Grok has been launched as a benefit to Twitter’s (now X’s) expensive X Premium+ subscription tier, where those who are the most devoted to the site, and in turn, usual...
Maybe this is somehow enlightening to someone who has never considered someone they (morally, religiously, ethically, politically) oppose human, but I am aware of all this and recognise that Elon Musk is still a piece of shit whose bigotry has made him hated in public and his private life. Over and over he makes the choice to be a dog turd, and that’s not somehow the fault of wokies, even when they’re misguided. It’s like when racists say “well they kept calling me a racist for no good reason, so now I actually am”. He’s not a 4 year old that just needs to be gentle parented. He’s a full-grown adult that needs to stop perpetually throwing temper tantrums when someone disagrees with him.
But he’s not going to do that on his own. Stop thinking in terms of whose fault it is and instead think about what is effective. Yes, the racist is a bigot but he’s also right: the treatment he was subjected to did result in him becoming more racist. So if you truly want fewer racists in the world, look for another strategy. That is the adult thing to do.
Edit: I should add that I reject the idea of anyone making a choice. Neuroscience is pretty confident that choice is not an actual thing; it’s all cause and effect. The behavior we are seeing from Elon Musk now is caused by his genes, how he was brought up, and how people are treating him. We can control one of these three things to get the effect we want.
I should add that I reject the idea of anyone making a choice. Neuroscience is pretty confident that choice is not an actual thing; it’s all cause and effect. The behavior we are seeing from Elon Musk now is caused by his genes, how he was brought up, and how people are treating him. We can control one of these three things to get the effect we want.
Is this how you excuse any wrongdoing of any person who’s ever existed? Holding people accountable, both in private and public, is a part of that influence upon who he is. At this point, I’m comfortable saying Elon Musk is a lost cause, and the best thing we can do is make him less capable of harming society yet further.
Not everyone gets a redemption arc, that’s only a thing in novels. Elon Musk has no desire to understand normal people, and that’s something is simply impossible to contend with.
Tigers are dangerous animals that sometimes eat people. They have brains, they make “choices” in the sense that there is a decision process going on in their brains. When a tiger eats a human we can call that tiger “evil”, maybe try to get back at it by torturing it to teach it a lesson.
If I tell you that this is just in the nature of tigers, and torturing the tiger does little to prevent tigers from eating humans in the future, then that’s not an “excuse”. The word is kind of meaningless in this context. If we don’t want to get eaten by tigers we can stay away from tigers, or keep them locked up, or possibly kill all of them (not as “revenge” but as a preventative measure). Moralizing their behavior does little to prevent future deaths. We used to have trials for animals, but we grew out of that.
So I disagree with your categorization of this as an excuse. I’m not excusing anything, and I’m not promoting a redemption - that too is a concept steeped in the idea that people have choices. But I agree with you that holding people accountable can be an effective way to influence people. We have a justice system both to rehabilitate people from repeating crimes, and to discourage people from committing crimes in the first place. The key is to think rationally about how to influence people in an effective way. I’d argue that the prison system in the US, for example, has not been effective in preventing crime because it forgets both about the rehabilitation part and the socioeconomic factors that make people commit crimes. And much of the reason for this is the religious conditioning that causes people to get caught up moralizing and seeking vengeance instead of keeping their eyes on the end goal.
Elon may very well be a lost cause as you say. Even so, I believe chastising him on social media is making things worse, not better, so the people who do that are not acting rationally. The adult approach is to think about an effective way to prevent him from doing more damage while not giving the wrong signals to the rest of society. He has a tail of followers so care needs to be taken that he doesn’t become a martyr for them.
I don’t agree with punitive “justice”. It’s ineffective, bad, and wrong.
But I do agree that, while rehabilitative justice takes place, we must protect society from those who are doing harm to others.
The adult approach is to think about an effective way to prevent him from doing more damage while not giving the wrong signals to the rest of society.
Your “adult approach” allows him to continue to freely do harm to people, and in no way addresses it nor the harm those who think he’s acceptable perpetuate.
He has a tail of followers so care needs to be taken that he doesn’t become a martyr for them.
I don’t see em suggesting any particular solutions, so I’m not sure what you are criticizing or why you think it would result in Elon remaining at large any more than from figurative fruit throwing.
I agree that social repercussions have a place, but I also agree that it is only “good enough” for many – but not all – situations. Seeking a more sophisticated approach based on studying and identifying potential root causes seems to me like it would be more sustainable, not to mention an opportunity for individual growth.
Regulation to put a leash on Musk (and other billionaires), preventing him from e.g. treating his workers badly.
Welcoming him into environments where he will come in contact with “normal” people who are emotionally mature and have enough compassion to validate his concerns but who can also give balanced pushback and help him realize the negative effects his actions are having on society.
I’m sure there are other things that can be done if people are willing to sit down and think about what effects they want and how to achieve them.
To elaborate on #2, he’s not going to listen to people if they don’t first show that they understand what he’s worried about. I believe Musk’s ideals are very focused on optimizing for societal output, and that individuals (including himself) are expendable. He views society as an anthill, every human being just a cell in a larger body. Someone needs to help him realize that there are better metrics for a society, such as quality of life. I don’t think he has ever experienced what that’s like because he’s never spent time in a healthy family where there is love, and where just being together is good enough. The only value he has ever known is whether you are producing something of material value. He needs to relearn. Ideally we’d convince him to voluntarily get therapy.
True, I could have identified those as suggested solutions (albeit rather broad and unspecific, which is perfectly fine). I also sympathise on both accounts.
I have this personal intuition that a lot of social friction could be mitigated if we took some inspiration from the principle of locality physics when designing social networks and structuring society in general. The idea of locality in physics is that physical systems interact only with their adjacent neighbours. The analogous social principle I have in mind is that interactions between people that understand and respect each other should be facilitated and emphasised, and (direct) interactions between people far apart from each other on (some notion of) a “compatibility spectrum” should be limited and de-emphasised. The idea here is that this would enable political and cultural ideas to be propagated and shared with proportionate friction, resulting in a gradual dissipation of truly incompatible views and norms, which would hopefully reduce polarisation.
The way it works today is that people are constantly exposed directly to strangers’ unpalatable ideas and cultures, and there is zero reason for someone to seriously consider any of that since no trust or understanding exists between the (often largely unconsenting) audience and the (often loud) proponents. If some sentiment was instead communicated to a person after having passed through a series of increasingly trusted people (and after likely having undergone some revisions and filtering), that would make the person more likely to consider and extract value from it, and that would bring them a little bit closer to the opposite end of that chain.
That sounds like a great idea. There was a recent Kurzgesagt video about how similarity encourages us to work together, but this breaks down on the Internet where people are too different from one another.
No, choice is universally an illusion. The things I am saying here are also the effect of past events, as is the fact that you responded. The point I’m trying to get across is that moralizing and saying things like “he’s an adult, he should change his behavior on his own” is wishful thinking and neglects a rational approach to what will actually achieve what you want.
Determinism is actually a really silly argument to make for anything. Determinism doesn’t posit that people don’t make choices, but simply that the choices made are determinable, even if they in every way resemble “free choice”. We are a part of the variables that determinism says contributes to these choices, but your solution is we sit with a sock in our mouth because it’s so very mean to tell Elon he’s a cunt “because he has no choice”. You’re, put plainly, a fool, if you believe for a second that predetermined choices make someone any less of an asshole. Elon Musk is a harmful, narcissistic asshole is no different than “the total result of Elon Musk’s predetermined decisions are to behave as a narcissitic asshole.”
Yes, under determinism, he has no choice in the matter, just as a gun used to kill someone has no choice in being a killing machine, or a pencil in a 4th grade classroom has no choice in being a penis drawer.
Deterministic sophistry being used to soften, excuse, or in any way lessen the value of peoples’ individual actions is mere sophistry, and completely misses the point of the philosophical theory.
You’re right, it’s a bit silly to claim that people don’t make choices. I use the word “choice” all the time for something that I believe is happening in me and in others. The AI in a computer game also makes choices, every if/else statement in a piece of software is a choice. It comes down to what people mean with the word. What I disagree with is the notion that there’s something ethereal happening that decides if a person “deserves” to be spit and kicked on - just on account of them being morally reprehensible and not based on any meaningful analysis of what would improve the situation.
but your solution is we sit with a sock in our mouth because it’s so very mean to tell Elon he’s a cunt “because he has no choice”.
That’s misrepresenting what I’m saying. I’m absolutely not saying that we should just let him go on because he has no choice. That would be like letting an alligator roam free in the city because “it’s just doing what alligators do.” But to kick and spit on the alligator “because it’s evil” isn’t a good strategy either.
I’m saying Elon is a problem, and to fix the problem we should analyze what is causing the problem and devise a rational plan of action that will mitigate that as much as possible. At its core it’s a question of mindset - are you just letting your anger out because he’s the devil, or are you keeping a cool head and thinking about how to attack the problem at its root. Ultimately the goal should be to make the future better, not to exact retribution for the past.
The part about not being mean is not because I think he should be excused from his actions. It’s because I think that being mean is counterproductive. It’s pushing him further into the hole where we don’t want him to be.
It’s like debugging a computer program: we don’t yell and curse at the program for having bugs; we try to figure out what is causing the bugs and fix them without being overcome by emotion.
Free will has nothing to do with the ability to be influenced, in fact you might even say the opposite is closer to reality. The more predictable something is, the easier it is to influence it. I’m sure you agree that your computer has no free will, and you can easily get it to do different things just by clicking the mouse.
So what’s the rationale for dunking on an idiot? Do you believe that people shitting on Musk on Twitter will actually cause him to be more woke and compassionate toward others?
Yes we are, just more complicated computers. As for deterrent, I don’t think it’s actually working that way. It just pushes him to dig his feet in more.
I can confirm it’s bullshit, because neuro being confident of anything is bullshit.
The human brain is an enigma we know nearly nothing about. Whether or not free will exists is still a pretty massive unanswered question. This person is at best an idiot, more likely a troll, and at worst a Nazi trying to excuse others bad behavior.
We don’t have to prove that the brain isn’t puppeted from some external realm of “consciousness” in order to say we can be quite confident that it isn’t, because positing that there is such a thing as free will in the traditional notion of the term is magical thinking, which most of us might agree isn’t particularly respectable.
What we can do is take a compatibilist approach and say there is something that is “effectively indeterministic” about human decision making, because we can’t ever ourselves predict our own actions any faster than we observe them. I don’t have any moral contribution to make here; I just wanted to add this reflection.
I should add that I reject the idea of anyone making a choice. Neuroscience is pretty confident that choice is not an actual thing; it’s all cause and effect. The behavior we are seeing from Elon Musk now is caused by his genes, how he was brought up, and how people are treating him. We can control one of these three things to get the effect we want.
We can’t control any of these three things because I am unable to make a choice in how I treat him. My behavior in how I treat Elon Musk is caused by my genes, how I was brought up, and how people are treating me.
So with that in mind: Elon Musk is an idiot causing actual harm to the world and people need to stop enabling this piece of shit. The world would be a better place if he lost all his money and was a poor man with no platform to spread his hateful ideas.
Maybe this is somehow enlightening to someone who has never considered someone they (morally, religiously, ethically, politically) oppose human, but I am aware of all this and recognise that Elon Musk is still a piece of shit whose bigotry has made him hated in public and his private life. Over and over he makes the choice to be a dog turd, and that’s not somehow the fault of wokies, even when they’re misguided. It’s like when racists say “well they kept calling me a racist for no good reason, so now I actually am”. He’s not a 4 year old that just needs to be gentle parented. He’s a full-grown adult that needs to stop perpetually throwing temper tantrums when someone disagrees with him.
But he’s not going to do that on his own. Stop thinking in terms of whose fault it is and instead think about what is effective. Yes, the racist is a bigot but he’s also right: the treatment he was subjected to did result in him becoming more racist. So if you truly want fewer racists in the world, look for another strategy. That is the adult thing to do.
Edit: I should add that I reject the idea of anyone making a choice. Neuroscience is pretty confident that choice is not an actual thing; it’s all cause and effect. The behavior we are seeing from Elon Musk now is caused by his genes, how he was brought up, and how people are treating him. We can control one of these three things to get the effect we want.
Is this how you excuse any wrongdoing of any person who’s ever existed? Holding people accountable, both in private and public, is a part of that influence upon who he is. At this point, I’m comfortable saying Elon Musk is a lost cause, and the best thing we can do is make him less capable of harming society yet further.
Not everyone gets a redemption arc, that’s only a thing in novels. Elon Musk has no desire to understand normal people, and that’s something is simply impossible to contend with.
Tigers are dangerous animals that sometimes eat people. They have brains, they make “choices” in the sense that there is a decision process going on in their brains. When a tiger eats a human we can call that tiger “evil”, maybe try to get back at it by torturing it to teach it a lesson.
If I tell you that this is just in the nature of tigers, and torturing the tiger does little to prevent tigers from eating humans in the future, then that’s not an “excuse”. The word is kind of meaningless in this context. If we don’t want to get eaten by tigers we can stay away from tigers, or keep them locked up, or possibly kill all of them (not as “revenge” but as a preventative measure). Moralizing their behavior does little to prevent future deaths. We used to have trials for animals, but we grew out of that.
So I disagree with your categorization of this as an excuse. I’m not excusing anything, and I’m not promoting a redemption - that too is a concept steeped in the idea that people have choices. But I agree with you that holding people accountable can be an effective way to influence people. We have a justice system both to rehabilitate people from repeating crimes, and to discourage people from committing crimes in the first place. The key is to think rationally about how to influence people in an effective way. I’d argue that the prison system in the US, for example, has not been effective in preventing crime because it forgets both about the rehabilitation part and the socioeconomic factors that make people commit crimes. And much of the reason for this is the religious conditioning that causes people to get caught up moralizing and seeking vengeance instead of keeping their eyes on the end goal.
Elon may very well be a lost cause as you say. Even so, I believe chastising him on social media is making things worse, not better, so the people who do that are not acting rationally. The adult approach is to think about an effective way to prevent him from doing more damage while not giving the wrong signals to the rest of society. He has a tail of followers so care needs to be taken that he doesn’t become a martyr for them.
I don’t agree with punitive “justice”. It’s ineffective, bad, and wrong.
But I do agree that, while rehabilitative justice takes place, we must protect society from those who are doing harm to others.
Your “adult approach” allows him to continue to freely do harm to people, and in no way addresses it nor the harm those who think he’s acceptable perpetuate.
This is another excuse to do nothing.
I don’t see em suggesting any particular solutions, so I’m not sure what you are criticizing or why you think it would result in Elon remaining at large any more than from figurative fruit throwing.
I agree that social repercussions have a place, but I also agree that it is only “good enough” for many – but not all – situations. Seeking a more sophisticated approach based on studying and identifying potential root causes seems to me like it would be more sustainable, not to mention an opportunity for individual growth.
Thus far in this thread I have suggested:
I’m sure there are other things that can be done if people are willing to sit down and think about what effects they want and how to achieve them.
To elaborate on #2, he’s not going to listen to people if they don’t first show that they understand what he’s worried about. I believe Musk’s ideals are very focused on optimizing for societal output, and that individuals (including himself) are expendable. He views society as an anthill, every human being just a cell in a larger body. Someone needs to help him realize that there are better metrics for a society, such as quality of life. I don’t think he has ever experienced what that’s like because he’s never spent time in a healthy family where there is love, and where just being together is good enough. The only value he has ever known is whether you are producing something of material value. He needs to relearn. Ideally we’d convince him to voluntarily get therapy.
True, I could have identified those as suggested solutions (albeit rather broad and unspecific, which is perfectly fine). I also sympathise on both accounts.
I have this personal intuition that a lot of social friction could be mitigated if we took some inspiration from the principle of locality physics when designing social networks and structuring society in general. The idea of locality in physics is that physical systems interact only with their adjacent neighbours. The analogous social principle I have in mind is that interactions between people that understand and respect each other should be facilitated and emphasised, and (direct) interactions between people far apart from each other on (some notion of) a “compatibility spectrum” should be limited and de-emphasised. The idea here is that this would enable political and cultural ideas to be propagated and shared with proportionate friction, resulting in a gradual dissipation of truly incompatible views and norms, which would hopefully reduce polarisation.
The way it works today is that people are constantly exposed directly to strangers’ unpalatable ideas and cultures, and there is zero reason for someone to seriously consider any of that since no trust or understanding exists between the (often largely unconsenting) audience and the (often loud) proponents. If some sentiment was instead communicated to a person after having passed through a series of increasingly trusted people (and after likely having undergone some revisions and filtering), that would make the person more likely to consider and extract value from it, and that would bring them a little bit closer to the opposite end of that chain.
Anyway, those are my musings on this matter.
That sounds like a great idea. There was a recent Kurzgesagt video about how similarity encourages us to work together, but this breaks down on the Internet where people are too different from one another.
So, he doesn’t have the choice to be better, it is our responsibility to make him better. We do have the choice, yet he doesn’t?
No, choice is universally an illusion. The things I am saying here are also the effect of past events, as is the fact that you responded. The point I’m trying to get across is that moralizing and saying things like “he’s an adult, he should change his behavior on his own” is wishful thinking and neglects a rational approach to what will actually achieve what you want.
Determinism is actually a really silly argument to make for anything. Determinism doesn’t posit that people don’t make choices, but simply that the choices made are determinable, even if they in every way resemble “free choice”. We are a part of the variables that determinism says contributes to these choices, but your solution is we sit with a sock in our mouth because it’s so very mean to tell Elon he’s a cunt “because he has no choice”. You’re, put plainly, a fool, if you believe for a second that predetermined choices make someone any less of an asshole. Elon Musk is a harmful, narcissistic asshole is no different than “the total result of Elon Musk’s predetermined decisions are to behave as a narcissitic asshole.”
Yes, under determinism, he has no choice in the matter, just as a gun used to kill someone has no choice in being a killing machine, or a pencil in a 4th grade classroom has no choice in being a penis drawer.
Deterministic sophistry being used to soften, excuse, or in any way lessen the value of peoples’ individual actions is mere sophistry, and completely misses the point of the philosophical theory.
You’re right, it’s a bit silly to claim that people don’t make choices. I use the word “choice” all the time for something that I believe is happening in me and in others. The AI in a computer game also makes choices, every if/else statement in a piece of software is a choice. It comes down to what people mean with the word. What I disagree with is the notion that there’s something ethereal happening that decides if a person “deserves” to be spit and kicked on - just on account of them being morally reprehensible and not based on any meaningful analysis of what would improve the situation.
That’s misrepresenting what I’m saying. I’m absolutely not saying that we should just let him go on because he has no choice. That would be like letting an alligator roam free in the city because “it’s just doing what alligators do.” But to kick and spit on the alligator “because it’s evil” isn’t a good strategy either.
I’m saying Elon is a problem, and to fix the problem we should analyze what is causing the problem and devise a rational plan of action that will mitigate that as much as possible. At its core it’s a question of mindset - are you just letting your anger out because he’s the devil, or are you keeping a cool head and thinking about how to attack the problem at its root. Ultimately the goal should be to make the future better, not to exact retribution for the past.
The part about not being mean is not because I think he should be excused from his actions. It’s because I think that being mean is counterproductive. It’s pushing him further into the hole where we don’t want him to be.
It’s like debugging a computer program: we don’t yell and curse at the program for having bugs; we try to figure out what is causing the bugs and fix them without being overcome by emotion.
It’s incredibly rational to dunk on an idiot with a superiority complex.
Why do you think getting a point across matters? When getting a point across to Elon Musk it isn’t worth it since he’s got no free will.
Free will has nothing to do with the ability to be influenced, in fact you might even say the opposite is closer to reality. The more predictable something is, the easier it is to influence it. I’m sure you agree that your computer has no free will, and you can easily get it to do different things just by clicking the mouse.
So what’s the rationale for dunking on an idiot? Do you believe that people shitting on Musk on Twitter will actually cause him to be more woke and compassionate toward others?
Stupid comparison, we are not computers.
So first and foremost, it’s funny.
Second, it’s a deterrent.
Yes we are, just more complicated computers. As for deterrent, I don’t think it’s actually working that way. It just pushes him to dig his feet in more.
Bullshit.
I can confirm it’s bullshit, because neuro being confident of anything is bullshit.
The human brain is an enigma we know nearly nothing about. Whether or not free will exists is still a pretty massive unanswered question. This person is at best an idiot, more likely a troll, and at worst a Nazi trying to excuse others bad behavior.
We don’t have to prove that the brain isn’t puppeted from some external realm of “consciousness” in order to say we can be quite confident that it isn’t, because positing that there is such a thing as free will in the traditional notion of the term is magical thinking, which most of us might agree isn’t particularly respectable.
What we can do is take a compatibilist approach and say there is something that is “effectively indeterministic” about human decision making, because we can’t ever ourselves predict our own actions any faster than we observe them. I don’t have any moral contribution to make here; I just wanted to add this reflection.
We can’t control any of these three things because I am unable to make a choice in how I treat him. My behavior in how I treat Elon Musk is caused by my genes, how I was brought up, and how people are treating me.
So with that in mind: Elon Musk is an idiot causing actual harm to the world and people need to stop enabling this piece of shit. The world would be a better place if he lost all his money and was a poor man with no platform to spread his hateful ideas.