It does not appear to me that you have even humored my request. I'm actually not even confident you read my comment given your response doesn't actually respond to it. I hope you will.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Think, genuinely and critically, about what it means when someone tells you that you shouldn’t judge the ethics and values of their pursuits, because they are simply discovering “universal truths”.

No scientist or engineer as ever said that as far as I can recall. I was explaining that even for scientific fact which is morally neutral how you get there is important, and that scientists and engineers acknowledge this. What you are asking me to do this based on a false premise and a bad understanding of how science works.

And then, really make sure you ponder what it means when people say the purpose of a system is what it does.

It both is and isn't. Things often have consequences alongside their intended function, like how a machine gets warm when in use. It getting warm isn't a deliberate feature, it's a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. We actually try to minimise this as it wastes energy. Even things like fossil fuels aren't intended to ruin the planet, it's a side effect of how they work.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's a very common talking point now to claim technology exists independent of the culture surrounding it. It is a lie to justify morally vacant research which the, normally venture capitalist, is only concerned about the money to be made. But engineers and scientists necessarily go along with it. It's not not your problem because we are the ones executing cultural wants, we are a part of the broader culture as well.

The purpose of a system is, absolutely, what it does. It doesn't matter how well intentioned your design and ethics were, once the system is doing things, those things are its purpose. Your waste heat example, yes, it was the design intent to eliminate that, but now that's what it does, and the engineers damn well understand that its purpose is to generate waste heat in order to do whatever work it's doing.

This is a systems engineering concept. And it's inescapable.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The purpose of a system is, absolutely, what it does. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned your design and ethics were, once the system is doing things, those things are its purpose. Your waste heat example, yes, it was the design intent to eliminate that, but now that’s what it does, and the engineers damn well understand that its purpose is to generate waste heat in order to do whatever work it’s doing.

Huh? Then why is so much money spent on computers to minimize energy usage and heat production? This is perhaps the biggest load of bullshit I think I have heard in a long time. Maybe there is some concept similar to this, but if so you clearly haven't articulated it well.

Anyway I think I am done talking about this with you. You are here to fear-monger over technology you probably don't even use or understand, and I am sick of lemmings doing it.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 0 points 4 months ago

More likely you're more interested in finding a way to disagree with the concept of posiwid than in doing basic research or listening.

It's funny when y'all use "fear mongering" for people pointing out systemic issues with ai and its hype. Though it's honestly tragic how uninterested you are in considering why AI and its hype is being criticized. Whatever makes the exploitative slave labor trained energy hungry silicon make venture capital money disappear, eh?