<unnamed>

Public Key

npub140hrgfewvhzrs5wp99gd0udrf9p4l9ltaxklw2vn73qlsxumnmaqk8w3g4

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs2hm35yuhxt3pc28qjj5xh7x35js6ljl47nt0h9xflgs0crwdea7sprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmnthc0h5a

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

Last Notes

2025-07-22 12:50:29 UTC

- reply

I don't often/usually look at the local timeline, but I actually did in the last week ... and noticed it was indeed mostly the bitcoin related bots. I don't care about bitcoin development (anymore) ... so it was pretty much empty/useless to me.

2025-07-21 11:14:15 UTC

- reply

I guess that's the essence of what I'm saying.
(Good) people like you focused on what good the technology could do. I actually can see that too.
My problem is that those same people appear to not have spend (enough) time in which the technology could be used 'for evil'.
Or (willfully) chose to ignore that.
The DFSG and GPL have a rule against discrimination against fields of endeavor ... and we all KNOW that means our tech can be used in warfare (ie 'for evil').
Thus: not a new problem

2025-07-21 10:18:41 UTC

- reply

What I don't get is that *outsourcing* ethics (to a separate department) didn't raise HUGE red flags. And was considered a worthwhile 'compromise'.
To me, that sounds like you're aware of the problem, but for some reason (that I don't understand) are *willing* to turn a blind eye towards.
> the current state (no ethical safeguards at all)
It has been known for DECADES that the optimum way to achieve a goal (ie AI) could result in wiping out all humans.
How could ethics not be integral?

2025-07-21 10:05:21 UTC

- reply

Maximizing profits, isn't that the essential part of capitalism?
The standard way to increase profits, is to cut costs. What is a large part of those costs? People. That's why every 'restructuring' involves (massive) layoffs.

2025-07-21 09:37:38 UTC

- reply

I don't doubt your intentions for one second.
I do think many (?) were (at best) naive.
Having a separate "AI Ethics" department? WTAF? How can it not be integral to every engineer in the field? How can you not anticipate that department getting rid of at some point?
Or having AI award ceremonies, where there was/is a separate category: "AI for good".
Why doesn't that that raise red flags?
Or people after earned $M over the years, all of a sudden realize it's an existential thread?

2025-07-21 08:33:38 UTC

- reply

No offense, but isn't the whole point of AI to replace humans with a computer everywhere? Which by definition gives every manager/CEO a boner?
Military loves it: Let's get rid of those annoying humans who (I hope at least some) have moral objection to killing an entire village/city/etc. AI doesn't have that 'problem'.
Or Copilot whose goal it is to replace to 'expensive' software engineers with a M$ subscription. Software engineers aren't just typist, but a manager doesn't know that.

2025-02-17 16:46:48 UTC

- reply

It would violate item 6 of The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG):
"No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."
https://www.debian.org/social_contract
AFAIK any 'ethical license' is considered Non-Free