So how does “effective altruism” differ from the ideal of "Noblesse oblige?
The implication that there is a moral/ethical public responsibility of the rich, famous and powerful to those who lack the $$$, familial connections OR who are mentally or physically incapable is NOT a RECENT ideal. It's been around since biblical times and most likely before that.
The politicians give lip service to it, but don't really mean it.
Just like the rich climate cultists that live in 10K sq ft. houses, drive 12 cylinder sports cars, fly in private jets and think WE should live in 800 sq. ft. tiny houses or dirt huts and be happy dining on fake meat and meal worm soufflès.
It makes a GREAT political sound bite but Buffy and Skipper Jr. AIN"T gonna go for giving up ANY of Mumsey and Poppy's money for the 'greater good'.
Seems like a very powerful way to justify the big getting bigger, the rich getting richer, and the boot stomp getting stompier. Funny how all of these things always point in the same direction...
>"I’m all for accelerating technological progress but I don’t think it should be a goal in and of itself."
I agree. E/Acc seems highly philosophical, if not practical.
The whole idea of E/Acc - in layman's terms - refers to stopping resisting the force of the universe and letting the force and 'will' of the universe prevail. Putting blind faith on, well, the universe.
But I don't think the 'universe' can stop the spread of misinformation or biases produced by AI. Nor can it prevent bad players from misusing deep fakes. For that, the only proactive step we can take is to regulate it! Not doing so - in the name of a 'barrier' to technological flourishment, as touted by many tech leaders - would only going to do us harm in the end.
So how does “effective altruism” differ from the ideal of "Noblesse oblige?
The implication that there is a moral/ethical public responsibility of the rich, famous and powerful to those who lack the $$$, familial connections OR who are mentally or physically incapable is NOT a RECENT ideal. It's been around since biblical times and most likely before that.
The politicians give lip service to it, but don't really mean it.
Just like the rich climate cultists that live in 10K sq ft. houses, drive 12 cylinder sports cars, fly in private jets and think WE should live in 800 sq. ft. tiny houses or dirt huts and be happy dining on fake meat and meal worm soufflès.
It makes a GREAT political sound bite but Buffy and Skipper Jr. AIN"T gonna go for giving up ANY of Mumsey and Poppy's money for the 'greater good'.
Seems like a very powerful way to justify the big getting bigger, the rich getting richer, and the boot stomp getting stompier. Funny how all of these things always point in the same direction...
>"I’m all for accelerating technological progress but I don’t think it should be a goal in and of itself."
I agree. E/Acc seems highly philosophical, if not practical.
The whole idea of E/Acc - in layman's terms - refers to stopping resisting the force of the universe and letting the force and 'will' of the universe prevail. Putting blind faith on, well, the universe.
But I don't think the 'universe' can stop the spread of misinformation or biases produced by AI. Nor can it prevent bad players from misusing deep fakes. For that, the only proactive step we can take is to regulate it! Not doing so - in the name of a 'barrier' to technological flourishment, as touted by many tech leaders - would only going to do us harm in the end.