Jag inte tror svensk #nationalism historiskt alltid har varit så som jag beskriver - utan detta mynnar ur vår tids uppfostran och tolkning av den del av historien vi får lära oss om

Det innefattar "tro", den moraliska, staten, avgränsningen mot omvärlden, och en tyst upplevda överlägsenhet och särställd höghet.

Har tänkt på folksinnet i #Sverige 🇸🇪 (som ligger på ett kollektivt omedvetet plan). Har övervägt ord som "Exceptionalism", "Statsnationalism" etc. Men jag tror det som fångar folksinnet bäst vore en term som "Helig statsnationalism"

#sociologi #sociology

I'm wondering if the reason for demands of ID/age verification on internet/social media etc is because the Ad revenue model is threatened by the advent of agentic AI. Advertiser simply don't want to pay for bot clicks, and ID verification would save the ad businesses e.g. Facebook/Meta.

Reading some Substacks I begin to wonder, how much of this is actually AI written or edited? If this continues, it creates a dilution of thinking even in the 'intellectual' spheres of society.

When evaluating the #morals of the distant past, like from the medieval or antiquity – we look at them as rigid and dogmatic. That is probably true. Yet we forget that tech & culture didn't change as fast as now – making their morals at the time *seem* to be timeless.

I wonder if the main reasons ancient greek philosophers are admired and remembered today is that their thinking was broad enough to encompass more than knowledge in their value systems. Their thinking related to the society, nature & being. Timeless questions. #philosophy

I think it makes sense to ask the question, if large corporate investment should be considered political.

I think it is, especially when they transform society.

The rolling out of AI work automation is called 'inevitable'. At the same time, that tech takes away people's potential to shape a good future for themselves. It's important to know that there's a difference between technological and human progress and society.

“Out Of His Depth,” “Sold His Soul,” “Clueless”: NIH Staffers Speak Out About Director Bhattacharya Widespread dissatisfaction over the NIH’s “continuous free fall” has people speaking out.

Read what NIH workers had to say about their new boss last year:

www.importantcontext.news/p/out-of-his...

Good point. The word addiction could be wrong. Regardless, I'm wonder about the general form of the idea.

It's a bit narrow framing in how I view the digital behavior.

But in the angle I had in mind, the movement of expressing the idea in brief format. It kinda works in it, I believe.

But it doesn't stop there, it also relates to systems of those with and those without power in society.

You know, when #society speaks about digital addiction, endless scrolling etc.

Its nothing new. Essentially its just a individual hedonistic pleasure and gratification over meaning and purpose.

To say it more briefly;
The difference between Virtue and Vice.

It's been a bit on my mind. The way people orient in #society is driven by how others behave, believe, think and feel.

Its still this simple fundamental condition: social cohesion, and wholeness found in the tribal condition. It's saught.

For most, I think, genuine social connection is what is experienced as most meaningful.

Tech weakens these connections. Leaving most in a place with less meaning, warmth & purpose.

Focus on individual success in place of social usefulness, displaces meaning in a similar manner

"You will not lose your job to AI, but to a person using AI." This phrase has been used to push AI adoption the last couple of years.

To me, it seems far easier to replace "thought"/work of someone using AI, compared to one who doesn't (all other things being equal).

If #AI is trained on Internet data as its basis. How can we just assume it will be morally good & ethical by default?

We simply can't.

Hypothetically. Assume we have #AGI & deploy a vast number of artificial consciousnesses(C) on servers. Now, if these C deserves moral consideration like us. Then in a democracy, just deploying them can create societal outcomes just on this vector alone.

Pretty crazy thought.

When using #AI for work, you're outsourcing your skills, knowledge and if you let it do your thinking, youre outsourcing your brain to large corporations.

From a resilience perspective, Imagine if at some point there we a limit to how you could interact and use your brain.

I'm wondering of both due to the political, corporate, algorithmic and #AI influence on the internet -- whether a new version of the old internet would be recreated; where it's less about tech & money, and more about community & human expression.

Would this be better?

Lots of people seem to have been "chattified", even politicians use it on twitter now (or atleast mimic the style) of AI. Concerning that international #politics thoughts moves through the realm of foreign servers & loosely understood technology. It's irresponsible.

Some people in the #AI space seem to think that: IF 'super intelligence' (ASI) is created (something about capabilities) then -> it has Greater moral worth than human (and other) biological beings.

I haven't seen arguments to make a good case for it.

#ethics

One reason why #poetry is so fascinating, is that it sometimes allows you to peer over the walls of your mind, and see the vast and astounding mythical lands beyond.

If we, and the world and our existence were entirely different. Would it then be possible that morality would be entirely different too? Or would there be something like absolute or metaphysical morality, that still holds it together?

#philosophy

I wonder if economic theory & policy, have taken the place of societal virtues.

Socialism & capitalism are examples of such theory & policy.

Some time ago, many in the e.g. US were dismissive of AI regulation, claiming that China would disregard it. But perhaps China, US & AI companies jointly would prefer not to lose control of AI. Hence, international regulation is very feasible.

Any ideal whether #ideology, or #religion seems morally incomplete to me. It can be seen in fanaticism, as an expression of its central belief pillars. This, atleast an issue when expressed in society.

What's the cultural psychological difference between putting the highest worth and ideal, beyond, between, or inside this world? What is the effect on the individual?

2/2 Why deny everything? I think if e.g. mode of transmission + mitigation becomes clear, then the public can expect that society adapts to the situation; impacting investment prospects. If people are kept in the dark, then few can disagree, decision-makers power unhindered.

1/2 When the pandemic was still being discussed actively, in Sweden there was a sustained media campaign against severity, post infection symptoms, mode of transmission, mitigation possibilities. All of this in contrast to science..