Endward23

I remember, there are a lot of studies about the (supposed) psychological traits of persons who believe in "conspiricy theories". Getting to the big parts, I still have some criticism of the study

1. You use a sample of students. No matter how lage the number are, do you really believe students are representative of the entire population of "conspiricy believers"?
2. How could you messure intellectuall humility?
3. The correlation between agreeableness and belief in conspiracy theories is easily explained by the fact that you will most likely get a lot of strange looks if you confess your conspiratorial beliefs in an academic environment. I doubt that this result would be transferable to other environments such as "normal" workspaces, nights out in pubs, and the like.

After all we are not like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia, so those people have nothing to fear…

Oh sure. Your anecode is a very impressive symbol for the state of some discussions here. Maybe, even a bit too good to be strict true.

Could I ask, where and how do you communicate with the German gouverment?

I'm a bit pessimistic about that point. It seems that the main reason why the Internet was less regulated than, lets say, the TV market was the lack of awareness of the old authorities and policymakers. At the latest with the victory of Donald Trump, things have changed. Now the ruling class is beginning to believe in the world-changing power of the flow of (mis)information on the Internet.

Its important to note that it doesn't matter how you think about this changes in terms of ethics or politics. The mayor event was the change of mind in regards to the internet as such. Before, the internet was seen as something new, yet not understond and/or a place were young people does childish pranks. The innocence is over, at least in their eyes.Unimportant is the question whether you believe the the world-changing power of the internet yourself. Maybe, the idea is even false and the internet isn't that important. But you have the regulation of it on the political agenda. It takes years to come to a better knowleade. Sometimes, even ages.

I wonder how long this ruling will hold if the EU commision comes around with their own chat control. Before somebody write it: I know that the EU and the Human Rights Court are different institution and doesn't have much to do with each another.

The Russian state has already left the European agreement, which was the frame in which the court works.

At least, it should be interesting to check the judgment out. Some aspects are really interesting. As it seems, the european court may development a ruling like Bernstein v. United States. That could be interesting since the european continent lackes such a regulation as far as I know.

I think, it's an mixture:

• Clickbait
• Some ethicans want to do an important role
• Hollywood movies and so on have teached us so. What could be a better source of informations to build owns worldview on it?
• Some writers hope to creat a social enviroment in which the discussion to ban the new technology starts in order to keep the jobs in their industry.
• Some political figures want to outlaw AI and found peoples and groups which are against it.

Maybe, the last point is not true at all. And the named writers, of cource, arn't full aware of their agency. Its, as often, more on a emotional ground.

Before I start to reading the article: Why not start by NPCs in MMORPGs?

At least, it could nobody be harmed.

It’s hard to believe human beings living regular lives are doing this kind of thing.

What?

Great piece of art.

Check it out here: https://www.uni-jena.de/en/all-news/neural-networks-made-of-light

And there is a reference at the end:

B. Fischer, M. Chemnitz, Y. Zhu, N. Perron, P. Roztocki, B. MacLellan, L. Di Lauro, A. Aadhi, C. Rimoldi, T. H. Falk, R. Morandotti: Neuromorphic Computing via Fission-based Broadband Frequency Generation. Adv. Sci. 2023, 10, 2303835. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202303835

This magazine has a good impact factor as far as a quick search shows.

This just sounds like UBI with extra steps, and not very universal, as there won’t be as many “machine observing” jobs as there were jobs which the machine replaced.

You can make more and more bureaucracy. Someone must traine the machine observer, someone supervise them etc. There are no limits for the imagination.

Why not free up the newly unemployable portion of the population to pursue their passions and enjoy life, rather than mandating the existence of silly jobs for the sake of jobs?

I think it would be a problem with inflation and so on.

“I do this for good reasons, trust me” is not a valid argument.

Yes. The problem is, when one country has had a intelligence agency and the other has not, the one with the agency has a advantage. At least, under the same conditions.

I see the tension between a republican (res publica, "thing of the public") State and the existence of such secrets. The question is if a state without this could exist under the current circumstances. There are a lot room for doubts here, I fear.

Not all of us lived in America.