[rektide]

What a fragging amazing treasure. Rushkoff has just gotten better and better over time, more and more on point. Humble fun opening:

> I thought i was supposed to go out there to do this talk on the digital future & do this talk on the digital future - you know what I usually do -& just try to make people angry, you know- wealthy people upset by telling them people what this technology is for, and all that, and business plans are stupid, and killing the world....

Real talk middle, about the brutal indifferent stasism of AI:

> The dataset on which we are feeding our ai's is us. Is what we are actually doing. We have created a situation where we have a generation of very powerful children learning how to be, based on how we are.

> The only way to raise appropriately AIs is to begin behaving appropriately ourselves.

[wpietri]

"I don't necessarily like tech bros but I like talking with tech bros and at tech bros because they're easy to upset. The main way you upset them is by asserting either their humanity or everyone else's humanity."

Ok, this is now on my watchlist. Such a good summation.

[freetime2]

I don't think that making denigrating remarks about any group of people (even "tech bros") is a good way to start a talk. It signals to me that the speaker is more interested in identity politics, pitting "us" against "them" because that's what seems to hold peoples' attention these days, rather than serious solutions.

[ggm]

> The only way to raise appropriately AIs is to begin behaving appropriately ourselves.

I dunno, wasn't Saint Augustine "lord make me good, but not yet" pretty much admitting that our heroes have feet of clay, and yet they function as educators and leaders.

If you modulate the training set through externally derived axioms of good and bad, can't you train an AI on objectively naughty data to recognise the anti-set of good behaviour?

[NovaDudely]

The issue of what is good or bad is all a matter of perspective though.

On the extreme end of this is - What one side considered a terrorist, the other considers them a liberating warrior.

That is easy at that scale but the finer grain you go on morals the more fuzzy it gets and the more push back you will get from all directions. This is how you get things like the 1946 Obscenity threshold of "I know it when I see it".

Many saw the 2008 crash as a major issue that destroyed the lives of millions of people, some hard line environmentalists saw it as the single great decrease in consumption we have ever had.

[kuchenbecker]

Do we WANT the AI judging us as good / bad?