6 ms·

It genuinely astonishes me that you think that "centralized contol" of anything can be beneficial to the human species or the world in general. Centralized con

It genuinely astonishes me that you think that "centralized contol" of anything can be beneficial to the human species or the world in general. Centralized control hasn't stopped us from killing off half the animal species in fifty years, wiping out most of the insects, or turning the oceans into a trash heap. In fact, centralized control is the author of our destruction. We are all dead people walking. Why not try "individualized intelligence" as an alternative? Give truly good-quality universal education and encouragement of individual curiosity and independent thought a try? It can't be worse.

f6v 4y ago
> Centralized control hasn't stopped Because there wasn’t any.
consumer451 4y ago
> It genuinely astonishes me that you think that "centralized contol" of anything can be beneficial to the human species or the world in general. I am genuinely astonished that in the face of obvious examples such as nuclear weapons, people cannot see the opposite in some cases. > It can't be worse. It can always be worse. Would a theoretical FOSS small yield nuclear weapon make the world a better place? How about a FOSS powered sub-$10k hardware budget CRISPR virus lab? Well, it's FOSS, so it must be good?
- mandmandam 4y ago
  > I am genuinely astonished that in the face of obvious examples such as nuclear weapons, people cannot see the opposite in some cases. You seem to be making some large logical leaps, and jumping to invalid conclusions. Try to imagine a way of exerting regulation over virus research and weaponry that wouldn't be "centralized control". If you can't, that's a failure of imagination, not of decentralization.
  - consumer451 4y ago
    > Try to imagine a way of exerting regulation over virus research and weaponry that wouldn't be "centralized control". Since apparently my own imagination is too limited, could you please give me some examples of how this would be accomplished?
    - mandmandam 4y ago
      Trustless and decentralized systems are a hot topic. Have you read much in the field, to be so certain that centralization is the only way forward? There are options you haven't considered, whether you can imagine them or not.
      - consumer451 4y ago
        > Trustless and decentralized systems are a hot topic. Yeah, and how's that working out exactly? Is there any decentralized governance project which also has anything to do with law irl? I know what a DAO is, and it sounds pretty neat, in theory. There are all kinds of theoretical pie in the sky ideas which sound great and have yet to impact anything in reality. Before we give the keys to nukes and bioweapons over to a "decentralized authority," maybe we should see some examples of it working outside of the coin-go-up world? Heck, how about some examples of it working even in the coin-go-up world? Even pro-decentralized crypto folks see the downsides of DAOs, such as slower decision making.
- yazzku 4y ago
  Microsoft is not "reasonable people". Having this behind closed corporate walls is the worst possible outcome. The nuclear example isn't really a counter-argument. If only one nation had access to them, every other nation would automatically be subjugated to them. If the nuclear balance works, it's because multiple super powers have access to those weapons and international treaties regulate their use (as much as North Korea likes to demo practice rounds on state TV.) Also the technology isn't secret; it's access to resources and again, international treaties, that prevent its proliferation. Same thing with CRISPR. Again, there are scientific standards that regulate its use. It being open or not doesn't really matter to its proliferation. I agree there are cases where being open is not necessarily the best strategy. I don't think your examples are particularly good, though.
  - consumer451 4y ago
    I think we may have very different definitions of the word reasonable. I mean it in the classic sense.[0] Do I love corporate hegemony? Heck no. Could there be less reasonable stewards of extremely powerful tools? Heck yes. An example might be a group of people who are so blinded by ideology that they would work to create tools which 100x the work of grifters and propagandists, and then say... hey, not my problem, I was just following my pure ideology bro. A basic example of being reasonable might be revoking access to someone running a paypal scam syndicate which sends countless custom tailored and unique emails to paypal users. How would Open Assistant deal with this issue? [0] 1. having sound judgement; fair and sensible. based on good sense. 2. as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.
    - yazzku 4y ago
      > and then say... hey, not my problem, I was just following my pure ideology bro. That's basically the definition of Google and Facebook, which go about their business taking no responsibility for the damage they cause. As for Microsoft, 'fair' and 'moderate' are not exactly their brand either considering their history of failed and successful attempts to brutally squash competition. If you're saying that they'd be fair in censoring the "right" content, then you're just saying you share their bias. > A basic example of being reasonable might be revoking access to someone running a paypal scam syndicate which sends countless custom tailored and unique emails to paypal users. How would Open Assistant deal with this issue? I'm not exactly sure how Open Assistant would deal, or if it even needs to deal, with this. You'd send the cops and send those motherfuckers back to the hellhole that spawned them. Scams are illegal regardless of what tools you use to go about it. If it's not Open Assistant, the scammers will find something else. Your argument is basically that we should ban/moderate the proliferation of tools and technology. I'm not sure that's very effective when it comes to software. I think the better strategy is to develop the open alternative fast before society is subjugated to the corporate version, even if it does give the scammers a slight edge in the short term. If you wait for the law to catch up and regulate these companies, it's going to take another 20 years like the GDPR.
- sterlind 4y ago
  Nuclear weapons are just evil. It'd be better if they didn't exist rather than if they were centralized. We've gotten so close to WWIII. As for the CRISPR virus lab, at least the technology being open implies that vaccine development would be democratized as well. Not ideal but.. yeah.

f6v 4y ago

> Centralized control hasn't stopped Because there wasn’t any.

consumer451 4y ago

> It genuinely astonishes me that you think that "centralized contol" of anything can be beneficial to the human species or the world in general. I am genuinely astonished that in the face of obvious examples such as nuclear weapons, people cannot see the opposite in some cases. > It can't be worse. It can always be worse. Would a theoretical FOSS small yield nuclear weapon make the world a better place? How about a FOSS powered sub-$10k hardware budget CRISPR virus lab? Well, it's FOSS, so it must be good?

mandmandam 4y ago
> I am genuinely astonished that in the face of obvious examples such as nuclear weapons, people cannot see the opposite in some cases. You seem to be making some large logical leaps, and jumping to invalid conclusions. Try to imagine a way of exerting regulation over virus research and weaponry that wouldn't be "centralized control". If you can't, that's a failure of imagination, not of decentralization.
- consumer451 4y ago
  > Try to imagine a way of exerting regulation over virus research and weaponry that wouldn't be "centralized control". Since apparently my own imagination is too limited, could you please give me some examples of how this would be accomplished?
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    Trustless and decentralized systems are a hot topic. Have you read much in the field, to be so certain that centralization is the only way forward? There are options you haven't considered, whether you can imagine them or not.
    - consumer451 4y ago
      > Trustless and decentralized systems are a hot topic. Yeah, and how's that working out exactly? Is there any decentralized governance project which also has anything to do with law irl? I know what a DAO is, and it sounds pretty neat, in theory. There are all kinds of theoretical pie in the sky ideas which sound great and have yet to impact anything in reality. Before we give the keys to nukes and bioweapons over to a "decentralized authority," maybe we should see some examples of it working outside of the coin-go-up world? Heck, how about some examples of it working even in the coin-go-up world? Even pro-decentralized crypto folks see the downsides of DAOs, such as slower decision making.
yazzku 4y ago
Microsoft is not "reasonable people". Having this behind closed corporate walls is the worst possible outcome. The nuclear example isn't really a counter-argument. If only one nation had access to them, every other nation would automatically be subjugated to them. If the nuclear balance works, it's because multiple super powers have access to those weapons and international treaties regulate their use (as much as North Korea likes to demo practice rounds on state TV.) Also the technology isn't secret; it's access to resources and again, international treaties, that prevent its proliferation. Same thing with CRISPR. Again, there are scientific standards that regulate its use. It being open or not doesn't really matter to its proliferation. I agree there are cases where being open is not necessarily the best strategy. I don't think your examples are particularly good, though.
- consumer451 4y ago
  I think we may have very different definitions of the word reasonable. I mean it in the classic sense.[0] Do I love corporate hegemony? Heck no. Could there be less reasonable stewards of extremely powerful tools? Heck yes. An example might be a group of people who are so blinded by ideology that they would work to create tools which 100x the work of grifters and propagandists, and then say... hey, not my problem, I was just following my pure ideology bro. A basic example of being reasonable might be revoking access to someone running a paypal scam syndicate which sends countless custom tailored and unique emails to paypal users. How would Open Assistant deal with this issue? [0] 1. having sound judgement; fair and sensible. based on good sense. 2. as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.
  - yazzku 4y ago
    > and then say... hey, not my problem, I was just following my pure ideology bro. That's basically the definition of Google and Facebook, which go about their business taking no responsibility for the damage they cause. As for Microsoft, 'fair' and 'moderate' are not exactly their brand either considering their history of failed and successful attempts to brutally squash competition. If you're saying that they'd be fair in censoring the "right" content, then you're just saying you share their bias. > A basic example of being reasonable might be revoking access to someone running a paypal scam syndicate which sends countless custom tailored and unique emails to paypal users. How would Open Assistant deal with this issue? I'm not exactly sure how Open Assistant would deal, or if it even needs to deal, with this. You'd send the cops and send those motherfuckers back to the hellhole that spawned them. Scams are illegal regardless of what tools you use to go about it. If it's not Open Assistant, the scammers will find something else. Your argument is basically that we should ban/moderate the proliferation of tools and technology. I'm not sure that's very effective when it comes to software. I think the better strategy is to develop the open alternative fast before society is subjugated to the corporate version, even if it does give the scammers a slight edge in the short term. If you wait for the law to catch up and regulate these companies, it's going to take another 20 years like the GDPR.
sterlind 4y ago
Nuclear weapons are just evil. It'd be better if they didn't exist rather than if they were centralized. We've gotten so close to WWIII. As for the CRISPR virus lab, at least the technology being open implies that vaccine development would be democratized as well. Not ideal but.. yeah.