andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2025-08-06 12:00 pm
andrewducker) wrote2025-08-06 12:00 pm
Entry tags:
- ai,
- animation,
- art,
- censorship,
- computers,
- conservatives,
- corruption,
- democrats,
- disney,
- extinction,
- fraud,
- fundraising,
- gender,
- genetics,
- history,
- humans,
- labour,
- links,
- movies,
- ohforfuckssake,
- politics,
- privacy,
- publishing,
- research,
- science,
- scotland,
- sports,
- technology,
- thefuture,
- uk
Interesting Links for 06-08-2025
- 1. Scientific fraud has become an industry, alarming analysis finds
- (tags:science research publishing fraud OhForFucksSake )
- 2. An Investigation Into the Firm at the Heart of the Democratic Spam Machine (Finds that less than 2% of the money raised goes to the candidates)
- (tags:democrats fundraising corruption )
- 3. Didn't Take Long To Reveal The UK's Online Safety Act Is Exactly The Privacy-Crushing Failure Everyone Warned About
- (tags:UK privacy censorship politics OhForFucksSake )
- 4. World Athletics' mandatory genetic test for women athletes is misguided. I should know - I discovered the relevant gene in 1990
- (tags:genetics sports gender )
- 5. Tech billionaires are arguing amongst themselves about how exactly humanity should go extinct
- (tags:extinction humans ai thefuture )
- 6. When Disney Went Digital (earlier than you'd think)
- (tags:Disney history computers technology art animation movies )
- 7. Labour got a bunch of former-Conservative voters in Scotland, and are now in danger of shedding them to Reform (might explain a few things)
- (tags:scotland politics Conservatives labour )
Re: 5.
I guess I missed a bit advocating direct murder as opposed to "merely" a callous disregard for collateral damage?
Re: 5.
Re: 5.
"advocating direct murder" - it's murder if the advocates actually want it to happen and are encouraging it. Which they are.
I'm not the one who believes that "AGI will inevitably wipe out humanity." The people described in the article are the ones who believe it. It's their beliefs and goals that are the issue here.
Re: 5.
I did not, on a re-read of the article find mention of direct killing), but that's perhaps a niggle at this stage.
Re: 5.
Second point: it's less than a niggle. If you (a person) take an action that you believe will result in the death of a human, and especially if you approve and encourage this result, then if the person does die as a result that is clearly murder. I suspect that even if they don't die, it's still attempted murder. (It doesn't have to be direct: setting up a Rube Goldberg or Heath Robinson contraption with the intention of killing somebody with it isn't "direct" but it's equally culpable.) The people being discussed in the post are not only advocating, but undertaking and promoting, actions which they believe will result in the imminent extinction of the human race. To call this anything less than a plan for murder would be grotesque; genocide or other such words might be even better.
Re: 5.
Yes, genocide is a better word. By niggle, I mean that it was not truly clear to me that ALL those people are all advocating for the genocide of humanity. But certainly some are. So I meant that for me to quibble over me finding no explicit mention was "a niggle" not that the fact that some people have effectively genocidal plans is "a niggle"! Because that is NOT. And I DO believe that at at least some people have such plans.
Re: 5.