Seems to be a common feature of US politics that words lose their meanings and become distorted into vague aspersions about categories of people, which in practice take on the meaning of “the enemy” or at least “the other”, words degraded so that their main purpose is to divide.
I suspect the tipping point here is when you can get around to employing someone to have good taste and imagination, and take a real interest in artisanship on your behalf.
I think you’re right, but that’s even more concerning. A fully fascist take on what is acceptable speech.
Ironically, what Musk posted is perfectly acceptable ( in and of itself, ignoring the context of the person who is saying it ) since violence or the threat of violence is sometimes necessary to prevent things getting worse. For example, “Ukraine should be helped to defend itself” is a call for violence.
Which is why it’s such a bullshit excuse to ban speech for that reason alone. I got banned for suggesting France might help out the USA by shipping over any surplus guillotines. I’m sure they would have no issue at all if I were enthusiastically advocating genocide. Never mind, I needed a push to make the move to Lemmy ; )
Tim Curry undied for me too! Seriously, brightened my day as well.
I think the article is missing the point on two levels.
First is the significance of this data, or rather lack of significance. The internet existed for 20-some years before the majority of people felt they had a use for it. AI is similarly in a finding-its-feet phase where we know it will change the world but haven’t quite figured out the details. After a period of increased integration into our lives it will reach a tipping point where it gains wider usage, and we’re already very close to that.
Also they are missing what I would consider the two main reasons people don’t use it yet.
First, many people just don’t know what to do with it (as was the case with the early internet). The knowledge/imagination/interface/tools aren’t mature enough so it just seems like a lot of effort for minimal benefits. And if the people around you aren’t using it, you probably don’t feel the need.
Second reason is that the thought of it makes people uncomfortable or downright scared. Quite possibly with good reason. But even if it all works out well in the end, what we’re looking at is something that will drive the pace of change beyond what human nature can easily deal with. That’s already a problem in the modern world but we aint seen nothing yet. The future looks impossible to anticipate, and that’s scary. Not engaging with AI is arguably just hiding your head in the sand, but maybe that beats contemplating an existential terror that you’re powerless to stop.
At all levels too. I mean, why the 24 hours a day fluorescent lights so you don’t know night from day? How does that help? Hell, how does it even make more money? Even with senior management, the cruelty is the point.