Erratum: "400 guns" -> "400M guns" See "CIVIL WAR 2 in America - WHO WOULD WIN? In-Depth Analysis <https://youtu.be/aJh7Ye1Qvc8>"
Note: I strenuously object to the idiom "Civil War 2" since the first US Civil War killed only 2% of the population whereas what we are really in the midst of is best thought of as "Reformation 2" with the resulting conflict analogous to The Thirty Years War that killed 25% of Central Europe. But since people are so ill-informed about the *religious* nature of the current conflict they can't place it in historic context. Public opinion polls end up asking questions about "another civil war". That being the case, we can read headlines like "Voters believe US two-thirds of the way to 'edge of a civil war': poll <https://thehill.com/homenews/news/467143-voters-believe-us-two-thirds-of-the-way-to-edge-of-a-civil-war-poll>" as saying "Voters believe US two-thirds of the way to killing most of the large urban areas". The urban rural divide in terms of de facto religious faith is stark and widening. In this war, the strategy most likely to be employed is synchronized taken-down of the life support systems of the main urban centers. This will be very much like a selective EMP attack in its aftermath: Systems required for recovery will be unavailable, thereby invoking the rule of 3s: 3 hours without heat, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food, 3 months without hope. The social pseudosciences are responsible for this, as they are de facto religious movements posing as science. <https://thehill.com/homenews/news/467143-voters-believe-us-two-thirds-of-the-way-to-edge-of-a-civil-war-poll> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 3:54 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 2:48 PM Robert Levy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Are the mods just going to ignore James Bowery? >> > > Since algorithmically correcting "bias" is now seen as a central > responsibility of network effect content monopolies like Google, Youtube, > Twitter, Facebook, etc. rigorously measuring a dataset's "bias" is even > more urgent than is measuring "intelligence" or even "friendliness". > > Exactly _how_ urgent? > > Consider this: > > These content monopolies are intent on avoiding "a repeat of the 2016 > election", whatever that means. One thing is for certain: Claims that > they are attempting to provide an unbiased view of the world via their > machine learning algorithms in the run up to the 2020 election is viewed > with a great deal of suspicion by people wielding on the order of 400 guns > in the US alone. > > That's _exactly_ how urgent. > > Since we're stuck with some form of "prior" (speed prior, space prior, > etc.), and any prior will introduce bias in some sense, it seems the more > minimal that prior, the less bias it introduces to a minimum description > length of all available data. > > So why aren't all these content giants striving to create the largest > database of diverse, longitudinal social measures that their hardware and > human resources can support, and losslessly compressing it, so as to have > an unbiased platform upon which to measure "bias" in new data being added > to their content stores? > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9ab9fba591214e64-M57152e2cedd0035842efe042 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
