I love classical music, and I am convinced that 90% of the reason people think they don't is because of people like the Charles Petzold. Deriving your self worth from being an enjoyer of art that someone else created is the high pretention.
I still wouldn't let AI off the hook here. Every link in the chain has to be accountable for fuckups. You don't get to pass it along to the supposed "human in the loop" when you fail spectacularly. That's how we end up with shitty "almost works" AI.
Sure, the AI contributed, but it was far less responsible overall than the humans in this case.
Don't let the AI system off the hook by all means, but by focusing on it to this extent, the narrative ignores (deliberately?) the hugely negligent actions of the police et al involved.
AI or more precisely the way it is being sold to us is the most responsible factor here. People by nature are lazy and will take shortcuts given an opportunity. AI is the ultimate shortcut these days, a "mental crutch" majority of the people using it are leaning on. Humans just did what they always do, be lazy - AI should never have been used for processes with this level of life-altering impact because what happened here was bound to happen.
Nobody's "selling it" as more reliable than it is. People are assuming it's more reliable than it is.
> People by nature are lazy and will take shortcuts given an opportunity.
So, um, the fact that humans are behaving incompetently means we should shift the responsibility onto a machine?
Suppose a human had looked at some crappy surveillance video from hundreds of miles away, and told the primary investigator "that looks like it could be her; you might want to check it out". Would that human be the most responsible person in the chain? The moron who took that as gospel and actually made an arrest has no agency at all here?
Come on, a facial recognition match? Facial recognition probably shouldn't be used because it's bad when it works, but everybody with a functioning synapse knows that facial recognition is going to get lots of false hits.
I agree, but I think the broader point here is that any automated system is a way to offload accountability. And it will be used for that without a doubt no matter how “good” the officers or human processes are.
So it’s still reasonable to be skeptical of (or outright reject) the use of the technology in systems that can ruin or end people’s lives.
Not really. We absolutely have the option to let things play out in Iran and refuse to intervene. There are many regimes in Africa that are as bad or worse than Iran. We seem to have little interest in "regime change" there. You should think about why not.
Well it's not black and white. Sometimes doing the right thing even if you have ulterior motives is better than doing nothing.
Africa is tricky due to historical reasons, though. Any western power that would intervene there without the explicit invitation of the local government would be accused of neo-colonialism etc.
You know, doing the Syria and Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan) thing was the 'right thing', right?
Do you really believe that after the violent regime change Iran will become the beacon of prosperity in the ME?
Yes, I believe if the things are really out of hands (like Khmer rouge in Kambodia), external intervention is warranted.
That can be done against small/weak states where the result can be achieved fast and without too much bloodshed (compared to what is already going on), and when agreed on by UN. Will most definitely need boots on the ground.
It is an entirely different matter against a 90million vast state like Iran. Note that boots on the ground is not in the cards, and most probably will never be. The approach is 'bomb and hope'. Which guarantees misery and bloodshed of Iranian blood. And if the result is fall of the ayatollah regime, and replaced by nationalists with socialistic tendencies, that would not really cooperate with USA (= sell oil rights and totally dismantle their military) then what? Bomb more? How can you honestly believe this is the best for Iranian people?
Because those countries are not trying to become a global power, with potential nuclear weapon, ICBM and drone capabilities along with a strategic location?
And all while making "death to america" part of their national slogan.
Those African regimes don't spend billions a year to promote and fund terrorism in other countries. Remember kids, you can kill millions of your own people (Stalin, Mao, etc) and nobody will care. Heck, some will even celebrate you. But don't mess with people in another country, otherwise outsiders will get involved. Iran is the main source of violence and terrorism in the most violent part of the world. Maybe, just maybe your fake moralizing isn't helping.
Iran has committed or contributed to virtually zero terrorism in America. The American people have no legitimate beef with Iran, America is just acting as Israel's rabid attack dog.
there is quite a beef going on between America and Iran if you haven't noticed, such as taking an entire embassy as hostages or killing a whole lot of US troops in Iraq and Lebanon among other things
Iran occasionally attacks Americans in the region or abroad generally, but they don't attack Americans in America despite all of their "death to America" rhetoric (which they are more than entitled to.) If you add up who's fucking with who and who's being fucked with, the imbalance between America and Iran is enormous.
