> For some reason AI seems to bring out articles that seem to fundamentally lack curiosity - opting instead for gleeful mockery and scorn
I think its broader to all tech. It all started in 2016 after it was deemed that tech, especially social media, had helped sway the election. Since then a lot of things became political that weren't in the past and tech got swept up w/ that. And unfortunately AI has its haters despite the fact that it's objectively the fastest growing most exciting technology in the last 50 years. Instead they're dissecting some CEOs shitposts.
Fast forward to today, pretty much everything is political. Take this banger from NY Times:
> Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many ingredients. In an interview with MSNBC on Nov. 6, he questioned the overall ingredient count: “Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients and you go to Canada and it has two or three?” Mr. Kennedy asked.
> He was wrong on the ingredient count, they are roughly the same. But the Canadian version does have natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used “for freshness,” according to the ingredient label.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.
> It all started in 2016 after it was deemed that tech, especially social media, had helped sway the election. Since then a lot of things became political that weren't in the past and tech got swept up w/ that
The 2016 election was a symptom of broader societal changes, and yeah, I'd also say it exhibited a new level of psychological manipulation in election campaigns. But the election being "deemed" influenced by technology and media (sure it was, why not?) as a cause for political division seems very far-fetched. Regarding the US healthcare politics farce, I don't understand your point or how it relates to the beginning of your comment.
Political division and propaganda inciting outrage are flourishing, yes. Not because of what you describe about the 2016 election though, IMO. What's the connection? So you mean if nobody had assessed social media campaigns after that election, politics wozld be more honest and fact-based? Why? And what did you want to say with the NY Times article about the US secretary of health and American junk food / cereals?
Political division and propaganda inciting outrage are flourishing, yes.
My concern is there is no antidote for this in the horizon it’s just more and more stupid getting traction all the time. You have to put a lot of faith in common sense to stay optimistic.
I agree with this, Neil Postmans "Amusing ourselves to death" is still a good read in 2025.
The only antidotes I can imagine are honesty and real community: make whatever you want from this, it should be obvious by now that global cut-throat capitalism does not lead to democracy, or to efficient resource usage (externalization...), or to equality.
Honestly my concern is WW3 fueled on propaganda. The ONLY reason I think this might not happen is because people are too amused to even bother fighting a war now. I'm not joking.
I mean, what's political about having former NSA heads on your "exciting technology" board?
Or what's political about lining up together as the front row at the despot in chief's inauguration?
And what's so political about lobbying to and sequestering large amounts of public funds for your personal manufactured consent machine?
These things are literally software that runs on technology developed in the last 50 years, but by your clearly apolitical, unbiased, absolutely thoughtful, well reasoned, fully researched, insight is in fact "the most exciting technology in the last 50 years".
The Snowden scandal ? Cambridge Analytica ? YouTube's ContentId in 2009 ? Microsoft's behaviour with IE ?
A lot of these issues are not general to infocoms either, but specific to platforms, to USian (/Russian/Chinese) companies, to companies grown too big and a failure of antitrust...
Why should the excitement of a technology have anything to do with my critical view of it? Are we toddlers playing with toys, or are we trying to make a better world here?
I think its broader to all tech. It all started in 2016 after it was deemed that tech, especially social media, had helped sway the election. Since then a lot of things became political that weren't in the past and tech got swept up w/ that. And unfortunately AI has its haters despite the fact that it's objectively the fastest growing most exciting technology in the last 50 years. Instead they're dissecting some CEOs shitposts.
Fast forward to today, pretty much everything is political. Take this banger from NY Times:
> Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many ingredients. In an interview with MSNBC on Nov. 6, he questioned the overall ingredient count: “Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients and you go to Canada and it has two or three?” Mr. Kennedy asked.
> He was wrong on the ingredient count, they are roughly the same. But the Canadian version does have natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used “for freshness,” according to the ingredient label.
No self-awareness.
https://archive.is/dT2qK#selection-975.0-996.0