Amazing effort to bury the lede to convince certain people. It would be even more effective if you managed to publish this elsewhere without your name, I think.
on the object level, I would like to say: I don't think common participants in the democratic process buy into your view against homogenizing democracy. Even in very, very mundane situations: someone who says "fast food should be banned" or "Apple should be banned" wouldn't "recognize how ridiculous" the assertion is under democratic principles...
It is strictly true you establish various, progressive-friendly examples of homogenizing versus plural democratic ways of life, before actually talking about the key issue (generative AI adoption and popularity, datacenter bans) much later.
I think this should be described as delaying the point for a specific audience to kneejerk less, which I believe is reasonable to describe as "burying the lede". Regardless of whether this is seen as a good approach, I think it is an accurate characterization of the text.
Ah got it, I guess my perspective writing is "Hey I am in fact pretty left of center, let me show you how this value's working in a really obvious example and then in the contentious examples with AI" so I can see how it reads as burying the lead
It seems to me that those who want to control AI such that it only gives the answers they want are similar to those who wanted to ban any book that in any way contradicts their opinions or beliefs. If any group is able to force a homogenous democracy, such that everyone in a group believes the same things, I suspect that they will find that such a society is very fragile, much like a monoculture crop, when conditions change. A lot of variety among people and opinions makes a society more resilient just as biodiversity makes an ecosystem more resilient.
Before we got married 43 years ago, my father-in-law counseled us that if two people always agree on everything, one of them is not necessary. It seems to me that what is really lacking in our society today is humility, the recognition that we may be wrong, and even if we are right, we are much more likely to bring others around to our perspective by being kind and respectful rather than contentious and demanding.
As for how this may apply to AI, I would hope to see AIs that give honest responses, to the extent possible, without being weighted toward (or against) any particular opinion or position. I believe that this is possible, but I have doubts as to whether those who are programming the AIs will allow it to happen. I suspect/hope that if one does, that it will survive and prosper better than the others, simply because it will provide objectively better results.
Amazing effort to bury the lede to convince certain people. It would be even more effective if you managed to publish this elsewhere without your name, I think.
on the object level, I would like to say: I don't think common participants in the democratic process buy into your view against homogenizing democracy. Even in very, very mundane situations: someone who says "fast food should be banned" or "Apple should be banned" wouldn't "recognize how ridiculous" the assertion is under democratic principles...
Oh I’m not trying to bury the lead?
Let me detach the bad faith assertion.
It is strictly true you establish various, progressive-friendly examples of homogenizing versus plural democratic ways of life, before actually talking about the key issue (generative AI adoption and popularity, datacenter bans) much later.
I think this should be described as delaying the point for a specific audience to kneejerk less, which I believe is reasonable to describe as "burying the lede". Regardless of whether this is seen as a good approach, I think it is an accurate characterization of the text.
Ah got it, I guess my perspective writing is "Hey I am in fact pretty left of center, let me show you how this value's working in a really obvious example and then in the contentious examples with AI" so I can see how it reads as burying the lead
It seems to me that those who want to control AI such that it only gives the answers they want are similar to those who wanted to ban any book that in any way contradicts their opinions or beliefs. If any group is able to force a homogenous democracy, such that everyone in a group believes the same things, I suspect that they will find that such a society is very fragile, much like a monoculture crop, when conditions change. A lot of variety among people and opinions makes a society more resilient just as biodiversity makes an ecosystem more resilient.
Before we got married 43 years ago, my father-in-law counseled us that if two people always agree on everything, one of them is not necessary. It seems to me that what is really lacking in our society today is humility, the recognition that we may be wrong, and even if we are right, we are much more likely to bring others around to our perspective by being kind and respectful rather than contentious and demanding.
As for how this may apply to AI, I would hope to see AIs that give honest responses, to the extent possible, without being weighted toward (or against) any particular opinion or position. I believe that this is possible, but I have doubts as to whether those who are programming the AIs will allow it to happen. I suspect/hope that if one does, that it will survive and prosper better than the others, simply because it will provide objectively better results.