testfactor

In 1962 Phillip K Dick put out a book called "Man in the High Castle." In it there was a scene that stuck out to me, and seems more and more relevant as this AI wave continues.

In it a man has two identical lighters. Each made in the same year by the same manufacturer. But one was priceless and one was worthless.

The priceless one was owned by Abraham Lincoln and was in his pocket on the night he was assassinated. He had a letter of certification as such, and could trace the ownership all the way back to that night.

And he takes them both and mixes them up and asks which is the one with value. If you can no longer discern the one with "historicity," then where is it's value?

And every time I see an article like this I can't help but think about that. If I tell you about the life and hardship of an artist, and then present you two poems, one that he wrote and one that was spit out by an LLM, and you cannot determine which has the true hardship and emotion tied to it, then which has value? What if I killed the artist before he could reveal which one was the "true" poem? How do you know which is a powerful expression of the artist's oppression, and which is worthless, randomly generated swill?

I loved FFSend. When it died, I ended up standing up a GOKAPI server, as it was the closest alternative I could find at the time: https://github.com/Forceu/Gokapi

Definitely not as nice as FFSend though. I may have to give that fork a try instead.

Okay, first, autism is in the DSM. It's just as much a mental illness as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or any other thing in the DSM.

And to be clear, as with literally any other mental illness in the DSM, you can be affected by it to different degrees. The autism banner isn't just the people who struggle with social cues. It covers everything from that to people who are non-verbal and can't leave their house by themselves.

All that said, it feels to me like you're drawing the lines in the sand where they make you feel good, not where they make objective sense.

It feels like you're saying that we shouldn't hold autistic people accountable for being a particular type of asshole because they "just can't understand." That's dehumanizing my guy. I know a lot of autistic people. The vast majority of them have learned good social etiquette. Is it harder for them? Sure. Are they always perfect? No. But they recognize that to be a good member of society they'll have to work harder in some areas to overcome certain things.

It's not about hating a blind person because they can't see. It's about hating a blind person for repeatedly and unapologetically kicking you in the shins. The solution to reduced capacity isn't to ignore and excuse it. It's to be understanding and patient as they do the work to overcome it.

There are plenty of people with narcissism or schizophrenia who are excellent, fully functioning members of society who are just as good of people as you or I. Who love their friends and neighbors and don't lean on their condition as an excuse for their behavior. Is it a god-aweful amount of work and introspection to do so? Absolutely. Is it easy? Absolutely not. But they have agency the same as you or me. The same as someone with autism. But some people choose to overcome. Some choose to embrace the treatments and therapies needed to allow them to be a good neighbor and friend and citizen. And they have the agency to do so.

So the mentally ill have no agency? A person with autism is no better than an animal, unable to rise above their condition in any way?

It seems to me that proclivity is an explanation, not an excuse. The same way that upbringing or bad influences are an explanation, not an excuse.

Why is some who's "demanding respect they don't deserve" an asshole as opposed to just someone who's suffering from mental problems that make them act that way?

How would you differentiate "someone with mental problems" from "someone who behaves in a way that is opposed to what I believe is 'right'"?

It doesn't have to not hit pedestrians. It just has to hit less pedestrians than the average human driver.

That is what we're debating, yes.

If it could be conclusively proven that a system like this has saved a child's life, would that benefit outweigh the misuse?

If not, how many children's lives would it need to save for it to outweigh the misuse?

Sure, maybe, but I'd also say you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Yes, we should absolutely have better mental healthcare safety nets. Yes, false positives are probably a pretty common prank.

But this isn't a zero sum game. This can work on tandem with a therapist/counsellor to try and identify someone before they shoot up a school and get them help. This might let the staff know a kid is struggling with suicidal ideation before they find the kid OD'd on moms sleeping pills.

In an ideal world would this be unnecessary? Absolutely. But we don't live in that ideal world.

That argument could be expanded to any tool though.

People run people over with cars or drive drunk. Ban cars?

People use computers to distribute CP. Ban computers?

People use baseball bats to bludgeon people to death. Ban baseball?

The question of if a tool should be banned is driven by if its utility is outweighed by the negative externalities of use by bad actors.

The answer is wildly more nuanced than "if it can hurt someone it must be banned."

This article feels pretty disingenuous to me.

It glosses over the fact that this is surveillance on computers that the school owns. This isn't them spying on kids personal laptops or phones. This is them exercising reasonable and appropriate oversight of school equipment.

This is the same as complaining that my job puts a filter on my work computer that lets them know if I'm googling porn at work. You can cry big brother all you want, but I think most people are fine with the idea that the corporation I work for has a reasonable case for putting monitoring software on the computer they gave me.

The article also makes the point that, while the companies claim they've stopped many school shootings before they've happened, you can't prove they would have happened without intervention.

And sure. That's technically true. But the article then goes on to treat that assertion as if it's proof that the product is worthless and has never prevented a school shooting, and that's just bad logic.

It's like saying that your alarm clock has woken you up 100 days in a row, and then being like, "well, there's no proof that you wouldn't have woken up on time anyway, even if the alarm wasn't there." Yeah, sure. You can't prove a negative. Maybe I would usually wake up without it. I've got a pretty good sleep schedule after all. But the idea that all 100 are false positives seems a little asinine, no? We don't think it was effective even once?