You are both pedantic – again, and WRONG – again.
I would note that given that in the real world there is no begining or end to speech, your own argument on its own terms fails.
Because at any moment what was First moments ago is gone – disfavored, and what was Last moments ago is now first – favored,
and something else is last now.
YOUR argument that a FIFO favors something falsely Presumes the FIFO is a static once and done system.
Not a continuous system – where FIFO’s are by every possible measure neutral to content.
Everything gets seen. Everything is last at one point and first at another.
Where ever you received your education – demand a refund.
You have been rippled off.
This is not all that difficult. Why are you having so much trouble ?
“A FIFO maintains existing priorities.”
No. A FIFO maintains an existing sequence. But a sequence is not a synonym for priority.
Again: choose a language and present an actual algorithm that — in the context of “what people … read on the internet” (which is what the column is about / what we’re discussing) — does not highlight some speech and deemphasize other speech.
Stop claiming that it’s possible and DO IT.
“Everything gets seen”
Nonsense. If you read continuously for the rest of your life, you would not have enough time to see everything that’s available on the internet. Stop ignoring the context of this entire discussion: “what people … read on the internet”
No. A FIFO maintains an existing sequence. But a sequence is not a synonym for priority.
!pedantry alert!
So if you sequence composers by their birth date, it tells you how to prioritize their contributions?
This is a long post – because you are a pedantic moron.
For those readers who are not so thick as to understand that a FIFO fully meets ATS’s demands,
You need read no further.
If however you need the obvious in tedious detail – read one.
But I will note that you can ALWAYS demand greater detail. You can ALWAYS engage in stupid pedantry.
I have provided ATS an implimentation of a FIFO in programable Silicon.
i.e. one that does not require a computer.
But it is always possible to demand more – the layout of the transistors, the individual atoms making up each transistor,
the sub atomic particles making up the atoms.
A sequence is not a universal synonym for priority.
In a FIFO sequence and priority are the same.
Unless you are dealing with some twisted FIFO in which you have OOB management ad can remove or advance items within the FIFO. Which would not likely be called a FIFO.
As to an example – I alfeady provided you an example.
You clearly are in far over your head and deluded.
You do not understand theproblem you are dealing with – your mind is too narrow.
You want to confine the problem to messages on the internet and to some specific computer language.
Algorithms can be specified in any language at all. Coumputer Languages, Human languages.
A cookbook is just a collection of algorithms written in human language for producing specific foods.
Even the Term FIFO is just shorthand for a specific algorithms
You can find all the details of a FIFO in Donald Knuth’s The Art of Computer Programming Vol. 1 Chapter 2.
Or many other places.
You keep ranting about context, but the context is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
““Everything gets seen”
Nonsense. ”
Back to being pedantic and stupid.
Your own writing is horribly imprecise yet you are demanding ridiculous levels of precision from everyone else.
You have conflated seen with read – those who live by Pedantry die by pedantry.
Do you need your FIFO example provided in Machine code ?
Here is the top level implimentation of a FIFO in Verilog.
The full implementation would be beyond “fair use”.
// Verilog project: Verilog code for FIFO memory
// Top level Verilog code for FIFO Memory
module fifo_mem(data_out,fifo_full, fifo_empty, fifo_threshold, fifo_overflow, fifo_underflow,clk, rst_n, wr, rd, data_in);
input wr, rd, clk, rst_n;
input[7:0] data_in; // FPGA projects using Verilog/ VHDL
output[7:0] data_out;
output fifo_full, fifo_empty, fifo_threshold, fifo_overflow, fifo_underflow;
wire[4:0] wptr,rptr;
wire fifo_we,fifo_rd;
write_pointer top1(wptr,fifo_we,wr,fifo_full,clk,rst_n);
read_pointer top2(rptr,fifo_rd,rd,fifo_empty,clk,rst_n);
memory_array top3(data_out, data_in, clk,fifo_we, wptr,rptr);
status_signal top4(fifo_full, fifo_empty, fifo_threshold, fifo_overflow, fifo_underflow, wr, rd, fifo_we, fifo_rd, wptr,rptr,clk,rst_n);
endmodule
Regardless, whether a human choose to use their eyeballs to “see” something or not,
Everything that enters a FIFO comes out of the FIFO.
As you note it comes out in the same sequence as it enters,
It also all comes out at EXACTLY the same priority – which is the POINT that you miss.
There is no Priority in a FIFO – again the POINT.
All social media today is implimented as Some form of FIFO – except with Filtering – either inbound or outbound.
Often multiple layers of filtering.
As an example when you choose who you Follow – you are filtering.
Regardless, Normally after selecting who YOU follow and absent other filtering by the SM company what you have is normally A FIFO that you can scroll through with most recent messages at the top and the oldest at the bottom.
There is no reason – absent limits imposed by the SM software that you could not follow Everyone.
The fact that you would be unable to read that feed is irrelevant to this discussion.
If you were watching you would still SEE it.
You asked whether something could be done.
That was a stupid question – because OBVIOUSLY it can be done.
“You want to confine the problem to messages on the internet ”
No, I want to confine it to the statement of Turley’s that I quoted and responded to: algorithms “shape what people … read on the internet,” whether or not Turley wants them to.
If you want to discuss something else, find someone else to discuss it with. It’s that simple.
“the context is completely irrelevant to the discussion.”
UTTER BS. You’re deluded.
More pedantic word games.
The problem is what it is regardless of your attempts to make it smaller than it is.
Turley’s remarks reference one domain. They do not limit free speech to that domain.
You are free to discuss whatever you want.
If you do not want your remarks corrected, get them right in the first place.
A problem that crosses multiple domains with near certainty can not be solved solely within a single domain or context.
Asserting otherwise is “UTTER BS” and delusional.
“algorithms’ do whatever they are programed them to do.
“Sounds like you have a weak understanding of what algorithms do and don’t do.”
“‘algorithms’ do whatever they are programed them to do.”
Within bounds. They cannot be programmed to do some things. For example, it’s impossible to program them in a way that doesn’t highlight some speech and deemphasize other speech.
Either way, algorithms don’t silence anyone. Everyone is free to speak in the public square.
Total BS. You clearly know absolutely nothing about “algorithms” – not in the sphere of SM or any other sphere.
An algorithm can be written to do anything that is possible to do.
It can favor nothing.
It can favor some things.
It can completely block some things.
Why are you spouting such nonsense about very basic issues ?
“An algorithm can be written to do anything that is possible to do.”
Anything that is possible to do **with an algorithm**. There are many acts that algorithms cannot accomplish.
“It can favor nothing.”
That’s false. Present an algorithm that “shapes what people … read on the internet” (the topic of discussion and context for all of the claims about algorithms in this subthread) but that favors nothing. Choose your language and write the program. You’re not going to be able to.
“Anything that is possible to do **with an algorithm**. There are many acts that algorithms cannot accomplish.”
Name something.
I would note that just because you do not know how to create an algorithm to do something does not mean that it can not be done by algorithm.
“”It can favor nothing.”
That’s false. Present an algorithm that “shapes what people … read on the internet” (the topic of discussion and context for all of the claims about algorithms in this subthread) but that favors nothing. Choose your language and write the program. You’re not going to be able to.”
Trivial – as YOU noted before FIFO.
I would note though that you inaccurately described the problem. When you say “shapes what you read” that phrasing has a presumption in it that the algorithm writer controls what the reader will and will not see, as opposed to that the algorithm writer, allows the reader to see everything, or to see whatever they want.
“Name something.”
An algorithm cannot ride a bicycle. It cannot give you a kiss. It cannot create world peace. There are many acts that algorithms cannot perform.
“as YOU noted before FIFO.”
Nope. If you order search results by FIFO, then you’d be prioritizing text that was written earlier (placing those entries higher in the results).
“When you say “shapes what you read” that phrasing has a presumption in it that the algorithm writer controls what the reader will and will not see …”
Don’t put quotation marks around your paraphrase and pretend that they’re my words. Turley is the one who said “shapes what people … read on the internet”. (Learn what quotation marks mean.) That’s what the discussion is about. Are you arguing that HE is presuming what you claim?
“allows the reader to see everything”
Again: if you spent your entire life reading, you could not read everything available on the internet.
Again – if you are not a pedantic moron – do not waste your time reading this.
This is tedious – because some people can not grasp things easily, and are trapped inside of a web of their own assumptions.
“An algorithm cannot ride a bicycle. It cannot give you a kiss. It cannot create world peace. There are many acts that algorithms cannot perform.”
Given that you are a pedantic moron – An algorithm alone can not Act. So it can do nothing.
All algoritm’s interact with the real world by providing the control logic for something else that performs the ACT.
Given the appropriate hardware – An algorithm can ride a Bicycle, and I am pretty sure such an algoritm already exists.
It certainly can drive a Car.
If also can “give you a kiss” – would you prefer a robot to execute the algorithm – if not, a human can.
World peace is trivially accomplishable – one way would be to kill all humans.
There likely are things that can not be accomplished with algorithms – but thus far you do not seem to be able to come up with one.
There is also the question of how precise is your definition of algorithm.
As an example do you consider heuristics a form of algorithm ?
AI uses Neural networks, are those Algorithms – of course answering that would require you to understand how Neural Nets work, as well as to decide what your definition of an algorithm is.
“Nope. If you order search results by FIFO, then you’d be prioritizing text that was written earlier (placing those entries higher in the results).”
Now you are confusing sequence with priority. FIFO’s do not have priority, or more accurately everything has the same priority. They have order – sequence.
With respect to YOUR example – Why are you placing what is written earlier at the top ?
FIFO’s have in and out, they do not have left, right, top or bottom.
Youi insist on being Pedantic, but then you make ignorant assumptions of your own.
You have assumed an orientation to the OUTPUT of a FIFO – a perfectly reasonable implimentation would be to display each message as it exits the Fifo and then discard it and display the next.
The decision to preserve the Output and orient the output in a specific way is YOURS – and it is an ASSUMPTION.
And your concept of Priority rests on YOUR assumption.
I can write a social Media client that places each new message at the bottom of the screen and pushes the older ones up.
The POINT is YOU keep making assumption.
There is no REQUIRED way to present messages period, much less as they Exit My FIFO,
And YOUR concept of “priority” is based on YOUR assumptions regarding how messages are presented as well as YOUR
perception that a specific presentation implies a specific priority.
“Are you arguing that HE is presuming what you claim?”
No I am making a specific argument regarding a STUPID claim that YOU made.
Turley is perfectly correct that the choices that are made by social media companies effect our perception.
Nor is that limited to social media companies.
Everything we are exposed to and how we are exposed to it from the moment of birth effects our perception.
The entire concept of “free speech” is that to the greatest extent possible we should not attempt to “shape perception” by controlling what people can communicate, or by controlling the channels through which they communicate.
That we should allow the “shaping” to be done by the receiver – allowing people do decide for themselves, what they will receive.
Or put differently – Freedom generally means each of us controls our own lives constrained by only a few limits.
When you seek to control others – by means other than your own communications, that is outside of a few limits immoral.
“Again: if you spent your entire life reading, you could not read everything available on the internet.”
And you make my point perfectly.
Who gets gets to choose what I read ? You ? Twitter ? Or me ?
Any answer other than “me” is in nearly all case immoral.
“Again: if you spent your entire life reading, you could not read everything available on the internet.”
Correct. That has been true for hundreds of years.
If you spent your entire life reading – you could not read all the books in my basement.
Regardless, the choice what to read, who to listen to belongs to the listener – not the FBI. Not the government.
Pure deception. Do you wish to provide a quote from Above the Law? LOL. You are full of ..it.
Anonymous speaking in the public square no longer means that you go down to the square at the middle of town to let your opinion be heard. Today the public square is social media. If an Algorithm will not allow such speech it can be described as nothing other than outright censorship.
Actually speaking in the public square does still mean that you can go down to the square at the middle of town to let your opinion be heard. It also means that you can buy a printing press and print what you want.
That is right in the middle of the Internet. You never liked free speech and you never will. You are an authoritarian.
“No word on the motive for this attack” Gee, what could it be now?
All the world’s great civilizations, -from Greek/Socratic debate, to Europe’s George Hegel, to America’s bipartisan government-, have as their foundation the idea that: “[hypo]thesis, antithesis, synthesis” produces the truest/best outcome.
As there will always be more have-nots than haves, more average thinkers than brilliants, more perfunctory performers than achievers, majority rule cannot bring about the best in us without listening and considering opposing ideas/ideals.
Ian Michael Gumby’s post is thought-provoking.
Having come from a communist country, that is why we have the the US a Second Amendment right after the First. The Framers were wise beyond their years by centuries. What would they say if Trump was in full control with a super majority in Congress? I bet their tune would be quite different. In fact, in the 60s, they were the opposite of who they are today.
Find this on YouTube and listen to this music video by Five Times August:
@FiveTimesAugust
Feb 14
Good morning @BillGates your music video has now been seen by a million people online. Appears a lot of people like the idea of #GatesBehindTheBars – hope you get a chance to watch with everyone at the @gatesfoundation – enjoy!
We are rich or powerful or both rich and powerful.
That makes us your betters.
We shall determine what should be allowed to be read.
We shall determine who should be allowed to be heard.
We shall determine who should be allowed to speak their points of view.
But we will do it by using an AI, controlled by us, your betters.
You can post or comment all you want. That is your 1stA right.
But our AI will make sure it is never read by anyone.
You, you unwashed masses, will never be heard, or seen.
Only those whom we approve of, will be allowed.
Resistance is futile.
Sincerely, Your Betters.
No matter the institution, concentrated power is always fertile ground for evil. It doesn’t matter if it’s Big Tech, the federal government, railroad corporations, colleges and universities, the Catholic Church, or your family.
Gates said: “The problem is that we allow “various conspiracy theories like QAnon or whatever to be blasted out by people who wanted to believe those things.
Did the government, or anyone, ever determine who “QAnon” is, after all these years? Isn’t that odd that the intel community, or whomever, has never outed “Q”? Like, who is doing the whole “Q” psyop? Hmmm. Makes you wonder who/what is behind the psyop. Gee, could it be the CIA? Hmmm.