The thing I actually wanted to say about AI today, before the whole world jumped the shark yet again.

Anyway, @zkat warned us. Talking about whether or not AI "works" was a trap, and always was. The ethical component is all that matters, and from that analysis alone, the onus is on all of us to reject and oppose AI.

Getting mired into whether or not it "works" is bad praxis in several ways: it de-emphasizes the ethics, it opens up to goalpost shifting about what it means for AI to "work," and it's easier for the boosters to Gish gallop or overwhelm with jargon.

Sure enough, that's where we are now. I'm as guilty of that as anyone, to be sure. But like... all weekend, there have been so many new claims about AI "working," and every one takes a lot of effort to read critically and debunk. None of them change the ethical calculus.

@xgranade One reason many people want to avoid the ethical arguments is because many people won't actually take any action based on ethics. They may claim to have ethics, perhaps even the same ethics you do, but actually changing behavior, holding others accountable, organizing etc. simply doesn't happen.

These things only happen if other considerations come into play.

I don't know how to save our democracy/civilization/biosphere if we can't get people to act on ethics.

@skyfaller @xgranade Too true. How many people drive slower because it is less destructive to the planet?

@khleedril @skyfaller @xgranade
In 1974, there was a national (US) campaign to drive at 55 mph. It was a federal response to the alarming petrol crisis of 1973.
Jingles about driving at 55 arose!
"55 saves lives."
Trucker slang included 'double nickels' (5 cents and 5 cents -> 55).

That successful campaign -- the national speed limit -- remained in effect until 1995.

It suits my Sustainability mindset to remember 55 mph, although 'drives like an old codger' is an alternate framing.

#history

@rabbit74 @skyfaller @xgranade But that was more about economics than ethics.