What's wrong with pessimism?😈 Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger were all pessimists!
And none of them called for "inaction" or "giving up!" And "techno-pessimism" is not really a thing. I think what we can do is not being too technocentric, or keep subscribing to the religion of "progress" (political, cultural, social, technological, etc..) Best Regards | Cordiales Saludos | Grato, Andrés L. Pacheco Sanfuentes <[email protected]> +1 (347) 766-5008 On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 9:53 AM kaiser kuo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Here's a piece I wrote back in 2020 about the narrative flip in the U.S. — > how we went from seeing China as a mere copycat incapable of innovation to > the ten-foot-tall technological threat that was going to out-compete the U.S. > and had to be stopped; and how (at the same moment) we went from the > techno-utopian view that tech would bring down authoritarian regimes to the > notion that tech was going to keep those regimes firmly ensconced in power. I > placed that narrative flip in roughly the year 2016. > > https://thechinaproject.com/2020/10/13/fear-of-a-red-tech-planet-why-the-u-s-is-suddenly-afraid-of-chinese-innovation/ > > It fleshes out my ideas much further, though the piece is brief. I'd > appreciate any thoughts on it! > > All the best, > Kaiser > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:32 AM Isaac M <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Great to see everyone is still here; we are not alone, and we haven't given >> up. Cheers! >> >> As time has shifted and technology has evolved, we've found ourselves >> catapulted into a new AI age, seemingly overnight. Despite these, our >> mission remains as crucial as ever, just more daunting. >> >> This is why we can no longer afford to be techno-pessimists. We need to >> proactively envision solutions to the challenges ahead and establish a >> robust security fabric for all: >> >> - Philosophical Preparation: We need the arts, ideas, and interdisciplinary >> connections more than ever. Venues for debate, like this channel, are >> essential for timely discussions and idea exchange. >> - Governance Pressure: It's crucial to monitor and regulate the AI arms race >> between major tech companies and governments to ensure accountability and >> transparency. AI-powered-weapons? No, no, and no. >> - **Personal Empowerment**: We must enhance civil technologies that expand >> outreach and connect individuals, forming strong networks that dilute >> centralized control by homogeneous algorithms. It's vital to protect and >> preserve the best of humanity—our professionalism, journalism, and all the >> beautiful aspects of our culture—before they are eroded by technological >> advances. >> >> AI has the potential to be immensely powerful and beneficial, but only if we >> steer it correctly. The existential concerns we face are not between >> algorithms and humans, but among humans themselves. We must keep the door to >> the future wide open—not as a hidden passage, but as a gateway accessible to >> all, empowering individuals to adapt and thrive. >> >> Let's watch it and propel it, with the best breed of open techs. >> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 2:07 AM Michael H. Goldhaber <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> A few thoughts in relation to recent posts: >>> >>> >>> Things related to the Internet seem much more complex than surveillance >>> issues, privacy issues, and the effects of profit making. As I as I wrote >>> years ago, the mere facts that attention is both scare and desirable for >>> individuals that will lead to all sorts of societal problems and ill. Thus, >>> shortened attention spans, and with that simplified thinking desires to be >>> part of the larger group, the value of producing lies, of sounding angry, >>> feeling disrespected, and seeking autocracy to correct that would all have >>> been problems even without corporate or government surveillance desires. >>> >>> >>> No doubt, the Internet also has led to beneficial social movements, such as >>> opposing climate change, protecting nature, opposing racism, and sexism and >>> advancing LGBTQ rights, even these are often taken up over-simplistically. >>> >>> >>> The question has also been raised here about whether autocracies can >>> innovate. obviously they can, but there may be limits to their ability to >>> do it because of the lack of free speech between for example, scientists >>> who are trying out new ideas. >>> >>> >>> A perhaps perverse example that supposedly has shown this was the failure >>> of autocracies to invent the atomic bomb, even though Germany was the >>> center of nuclear physics before Hitler, but in both NaziGermany and Japan, >>> scientists decided the bomb was impossible. The Soviet Union also fell >>> behind in many kinds of innovation, despite their huge scientific and >>> technical communities. >>> >>> >>> Of course, autocracies are excellent at copying and perhaps going a couple >>> of steps ahead. Meanwhile, it’s true that the huge tech monopolies in the >>> US now do their best to stifle outside innovation. And do we really need >>> AI? If we do, it’s interesting to ask why China appears to have fallen >>> behind in this area, as well as in aspects of chip design. Is it possible >>> that one reason is the heavy censorship of the Chinese internet, so that >>> “scraping” it is less productive? >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Michael via iPhone, so please ecuse misteaks. >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2024, at 7:33 AM, Paola Di Maio <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Kaiser >>> (thanks Kate for reposting) >>> >>> the statement in your post that most resonates with me is >>> Several things can be true at once. >>> >>> >>> Several seemingly discordant facts can often be true all at once and may be >>> referred to as paradoxes >>> >>> I discuss how surveillance from multiple unknown agency can be used subtly >>> to manipulate and drive >>> individuals behaviours through psychological abuse , Very common, virtually >>> undetectable >>> >>> https://sites.google.com/view/psyabu/home >>> >>> >>> personal information can be found everywhere, not only on social media, >>> >>> Is surveillance legal or illegal? Who are these people asking question >>> to family and friends, maybe disguised as friendly media who want to >>> publish a feature or offer you a nice >>> job, instead gathering, distorting and selling your personal information to >>> unknown buyers? >>> >>> >>> There are hidden networks of people operating legally (say law enforcement >>> agencies or family and friends) >>> gathering information about us for legitimate purpose (as they may say, >>> they care about you and take an interest) >>> and among them there are individuals who can access and sell private >>> information to unknown sources for unknown reasons >>> (the deviated agency) >>> >>> Multiple unknown agencies can gather intelligence about specific >>> individuals by tapping into every possible source of information >>> including friends and family for different reasons. Some may even do so for >>> benevolent reasons. Some may blatantly sell information for money or other >>> benefit. >>> >>> >>> P >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 4:34 AM Kate Krauss <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Are we too techno-pessimistic? >>>> >>>> I pulled out this message from the introductions thread because it didn't >>>> get a lot of attention when first posted, but it's fascinating --thanks, >>>> Kaiser! >>>> >>>> I feel ill-equipped to discuss this but I'll get the ball rolling. Folks >>>> on this list? I'd love to hear what you think about Kaiser's post (which >>>> is pasted below mine). >>>> >>>> By 2013 and the Snowden revelations, tech activists were realizing how >>>> much both the US government, and as we already knew, platforms like >>>> Facebook were surveilling our lives. (Snowden also revealed how hard the >>>> NSA and GCHQ were going after Tor. And they didn't get it, ha.) >>>> >>>> I had also seen, previously, pervasive, all-encompassing surveillance in >>>> China of my activist friends. (They've stopped monitoring your phone calls >>>> and they're sitting in your kitchen--not good). So for me it was all of a >>>> piece, and I didn't have to imagine what could go wrong if governments >>>> conducted unchecked surveillance. And it motivated me to work on these >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, in the wider US, in late 2015 Trump launched his presidential >>>> campaign by demonizing immigrants, then loudly criticized and sanctioned >>>> China's trade practices, and later he blamed COVID on China. And by the >>>> middle of the pandemic, Asian people in Philly were afraid to walk down >>>> the street. So a lot of racist Americans who didn't know much about >>>> technology, IP, or China, were mad at China. And there are always China >>>> hawks that sincerely or exploitatively go after China in DC. But those are >>>> different groups, obviously, than are on this list. >>>> >>>> The people I know who care about online privacy and digital rights believe >>>> (and feel free to speak for yourselves) that if you want privacy and human >>>> rights, you have to defend them, whether by building online privacy tools, >>>> censorship circumvention tools, or decentralized communications platforms, >>>> or educating people in avoiding surveillance, or blurring out your house >>>> on Google maps. You have to take action. >>>> >>>> I myself also think it's important to change laws and regulations, but you >>>> still need the technology. I remember that Griffin Boyce and others >>>> developed tools that made the Stop Online Privacy Act impossible to >>>> enforce. Another lesson from SOPA: Collective action can get the goods. >>>> (Thank you, Aaron Swartz.) >>>> >>>> So maybe we are techno-optimists and techno-realists at the same time? >>>> >>>> Mainstream Americans are still inured to a lack of privacy, and that is >>>> very dangerous. However, they are now suspicious of Facebook--and maybe >>>> that's a good thing. >>>> >>>> This doesn't mean that Chinese companies are always A+ and never steal >>>> IP. I went to a lecture in 2018 or 2019 where a Chinese scholar presented >>>> her research studying Chinese companies--and some of them lacked research >>>> departments because they were "borrowing" IP. Several things can be true >>>> at once. >>>> >>>> Other people on the list: What do you think? >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: kaiser kuo <[email protected]> >>>> LT <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:20:43 -0400 >>>> Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Liberation Tech would like a word. >>>> Thanks, Kate, for stepping up to revive this effort — and for the low-key >>>> shout-out! >>>> >>>> I've written and spoken quite a bit on the seemingly sudden swing from the >>>> politically techno-utopian idea still present in this listserv's name to >>>> the techno-pessimism that seems so pervasive in discourse on the >>>> relationship between technology and authoritarian politics. We've gone, as >>>> I've often said, from believing that the spread of digital technology >>>> sounded the death knell for authoritarian governments to believing instead >>>> that tech is the loyal handmaiden of authoritarians, who've become adept >>>> at using them to suppress dissent and other nefarious ends. To an extent, >>>> I get why this has happened — the failure of the later color revolutions >>>> and the Arab Spring, when we too-eagerly appended the names of various >>>> American social media products to these revolutions (the "Twitter >>>> Revolution," the "YouTube Revolution," the "Facebook Revolution"); the >>>> Snowden revelations about Prism; Russian meddling and Macedonian troll >>>> farms; Cambridge Analytica, etc). I suppose some humility about it was >>>> needed, but have we (i.e. the national or "Western" conversation) >>>> overcorrected? I'd be curious to hear from list members with experience in >>>> different geographies to get their sense of how things have played out in >>>> the last decade. I put the inflection point at roughly 2016: that's when I >>>> started sensing the dramatic narrative shift. >>>> >>>> And I'm curious whether people think that's related to, or completely >>>> independent from, another narrative shift that seems to have been >>>> simultaneous when it comes, specifically, to China: At about that same >>>> moment, the narrative went from this disparagement of China's ability to >>>> innovate (blaming, in most cases, the lack of free information flows and >>>> academic freedom, and positing a relationship between innovation and >>>> political freedom) to a pervasive sense that China was out-innovating the >>>> U.S. and was an unstoppable juggernaut ready to eat our lunch. Obviously >>>> this latter narrative continues and has been made worse in recent years. >>>> >>>> Thanks! Once again, Kate, thanks for your efforts!! >>>> >>>> - Kaiser >>>> -- >>>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: >>>> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to >>>> digest mode, or change password by emailing >>>> [email protected]. >>> >>> -- >>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: >>> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest >>> mode, or change password by emailing [email protected]. >>> >>> -- >>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: >>> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest >>> mode, or change password by emailing [email protected]. >> >> -- >> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: >> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest >> mode, or change password by emailing [email protected]. > > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest > mode, or change password by emailing [email protected]. -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing [email protected].
