Heard, I wish this was the first response. Thank you for taking the time to clarify.

I guess I don’t understand the correlation between banning speech that hurts no one, (a computer does not have feelings, nor is it sentient) and mutual aid? What barriers are you trying to collectively overcome by not allowing folks to discuss the benefits, risks and/or negatives of AI in our lives? It feels akin to someone telling me global warming and climate change arnt real so I should fuck off, I don’t belong, that speech is banned.

Anarchism is older than AI, I guess that’s where I feel the shift, and I only feel it here. Being new to lemmy, these two Incorporated ideas, I’ve never seen together before.

Side tangent, so you know where i am coming from. My definition of Anarchism stems from the early 90’s punk scene. In the late 90s, I was taught some of my computer literacy from a man who once hacked the KKK website back when, and made a mockery of it, told me he held the domain for so many months. His probation wouldn’t even allow him access to a land line it was absurd. He showed me how to use IRC, and I thought it was incredible, and glorious. That was freedom, of course until the power caught on. Even then, we persist.

I don’t understand how discussing the dangers of AI is withholding anyone’s freedom, nor do I understand how banning the speech is mutual aid.

I guess I can understand you want to protect your group of folks from people constantly questioning something you strongly believe in. But my previous questions stand. If you are up to it, feel free to enlighten me, I am an old goat these days, and I really am curious.

Edit, I guess I never thought of mutual aid as anything more than helping your neighbors and community physically, I never saw mutual aid as protecting thoughts. I guess if you reframe the definition to also protecting thoughts, and beliefs, I can see how you would consider this mutual aid, as you’re trying to protect your group from bombardment of arguing on the topic. I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to define it in such way, but I can respect it. My goal isn’t to seek argument, but to be informed. I only asked here because the topic came up, I generally ignore the AI conversations, The idea of banning speech just, should always be looked at speculatively, generally, the folks who are banning speech aren’t the good guys, as history tells. But sometimes it’s proper, is it proper here? I don’t know, and of course, I don’t think it’s up for you or me to decide, but rather collectively.

Personally I am super aware AI can be used to manipulate and persuade large swaths of people. The potential for abuse is easy for me to see. While it is a neat tool, I was more fascinated with fungi and the intelligence new science is finding within it today, than I am with algorithms and other non tanglible things. I am very cautious of my privacy, and not very tech savvy anymore, as its gotten more complicated.

This is where the fear, for me, of AI comes in. As our government swings more fascist here where I live, I’m weary of anyone making large promises of it’s benefits without questions, and I only commented because I have these thoughts, and then see in a conversation on the topic, people saying it’s not anarchist and speech questioning a specific technology should be banned. A technology usually funded by billionaires, or upper class folks who don’t understand working class struggle. The comment to ban speech on the negatives of AI just set off mad flags for me, so I thought I’d ask for more clarification.

I agreed until you got to the point that anti-AI conversation should be banned. And because I agreed up to that point, I think I joined the wrong instance. I could go along with y’all being pro-AI because im not inherently against it, just cautious as a person, knowing people abuse any kind of power far too often. And, I dont have to use AI in my life while still having anarchist beliefs. It’s a choice, so long as you hold no power and do no damage to others with your tools . . Banning conversation is holding power and using it against others, which is inherently not anarchy.

I guess the Anarchism I grew up with has changed. Bummer to hear.

Edit to add, I’m really tired of labels, I’m tired of having to put myself in a box for social media to digest.

“people yelling in the background” is such an interesting way to hear a laugh track described.

I stuggled to get my son to watch any older cartoons as well. The only one he liked was Tom and Jerry

I love Aggretsuko! Good recommendation

I tried to watch Shogun, but couldn’t really get into it. I was really hoping I’d like it. Instead I just be watching The Seven Samurai on repeat

I’ve been using Ecosia for over a year now, it serves my purposes well!

I watch a fella named Thomas Flight and got 6months of Mubi for $6/mo with his promo. Idk if he still has it.

Watched a number of films on there including “The Substance”. I cancelled because $15 is a lot once the promo went out, we’s poor people

I thought on this also, and I suppose in my “rule” to adhere by I would have to choose a time in human history. I’d likely choose a time from year 0-1000 but would need to research and get input from folks smarter than I before choosing the time that rule would be implemented.

Of course, it only bans colonization. This is specifically the act of taking over lands from those who are indigenous to said lands, usually by force. If the governments of two lands what to trade or sell their lands in agreement without force, this would not be illegal.

I’m certain humans would still find a way to be horrible in some other new fun way.

Fell asleep thinking of a question similar last night. No colonialism. Colonizing other lands outside of your own established borders would be forbidden.

How different the world would be.