On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 23:18:19 +0200
Arnt Karlsen <arnt@???> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 18:00:12 +0200, Alessandro wrote in message
> <20170823180012.327dbdc8@ayu>:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 14:22:34 +0200
>> Arnt Karlsen <arnt@???> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 09:34:49 +0200, Alessandro wrote in message
>>> <b0d97abd-ebeb-5eab-78c2-db089730d043@???>:
>>>

>>>> On 22/08/2017 at 13:36, Arnt Karlsen wrote:    
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 03:38:50 +0200, Adam wrote in message 
>>>>> <20170822013850.ute5cf7ycrlvc4rq@???>:

>>>>>

>>>>>> There are cases when the old way had its merit -- but here, we
>>>>>> have an equivalent of a car that needs to be started with a
>>>>>> hand-crank.    

>>>>>
>>>>> ..you may have missed "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley and
>>>>> George Orwell's "1984", or at the very least, the main point of
>>>>> these 2 books and your own nation's history, in these Trumpian
>>>>> times.
>>>>>

>>>>> ..an hand-crank car keeps you in control of what's going on around
>>>>> you, if you pay attention.    

>>>>

>>>>   Why do you think an electric motor cannot do the same?    

>>>
>>> ..straw man, an electric motor cannot do the same without
>>> AI taking control away from you.
>>
>> Please let me know what AI did the Wolkswagen Beetle have?
>
> ..never heard of those, I've only seen Volkswagens of various models.

So you agree that stating that "an electric motor cannot do the same without
AI taking control away from you" is BS as you can and do have electric
powered actuators without any AI.

> ..only thing I'm aware of in mom's 1967 1300 Beetle, is the presence of
[...]

(tons of useless, OT crap removed)

>>>>>  Your new shiny AI car may decide to kill you to 
>>>>> save e.g. "a more worthy person" from something really, really
>>>>> bad, e.g. Trumpian embarrasment, e.g. because you pay attention to
>>>>> what's going on around you. ;oD    

>>>>

>>>>   First off, an electric engine starter does not have to have any
>>>> AI built-in.  The XX century auto industry proved it.    

>>>
>>> ..and the XXI'st is now disproving it.
>>
>> Present day technology cannot change the past. Car electric
>> starters did not have any AI, they relied completely on the human who
>> turned the key to work.
>
> ..you never seen Soviet Politburo pictures "evolve"? ;o)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#Censorship_of_historical_photographs

Mind you, editing pictures is not changing the past. The example you quote
proves my point: how do you know those pictures were edited? Because they do
not reflect what actually happened.

> ..similar discoveries can be found on checking e.g. 9/11 stories on WTC
> online against pre-9/11 encyclopedia entries on WTC of the kind printed
> on paper before W. was "elected" president in 2000 and that can be
> found in brick-n-mortar libraries. ;o)
>

>>>>   Secondly, AI is not inherently a user alien technology, no more
>>>> that computers are per se a tools against the users.  It all
>>>> depends on who is in charge.      

>>>
>>> ..precisely my point.
>>
>> Do you intend to live without computers?
>> Your choice.
>
> ..not really, not a viable long term solution.

So, why are you making all this fuss? Just to play the Luddite without any
intention to live according to your philosophies?

>>>> As there is software that puts the user in charge (Free/OS
>>>> software) and software that deprives the user of any freedom
>>>> (proprietary software), so there is AI that just serves users and
>>>> AI that controls them.    

>>>
>>> ..e.g. systemd is capable of "getting it done" both ways. ;o)
>>
>> My home PCs do not have it.
>
> ..you missed my "e.g.", and my point. ;o)

Which is a moot example, as systemd can be done away with.

>>>> If this could not be, then your only option would be forsaking
>>>> IT altogether.    

>>>
>>> ..maybe. Eventually, that too will fail, we mere mortals risk
>>> getting targeted "as Islamists" for _not_ carrying cell phones:
>>> https://theintercept.com/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/
>>> https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/firing-blind/
>>> https://theintercept.com/2017/08/21/trump-may-not-survive-his-term-but-the-assassination-complex-will/
>>
>> I did not read anywhere people without cellphones are/will be
>> targeted as islamists, and I fail to understand how you could think
>> those articles and the facts they relate have anything to do with AI
>
> ..try read them again. ;o)

So, you too cannot point out any relevant line.

> Slowly, so you can test them against your own beliefs.

It's not a matter of beliefs, it's just that as a matter of fact those
pieces do not state anywhere that "people without cellphones are/will be
targeted as islamists". Quite the opposite in fact, as they show how US
agencies track islamists through their cellphones, which shows that they
actually do make use of them.

> ..thenafter, chances are you may see part of the quite
> likely unlikeable future that I can see coming.

To be able to "see the future" one ought to be capable of seeing and
understanding the present at the very least.

[...]

>> and car starters.
>
> ..not much. And, I see Italian history is quite different from
> Polish history, which may be part of the context you miss throwing
> around strawmen.

The fact you fail proving your point does not mean your interlocutor is
producing any "straw man" arguments. I am just point out the fact that
electric motors do not need any AI to work, and all you can do to support
this ridiculous idea is that I'm producing "straw man attacks" at you.

> ..a skill that helps build useful wisdom:
> https://www.highperformancelearning.com/reading-between-the-lines/
> https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/07/how-to-read-between-the-lines/
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Reading+Between+the+Lines&ia=web

"Read between the lines!" says the one how cannot read.
More gibberish taking the place of facts.
Such a useless dialogue.


Bye,


Alessandro