"Industrial Society and its Future": the writings of the Unabomber - <AUTHOR> https://www.roelpeters.be/industrial-society-and-its-future-the-intelligent-yet-angry-writings-of-a-terrorist/ <comment><USER2> I was stuck by this passage from an interview ([https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-an- int...](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-an-interview- with-ted-kaczynski)):

> In living close to nature, one discovers that happiness does not consist in > maximizing pleasure. It consists in tranquility. Once you have enjoyed > tranquility long enough, you acquire actually an aversion to the thought of > any very strong pleasure—excessive pleasure would disrupt your tranquility.

> Finally, one learns that boredom is a disease of civilization. It seems to > me that what boredom mostly is is that people have to keep themselves > entertained or occupied, because if they aren't, then certain anxieties, > frustrations, discontents, and so forth, start coming to the surface, and it > makes them uncomfortable. Boredom is almost nonexistent once you've become > adapted to life in the woods. If you don't have any work that needs to be > done, you can sit for hours at a time just doing nothing, just listening to > the birds or the wind or the silence, watching the shadows move as the sun > travels, or simply looking at familiar objects. And you don't get bored. > You're just at peace.

<comment><USER3> It's nice words, but a man who mails bombs to other people instead of just letting them exist apart from himself clearly hasn't achieved tranquility, regardless of what he would have other people believe.

<comment><USER4> Not to argue that it's valid to mail bombs as a result of ideology but this part is disingenuous.

> instead of just letting them exist apart from himself

From his vantage point they weren't letting him exist apart from themselves.

"The best place, to me, was the largest remnant of this plateau that dates from the tertiary age. It's kind of rolling country, not flat, and when you get to the edge of it you find these ravines that cut very steeply in to cliff-like drop-offs and there was even a waterfall there. It was about a two days hike from my cabin. That was the best spot until the summer of 1983. That summer there were too many people around my cabin so I decided I needed some peace. I went back to the plateau and when I got there I found they had put a road right through the middle of it" His voice trails off; he pauses, then continues, "You just can't imagine how upset I was. It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system. Revenge. " ([https://web.archive.org/web/20090318135703/http://www.insurg...](https://web.archive.org/web/20090318135703/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/tedk.htm))

<comment><USER3> The tranquility he's describing would, I imagine, guide one to understand that you can't control other people's actions. And even if the wilderness around him was shrinking, he still had plenty of it.

A tranquility that kills people that harshes its buzz isn't tranquility.

<comment><USER4> From the same interview I linked in my parent comment. He was killing in the name of protecting tranquility itself. Why is it that shrinking tranquility is seen as politically legitimate but protecting it is not?

"I decided to relate to him the story of how one of my graduate advisors, Dr. Resnick, also a Harvard alumni, once posed the following question in a seminar on political legitimacy: Say a group of scientists asks for a meeting with the leading politicians in the country to discuss the introduction of a new invention. The scientists explain that the benefits of the technology are indisputable, that the invention will increase efficiency and make everyone's life easier. The only down side, they caution, is that for it to work, forty- thousand innocent people will have to be killed each year. Would the politicians decide to adopt the new invention or not? The class was about to argue that such a proposal would be immediately rejected out of hand, then he casually remarked, "We already have it--the automobile." He had forced us to ponder how much death and innocent suffering our society endures as a result of our commitment to maintaining the technological system--a system we all are born into now and have no choice but to try and adapt to. Everyone can see the existing technological society is violent, oppressive and destructive, but what can we do?"

<comment><USER5> > Why is it that shrinking tranquility is seen as politically legitimate but > protecting it is not?

'Protecting tranquility' is perfectly politically acceptable: environmental and NIMBY lobbying organizations are often widely admired and achieve significantly more success than the Unabomber could ever have hoped to achieve. He is not criticised for seeking to 'protect tranquility' but for a campaign to murder people connected with things he despised in a manner which carried not even the slightest hope of a net increase in tranquility.

<comment><USER4> I think you're confusing my arguments with my personal belief on whether or not murder is acceptable. I'll just say fullstop it's not.

Now, as to your current argument that these organizations have been more successful than Ted ever could have been. I want to believe they have been, yet reality does not reflect this.

At best they have only slowed the destruction of the environment. At worst they enable a technological society to carry on with their destruction with a clear conscience. If you look at the world today and in 10 years will these organizations have ceded ground or will the machine continue on?

That is, do these organizations make further environmental destruction net 0 (or in a good case reverse said damage?). I would say no. Even from Ted's time to today the environment is worse and shrinking day by day.

The reason Ted felt that "violent rebellion" was necessary is because these organizations can't possibly stop the inevitable results of what technological society does. They're only a stymie, a stopgap, not a long term solution.

The more INTERESTING argument is, is technological society acceptable?

<comment><USER3> > Now, as to your current argument that these organizations have been more > successful than Ted ever could have been. I want to believe they have been, > yet reality does not reflect this.

They demonstrably have been. Organized NIMBY campaigns, including campaigns containing a part of illegal land occupation but no part of mailing package bombs to individuals, have shut down all manner of development, including both nuclear power plants and oil pipelines.

All the Unabomber accomplished was a lifelong stay in prison, the death of three people, and the injury of dozens more. By your strong metric, neither approach is successful. By a weaker metric, an organized campaign that doesn't include bombing people is partially successful.

<comment><USER4> It's not my strong metric. It's his strong metric. You only quoted the first part but I'll try to streamline the point.

The point is that their approach is only going to slow down the status quo, not permanently change it. Whether his approach was successful or not is besides _my_ point. His approach was not successful, no.

However some of the criticisms he levies are valid. Which the one I'm trying to convey. That some alternative approach must be formulated that will have a lasting impact. Partial success is not a substitute for actual success. Neither is a failing approach.

<comment><USER6> "His approach was not successful, no."

According to what criteria do you make this determination?

<comment><USER3> He's in jail, and the course of history has basically gone unchanged. Development, both in the town he was living in and nationwide, has gone on.

<comment><USER6> This only makes sense if you place a limited and arbitrary timeframe on when "success" must be achieved, and what the "success" should be. Remember, the communist manifesto was published in 1848, and by your standard of "success" things more or less remained unchanged until the ideas in that manifesto culminated in the Russian Revolution of 1917--nearly 70 years later. Kaczynski understands this lag, and is quite sober and realistic about the long-term effect of ideas. This is adumbrated by the manifesto:

"If the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break down. We think the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several decades, say forty to a hundred years." \--Industrial Society and Its Future, paragraph 162.

Further, your statement implies an assumption which is not correct. The implication you're making is that because things have so far remain unchanged, Kaczynski's actions were therefore unjustified and/or his writings were not true. This does not follow. Just because an anti-tech revolutionary movement has not (yet) materialized and the industrial system is not (yet) under serious revolutionary threat does not invalidate the truth of Kaczynski's ideas or the validity of Kaczynski's actions. You would not be justified in implying this any more than you would be justified in claiming Galileo had no effect or was wrong because he was placed under house arrest and almost nobody believed him (at the time).

<comment><USER6> Now, when looking at the short-term (historically speaking), Kaczynski's actions have been a resounding success. The manifesto and his other works are read by millions--far far more than if they were published traditionally where they would have been buried or left obscure. You may disagree with this point given the new media technologies and their leverage. But even in that case this overlooks a far more important aspect relating to revolutionary dynamics: Kaczynski's works have established themselves as the most radical and oppositional ideas in our world today by virtue of their violent context. This has the (necessary) effect of preventing the ideas from being co-opted and keeping away mild, reformist types who are offended by the actions (which is exactly what you WANT to do in the formation of any revolutionary movement).

<comment><USER3> Mein Kampf has also been read by millions, but nobody claims Hitler's work was a resounding success. Is your criteria for success simply "Someone reads your manifesto?"

<comment><USER6> On this point you would do well to read the third chapter of "Anti-Tech Revolution." In it, Kaczynski argues for why an anti-tech revolution as he lays out would succeed and why its success would be more or less permanent while all other social revolutions and goals have failed and were fundamentally doomed to fail.

<comment><USER3> I've read him. I find his philosophy to be two things:

1) self-consistent

2) deeply misanthropic

As with so many seductive political philosophers (Rand and Hitler spring immediately to mind), he creates a framework that checks out against its own internal logic and that would work great if (a) humans behaved the way he needs them to behave for his system to work and (b) you ignore all the death and suffering his solution demands.

<comment><USER6> "(a) humans behaved the way he needs them to behave for his system to work."

This is flatly wrong. Humans aren't "needed" to behave in this system in any way other than they have always behaved throughout history. The revolutionary ideal is not to create a utopia, or to control society and human behavior, it is only to destroy the industrial system. the world that will remain will approximate the world prior to the industrial revolution: full bellies and hunger, sickness and health, greed and compassion, etc. etc. But it's a world where the biosphere and humanity are not threatened with existential destruction.

"(b) you ignore all the death and suffering his solution demands."

No need to "ignore" anything. You just have to come the the conclusion that FAR more death and destruction lays in store for humans and the biosphere if technology is allowed to continue. This is a matter of facts and logic and can be reasonably deduced. You can;t somehow shirk from your intellectual and moral responsibility to think about something simply because it's painful to think about, which is essential what your doing. Would it be wrong, for example, for the Allies to have ever considered fighting and defeating Nazi Germany because it would entail millions of people suffering, regardless of the consequences of not doing anything???

<comment><USER3> > But it's a world where the biosphere and humanity are not threatened with > existential destruction.

That's unfortunately false. The technology stack needed to divert asteroids is significant; bringing humanity to a pre-industrial revolution doesn't guarantee the safety of the biosphere, it guarantees the biosphere is unmodifiable by human activity. That leaves the biosphere vulnerable to threats that humans could use technology to intervene against but will be unable to.

> No need to "ignore" anything.

If one doesn't ignore the death and suffering but instead condemns humanity to it purposefully, with the flip response "But in a technological society, people will die anyway," that's misanthropic, and that's the part where his philosophy demands humans act other than they will. Fewer humans are suffering and dying---even with the threat of climate change---in a world where we have a technology stack that can move vast resources around.

Avoiding the death of billions of people by crashing the industrial infrastructure so billions of people die is a non-solution. Practically, nobody will go for it. Philosophically, nobody _should_ go for it; it's the solution of throwing up one's hands and saying "into Nature's good graces we should go," and Nature's graces have never been good. "Red in tooth and claw" is the moniker she tends to carry.

There's no guarantee that if we keep the industrial society, billions die to climate change. Technology gave us the power to shape the climate and (if we choose to invest the time and effort) it can give us the power to shape the climate beneficially. If we pull the technological society up by its roots and return to the pre-industrial society, billions die from starvation, disease, and natural disaster, as we are no longer able to move resources to help them.

<comment><USER6> Thank you for this discussion. Suffice it to say I think you are dead wrong here. But a debate on the points you now raise is beyond the time I have to devote now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have to say I had the exact opposite reaction.

I was also intrigued by the depiction in the Manhunt series and read the manifesto as a result.

In the TV show, Kaczinky is portrayed as a highly intellectual, informed, educated individual, mentally thwarting his interviewer in their debate on morals and politics. After building up that expectation of Kaczinky's intellect, the manifesto is an enormous disappointment. It's filled with base broad assumptions, ignorant and unresearched assertions on "leftism" and in particular his treatise on "oversocialization" is so transparently a defensive lashing out at the elements of society that have not been personally accepting of him.

Throughout, his arguments are made as plain, implicit statements. Nothing is approached in an evidence-based manner and there are no attempts to contradict obvious counter-arguments. His "facts" are simply stated as self-evident.

Take e.g.

> _it's likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that > most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too > much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for > his high level of socialization._

This is centred around the idea of society imposing restrictions on our autonomy through socialization; we believe strongly in our own freedom. He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. A delusion that results from their own oversocialization. At no point does he explain how/why leftists are more oversocialized than non-lefists, or why he believes that he himself is not delusional in his sense of his own autonomy.

There are some central elements in there of value (his general focus on the importance of effort and autonomy in fulfillment I would agree with), but these can be found discussed more articulately in better writings without being padded with political/social nonsense.

Overall, the manifesto is not worth reading.

<comment><USER8> >He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion.

Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left or right is their belief in their own free will.

Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that believe they are largely a product of their environment will favor left wing policies.

This belief is perhaps (probably) not always explicit but rather somehow implicit or 'felt'.

<comment><USER9> Doesn't really matter what you "believe" if it's demonstrably true that you're shaped by your environment.

<comment><USER10> Any reasonable definition of "you" would suggest a mind with free will (at least to a certain level of approximation).

Also, aside from any philosophical mind / matter or free will / predestination arguments, it's not just a question of what _is_ , but what is a more adaptive belief.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some people here can't seem to separate ideas from the person who generates them, and that is sad. You can hate what a person did and still try to understand why they did it. That does not equate to support for them. It's this kind of closed-mindedness that is driving people apart all over the world.

<comment><USER12> > Some people here can't seem to separate ideas from the person who generates > them

Would these writings be considered famous or even worthwhile if it wasn't for this person's actions? I think the answer is quite clear.

<comment><USER13> Infamous is probably the right word. His writings aren't something that everybody owns or that's taught in school. I don't believe a majority would know the author if you asked them who wrote "Industrial Society and its Future".

I also don't believe that a majority considers it worthwhile, it's a minority that this line of thought speaks to, and I'm relatively sure that they'd find it appealing even if he hadn't ever done anything but write books.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't understand the fascination. Kaczynski was deeply ill, in ways that were somewhat apparent even before we knew he was trying to murder people, as he repeatedly failed to live a life in the continued presence of others. Instead, he lived in a dirty shack with a hole cut in its floor as a toilet (the irony of the lifestyle upgrade he's received with his cell in ADX Florence is widely noted). Kevin Kelly does a good job of putting the manifesto itself in context; there's little in it that hasn't been articulated well elsewhere. For decades, he struck out practically at random --- we all read about Gelernter, but less attention is paid to the time he attempted to down a passenger airplane. To me, it's all just another instance of us mascotizing the mentally ill. If these ideas appeared instead in a LiveJournal archive, nobody would care.

It's not that his writing or his ideas are dangerous; deranged killers will find reasons to maim and murder people whether or not we write blog posts about "manifestos". It's that there's so little reason to believe any of his work is worth our time.

<comment><USER15> I'm somewhat familiar with Kaczynski. I bought my first computer at a computer store he bombed, and I met one of his victims firsthand - once before the bombing, and once after. I've seen firsthand the pain that he caused another human.

But I'm not familiar with him trying to crash a plane. Can you give some specifics on that?

<comment><USER14> Look up AA 444.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Direct link to the manifesto:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/national/longterm/unab...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm)

</comment><comment><USER17> Plenty of people have pointed out that changes to society create problems and even leave us worse off in terms of happiness or health or freedom etc. I'd recommend Jared Diamond on agriculture for a shorter, better written, non homicidal alternative:

[https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst- mist...](https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mistake-in- the-history-of-the-human-race)

But here is thing: you don't get to decide. You're whole society doesn't get to decide. You have to do what guarantees your survival, not your happiness/freedom/comfort/honour etc.

If you reject technology or agriculture or weapons, you may well be happier for a while. Then you're technological/agricultural/militaristic neighbours will come over and wipe you out.

American Indians were famously happier, healthier, freer people than European settlers. Now they're mostly gone. It's not nice, but it's reality.

<comment><USER18> > But here is thing: you don't get to decide. You're whole society doesn't get > to decide.

This is why we have established what is sometimes called a 'rule-based international order', so that we can have a world where might makes right doesn't apply anymore. Where the weak get protection and the strong are compelled to act morally and legally.

Unfortunately, of course, the rules mostly stay on paper and the world continues to be driven by power and violence. This however doesn't mean that we shouldn't push for a better world and that we shouldn't hold people and nations responsible for their brutality.

<comment><USER17> This is the core issue: how do you get everyone, every single person on earth, all 7bn to agree not to be dicks, not to want more than a bare subsistence lifestyle, not to engage in violence or coercion and not to invent tech?

If we could solve human nature, we could have any ideological system. Communism would work, or anarcho capitalism or whatever.

But we can't.

We can't get people to cut back enough to avoid a global warming catastropy.

<comment><USER18> > how do you get everyone, every single person on earth, all 7bn to agree not > to be dicks

Unfortunately, as you can imagine, I don't have an answer. I'm actually quite afraid that there's no answer and that we as a species aren't capable of large scale rational and compassionate cooperation.

The global warming catastrophe won't wait for us. I'm quite afraid that my life won't end nicely. I don't expect to have a long and peaceful retirement.

<comment><USER12> > we as a species aren't capable of large scale rational and compassionate > cooperation.

Most likely true, as far as it goes. Ironically enough, the closest thing we get to 'large-scale (even world-scale) rational and compassionate cooperation' is the very "industrial society" mentioned in the OP. You may not like industrial and post-industrial society, but it's not clear that there's any alternative if you want "everyone" to be involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I was intrigued by "Industrial Society and its Future" by Ted Kaczynski after watching the "Manhunt" series on Netflix. As a techno-optimist it helped me put my feet on the ground. If you're like me, I can recommend the book. Not a fan of books? Read my blog post.

<comment><USER19> I urge anyone who reads Kaczinski to dive into Jacques Ellul. Kaczinky was heavily inspired by his writing. I studied Ellul for around 2 years and I can't say that it didn't effect my whole attitude on "Tech as a solution" for our problems. I certainly understood (although I don't condone) why Kaczinsky did what he did:

The Technological Society: [https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...](https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSociety)

Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes: [https://archive.org/details/Propaganda_201512](https://archive.org/details/Propaganda_201512)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul)

<comment><USER20> I guess not completely inspired by his writings:

> Ellul explained his view in this way: "By anarchy I mean first an absolute > rejection of violence."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> First, this post title is worded like clickbait. (edit: it has been updated)

Second, can someone suggest alternative readings for those of us who don't want to give attention to work that was publicized via terrorism and murder?

<comment><USER19> Jacques Ellul (read his "La Technique" first - don't start with "Propaganda" which builds on it):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23746429](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23746429)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Jacques%20Ellul&sort=byPopularity&type=all)

<comment><USER22> La Technique is excellent and I'm stoked to see someone recommending it. But it's very dense. I imagine it would also be highly frustratig to a lot of people here for its polemic style and his fast-and-loose approach to citations. (I always remember his line "books are meant to be read, not consulted".)

The first 2/5 of the book would probably suffice to get a good understanding of his argument. I read and loved the whole thing, and it's been very influential on my thinking since then.

Two articles which cover his work:

[https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/confronting- the-...](https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/confronting-the- technological-society) [https://crabmusket.net/blog/it-turns-everything-it- touches-i...](https://crabmusket.net/blog/it-turns-everything-it-touches-into- a-machine/) (disclaimer, I wrote this)

There is also the 76 questions, which you can find across the internet and which are attributed to Ellul:

[https://76questions.tech](https://76questions.tech)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> torb-xyz If you want to read a critique of modern industrialization and it impact on nature and society by someone who's not a violent terrorist and has solutions beyond blowing shit up Murray Bookchin is probably a betyer bet.

<comment><USER19> another great author for understanding the dangers of reductive "Systems Thinking" and how state & power takes away freedom (via Technology) is James C. Scott.

I prefer quoting Ellul in this context though because he was instrumental in forming Kaczinsky's views.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "The concept of "mental health" in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress."

This part made me question the mental health of our society today. This are large swaths of the population that use amphetamines, antidepressants, anti- anxiety medication just to be able to function on a day-to-day basis. Maybe the problem is not exclusively in the individual, maybe some of this stems from society.

This idea along with some writing of Marcus Aurelius helped me find some peace of mind and try to reduce the influence the external world has on me.

<comment><USER24> This was also Foucault's point in Madness and Civilization. You can see this clearly when society's needs change. Someone who might be diagnosed as a psychopathic mass murderer in peacetime might be given a medal in wartime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> He murdered people to publicize his manifesto. I feel that if I were to read it, I would be encouraging others to kill to get their views known. So I won't be reading it, regardless of its merits.

<comment><USER11> Do you think you are doing your part to discourage future murderers from publishing manifestos? It's hard for me to follow the logic of how what you describe works.

<comment><USER26> While just not reading it likely has no effect, making this public post about it might dissuade others from reading and discourage manifesto publishing.

<comment><USER11> It seems like their energy is better spent educating themselves on the controversial material so that they can explain to people why they think the conclusions in it are wrong.

FWIW, I'm actually made more curious when people discourage me from reading something, so they may want to rethink the actual impact of that strategy.

<comment><USER26> I'm not though. It had the intended effect on me. I don't believe what he has to say is so revolutionary that I'm missing much by not reading it, and I agree with the sentiment that I'm respecting the Unabomber's goals by reading it - so I just wont. Good ideas are a dime a dozen, the tricky part is execution. Fortunately, murder is usually an ineffective way to affect public policies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> My main takeaway from the Unabomber Manifesto is that to give up is to fail. We only have one valid way out of this and that is using the tool set (technology) that got us into this mess to get us out of it. All other options will result in unthinkable suffering and destruction (given that we have to work with the constraint that we already have 7B+ people on the planet).

</comment><comment><USER28> > _Theodore J. Kaczynski is an extremely intelligent yet wounded man_

Just a heads-up to the poster (who seems to also be the person who wrote the blog), but the link in this passage goes to the wiki page for Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber, while I suspect it was intended to link to Ted Kaczynski's page

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Socie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future)

</comment><comment><USER29> Most western societies have some core values that, although often under pressure, most people generally subscribe to. Eg freedom of speech, bothsidesism, etc.

I wish we could add one to the list: if you commit violent acts, we will ignore what you said, no matter how much or how little sense it makes.

Like, there's millions of weird extreme right manifestos out there, but the one by Anders Breivik is the only recent one that got attention because he killed an island full of young politicians. This bothers the shit out of me. How can media that pretend to hold high journalistic values do this?

Same of Kaczinsky. The moment he started blowing up buildings, he lost the right to be part of the debate in my opinion.

This is basically the media version of "we don't negotiate with terrorists / kidnappers / hostage takers / etc". In each individual case, it usually _does_ make sense to negotiate. The reason states and organizations often take the position to not negotiate by policy, is because it encourages _more_ terrorism, kidnappings and hostage situations.

As it stands, we're actively encouraging the use of violence to amplify an argument, and this blog post takes part in that. I have no doubts about the authors good intentions, but I'm flagging it nevertheless.

<comment><USER30> Do you actually do this? You do realize that means you need to ignore the police, military, and virtually every politician? Especially every person who has been president.

<comment><USER31> Yes of course, all these people you mentioned work for me they follow my orders not the other way around, why would I give a flying fuck what a politician though?

I don't care what the military of France has to say if they start shit, my countrys military will end it and me, my country and our military won't give a flying fuck what the France military or policy or politician has to say.

I get a lot of people just want a big strong benevolent [police, military, politician, president, terrorist] to rule and make them feel safe but power pisses on the weak.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Kaczynski is the Paulo Coelho of terrorists.

Writes deep-sounding phrases that (almost) everybody agrees with and that provide zero new information.

</comment><comment><USER33> "The honest truth is that I am not really politically oriented. I would have really rather just be living out in the woods. If nobody had started cutting roads through there and cutting the trees down and come buzzing around in helicopters and snowmobiles I would still just be living there and the rest of the world could just take care of itself. I got involved in political issues because I was driven to it, so to speak. I'm not really inclined in that direction."

[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/theresa-kintz- interv...](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/theresa-kintz-interview- with-ted-kaczynski)

</comment><comment><USER34> I did. And wrote about it[0]. And I'm not a techno-optimist but you won't find much to truly learn in the manifesto if you are one.

The manifesto is far more about 'control' than it is about technology. He spreads the blame to the Left, the Over-Socialized, the 'Elite' and technology - with thinly veiled stopover at the 'stupid' too.

And by 'control' he doesn't simply mean control through technology, it's about Kaczynski's feelings of a lack of control over his own life and he latches that onto this 'industrial society' concept.

But in the manifesto, if read carefully, it shows he really wants to be free from control of the 'elite' and to return to having power (literally the power process) over the entire abstract concept of life - by which I mean to be completely outwith the control of external actors.

That's not to say he was 'wrong', in the post I argue in some ways he was right about control and 'industrial societies' effects on the individual, just misplaced in it's singular application to technology/industrial society (control will emerge from any system) and uttely abhorrent, unforgivable and unfollowable in his actions in pursuit of 'bringing down the system'.

Some of my concluding thoughts for those who don't read long posts:

"The manifesto has left me convinced of his anger against a system that abused him, even a sense of pity and understanding that he took the actions he did. But I can in no way even begin to accept what he did was right or even remotely the correct way to achieve his aims.

If anything, he damaged his cause immeasurably.

I find much of the way he conducted himself in the face of a society he didn't like to be repellent and lazy, running away to bomb and kill those ignorantly innocent of any part in the 'great industrial-technological society' he hates so much.

It's just such an unintelligent response to the objective goals he set. Which has to lend credence to my suspicion that a lot of the content in this manifest was really about his personal issues and not an intellectuals response to an industrial-technological society.

There is nothing to be lauded in this manifesto. There are points that deserve exploration and debate, perhaps even non-violent action - even the criminal can be correct after all - but nothing more.

To me it is the malformed logic of an angry and mistreated man, an intelligent one, but not one who should be forgiven his crimes."

[0] [https://www.josharcher.uk/blog/industrial-society-and-its- fu...](https://www.josharcher.uk/blog/industrial-society-and-its-future-an- analysis/)

<comment><USER19> to understand Kaczinsky is impossible without reading Jacques Ellul. His time in the woods doesn't make sense, his anger doesn't make sense, his slow (yes slow) self-radicalization and his terrorism doesn't make sense. Reading the Manifesto alone is what leads to terrible one sided takes like the Netflix documentary with its good-cop-bad-criminal narrative. if all one wants to do is confirm their position why he should be in jail (and he should) than the Manifesto is enough, but to understand the man you got to read what actually radicalized him. Read Ellul!

<comment><USER31> > His time in the woods doesn't make sense, his anger doesn't make sense, his > slow (yes slow) self-radicalization and his terrorism doesn't make sense.

What part of this doesn't make sense? He did hide from society to wallow in his loathing of society until he had radicalised him self all the while blaming society for his actions. Yes that is exactly what I got from reading the manifesto he is an uncomfortable human-being who blames every one else for his uncomfortableness and uses technology as a scape goat.

> but to understand the man you got to read what actually radicalized him. > Read Ellul!

This I agree with there is no reason to read his manifesto as no understanding can be gained from it without first understanding the topic and if you know the topic there is no reason to read it because it doesn't raise any new or interesting ideas in the topic.

People can read it if they wan't I did im not going to stop any one, but even if I wanted to recommend some one understand the ideas he was talking about I wouldn't recommend him simply because he just doesn't know what he's on about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Very, very smart, but very disturbed man. If you are interested in reading manifestos from murderers, which might not be the best leisure time pursuit, this one is actually good compared to the common nazi stuff.

</comment><comment><USER36> I am no fan of cancel culture / deplatforming people but I do make an exception for terrorists. I don't think we should be promoting the manifesto of terrorists as it creates horrible incentives, and vindicates their action. I agree with the approach of obfuscating their names and not reporting on their manifesto.

If you want to make a grand standing against science and technology, please find another source.

<comment><USER37> Why don't you say what you disagree with and provide a criticism?

<comment><USER36> Again, this isn't about the manifesto. It is about giving a platform to a terrorist. It is because they knew their manifesto would be published and read that the terrorists behind the 2011 Norway attacks or Christchurch mosque attack acted that way. And it worked as planned, providing incentives for more acts of terror.

If you want to make a criticism again science and technology, please do. But I think it is inappropriate to publish or reference a terrorist's manifesto.

<comment><USER37> If you care about terrorism and stopping it, then you should not ignore what they're saying. Sometimes they're saying something important.

I don't think this is going to encourage anyone to carry out acts of violence.

<comment><USER36> ISIS has something important to say that I should read? My lifestyle isn't conform enough to the standards of Wahhabism?

<comment><USER37> You have to use your judgement. For example the 9/11 hijackers were angry that the USA was occupying Saudi Arabia militarily and that the Israel/Palestinian issue hadn't been resolved. I think those are legitimate demands.

<comment><USER12> If you listen to what these militant Islamists say in _Arabic_ (as translated by reliable third-parties such as MEMRI) you get a _very_ different picture. The asserted motivations are entirely or almost-entirely religious and linked to militant Islam itself; there is no reference to reciprocity of any kind with the Western world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I think Ted gets the fundamentals a little bit off, and the entire work is unsound as a result. Society doesn't just magically become more repressive because of the need of industrial society to be more "organized". It becomes more repressive because of powerful people who find personal profit in organizing it in a repressive way.

The powerful have always been able to oppress the weak, and abandoning all technology to go anarcho-primitivist leaves the powerful better-resourced than ever, and leaves you scraping out a marginal living. Moreover, as technology continues to advance, the need for mindless conformity is further eroded. Mass production was pretty mind-numbing, but now we have robots to do the most mindless tasks, and we are getting more of them.

The solution to control and repression, now as ever, is to structure society so that ambition can counteract ambition, to enshrine the rights of the people in law, to jealously guard those rights, and to inculcate the next generation in their value. The US Constitution does an absolutely world-class phenomenal smashing good job of the first two, such that even as society has been doing a mediocre job at guarding them and teaching their value, we're still getting by, and improving.

If you'd like to fight control, in the abstract, don't bomb people: preserve the system that protects us through civic engagement, and work to build a culture that celebrates the robust defense of rights like free speech (including, critically, of unpopular people you don't like who are targeted by the mob or by the powerful) and other civil rights (criminal justice issues in particular).

</comment><comment><USER39> You have little power over diseases without technology, not to mention that a disability may render you worthless/good as dead so you can count me out of this "back to the cave" movement.

If you want ultimate "tranquility" build a spaceship and conquer the ultimate frontier alone. Nobody will bother you in the cosmic void.

</comment><comment><USER37> We can have a society in which people don't need to work hard, and all our material needs are satisfied. That would be much preferable to the current one, in which much of the population lives precariously, stressfully and frustrated.

</comment><comment><USER6> Also check out Kaczynski's books: "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution."

</comment><comment><USER40> Another "How to get a FBI file in just one click!" post.

But I suppose I should be more open minded. Just because someone famously does wrong does not mean everything they say is wrong, right?</comment>


Market Moves Suggest a Recession Is Unavoidable - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-06/markets-in-turmoil-a-recession-seems-unavoidable <comment><USER2> How can something "suggest" a recession is "unavoidable." If its a suggestion, then by definition it isn't unavoidable.

These articles are silly. You'll find them for every time the market sneezes.

October 2015, World Faces a Recession Next Year: [https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/13/citis-buiter-world-faces- rec...](https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/13/citis-buiter-world-faces-recession- next-year.html)

June 2016, The Next Recession is Already Here: [https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/the-next-recession-is- alread...](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/the-next-recession-is-already-here- and-there-isnt-much-the-fed-can-do-commentary.html)

There might be a recession next year, but the Fed might cut rates, Brexit might not happen, the EU might resume easing and the stock market might double in the next 5 years. Nobody knows.

<comment><USER3> > _How can something "suggest" a recession is "unavoidable." If its a > suggestion, then by definition it isn't unavoidable._

Nonsense.

Say I have a coin that I suspect has heads on both sides. Instead of just checking the coin, I flip it ten times in a row and check the result -- ten heads. "Coin flips suggest 'heads' unavoidable."

The article is saying there is some situation in which a recession is unavoidable, and signs point to us being in that situation.

<comment><USER2> My point is that we're talking about a prediction regarding something for which there will always be a degree of uncertainty. The reason the author is "suggesting" a recession is unavoidable is because there's no such thing as an unavoidable recession, just as there is no such thing as an unavoidable heads coin flip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Things that keep me up at night as a software contractor/freelancer: if there's a recession, are contractors the first to go? One counter-argument is that contractors can be a cheaper way for companies to build products (since it's not full time), which might mean companies favor contractors. On the other hand, companies who are reluctant to lay off full-time staff may start by canceling contract relationships.

<comment><USER5> I was a freelance dev contractor in the 2008/2009 financial crisis.

To what you said above, both can be true. But it depends on the client's business.

I got completely crushed last time. But my clients were primarily in travel and fashion/lifestyle which both got hit hard early. And I was trying to bootstrap a social media startup at the time, which was also in travel. So I got destroyed.

Typically agencies and freelancers are the first to feel a recession. Vendors are more expendable than W-2 employees so contracts get stalled out or cancelled as soon as the warning signs hit the board room.

However... I've known of some people who actually did quite well last time around. Generally they were offering lower rates than the competition and specialized in maintaining software that was essential to recession-proof businesses (like entertainment, education, government etc). They had long-term contracts where they were essential to these businesses, and they lowered their rates to be competitive. This was eventually how I recovered as well.

Basically my advice is - prepare to shift from quality to quantity for a bit, diversify your client portfolio and put effort into building long term clients where you're essential.

<comment><USER4> "diversify your client portfolio"

This is a really interesting thought that I hadn't considered. I always hear to diversify your investment portfolio, but the thought of diversifying your client list is fascinating. It makes a lot of sense though.

<comment><USER5> Honestly "diversify" is not something I had ever considered before the last recession, and it runs contrary to most popular advice in consulting around finding a niche, but it becomes very apparent after you've weathered the ups and downs of the consulting business over a long time period.

If you look at any of the major consulting firms (ex: Accenture) that have lasted decades, you'll see that they have their fingers in many different unrelated areas and industries. "Niche" in the short term is a great way to build up clients, but stick narrowly to a niche over too long a time scale, and it becomes an anchor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you could know a recession was inevitable some time soon from publicly available information then that recession wouldn't happen in the predicted time frame. Everybody would see it coming, take their money out of the market, and it would happen instantly.

<comment><USER7> And with this mindset most people will not take any action until the big guys have taken an action. The timing could be the predicted time frame. But it is only too late by then and middle and lower class suffer. Top 1% controls around 40% of America's wealth.

<comment><USER6> Small players who try to time the market are going to lose out to the big players. You seriously should not try unless you feel like donating a portion of your retirement savings to Goldman and Sachs bonuses. Just invest not thinking you know the future and let the Jötunn try to outsmart each other.

<comment><USER8> (Nit-picking: jötnar, since it's plural. But I like the image.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Would it be wise to wait a year before buying a house? If a recession hits it might turn my areas buyers market into a fire-sale.

I guess if the fed isn't raising rates then it's not an issue. Waiting would also allow someone to increase their down payment.

<comment><USER10> Lots of factors in play, you'd need to bet correctly that the recession will actually affect prices that way in your area.

Also, the yield curves _just_ inverted within the last week, and the average time-to-recession from that point is 12 months. So you may want to wait longer than a year.

Or... just buy something and be done with it, as long as it fits your budget and your income is stable, it's just housing and in the long run it'll probably work out fine anyway. Timing the housing market isn't any easier than timing the stock market.

<comment><USER11> There was a slight inversion but it wasn't on 2-year and 10-year. The recession indicator is from when the 2 and 10-year yield inverts and yes, it's about a year lag.

<comment><USER10> My bad, I thought 2/10 had inverted earlier this week. Maybe it was just for a short time during the day. Still, they are very close right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What scares me is how _everything_ nowadays is available to purchase through financing.

A toaster form BestBuy.com? Finance it for $4/month. New iPhone for $1000? How about monthly installments instead? It's not even the exception anymore, it's the norm.

Even without exorbitant interest rates, the idea that there is supply or demand for financing all aspects of life does not bode well for people's long- term wealth...

</comment><comment><USER13> Recessions are a necessary part of the business cycle. A lot of people would argue that global central banks have gone too far trying to avoid a recession and thus the next recession will be particularly brutal.

Like laws designed to encourage forest growth, when the fire eventually comes it burns far brighter than the fire that burns in a forest left alone.

<comment><USER14> those laws (actually policies, I think) are meant to keep homes and other property from burning, not to encourage forest growth. wildfire suppression is rarely practiced in true wilderness areas in the US

<comment><USER15> So it's a pretty good parallel, really :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Only a portion of the yield curve inverted, and based on recent history, its predictive ability for the US economy is not what it used to be.

IMO, The important indicator to keep an eye on is earnings growth, which in the most recent quarter was (from what I recall) sales growth +8% and EPS growth +25%.

One headwind to keep lookout for next year will be tough comparison because of the tax cuts.

Also, like others have mentioned, doomsayers are a dime a dozen. Personally, I like to see what people with skin in the game have to say/are doing to their portfolio allocations.

</comment><comment><USER17> I was in high school during the last recession so I have no idea of what to expect, but how does one take advantage of a recession? Do you invest in blue chip stocks that you assume will ride out the recession and bounce back? (Apple in Google in 2008 would've been solid investments), do you take advantage of rising interest rates and buy bonds in addition to boosting your savings account? Do you buy a house? What's the m.o?

<comment><USER18> You gather with friends and find solutions together

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> IMO, market is down because of increase discount rate (risk), not a decrease in earnings (fundamentals)

</comment><comment><USER20> Given the projected IPOs next year (Lyft, Uber, AirBnB) I think this is a little pre-mature. I think the bull market has another year in it. That being said I'm shifting some of my assets out of the market.

<comment><USER21> A handful of IPOs won't stave off a recession. (It's entirely possible to cancel an IPO, too.)

If I were a big pre-IPO company, I'd probably want to go IPO before the recession, in order to get operating capital to survive it.

<comment><USER22> A few tech IPOs does not make a strong stock market. Seems a bit silly to judge market health on tech having a few IPOs next year

<comment><USER20> I'm not, but its one of the things I track. A mixture of unemployment, yield curve us2y10y spread, deal activity are all things I look for to signal the end of a cycle. Tomorrow's job report will be interesting, but given all the other indicators I still think we're looking at a sideways to up market next year. Caveat being the risk of a recession elsewhere in the world and the contagion effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If this is true, where is the best place to invest 10k-100k USD today?

<comment><USER24> Why would you invest just before a recession? Keep your cash and invest when the market is down.

<comment><USER25> You should always be investing because timing the market is a fools errand. The question is how much?

<comment><USER26> Isn't that timing too?

Or it is wise when you allocate 5/95 split to stock/bond but fool's errand when it is 0/100

<comment><USER25> Consistently invest an amount that you are comfortable with. It's called dollar cost averaging. I'd personally keep dry powder for when the market is far beyond the standard deviation of historical records. 2008 and 2018 would both be years this is true. Shorting though is only for the brave or stupid.

Personally, I put a certain amount in every quarter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> His main justification: "Just about everyone I talk to in the capital markets, including erstwhile bulls, acknowledges that things are slowing down." And "everyone knows it is coming." And "everyone knows that inverted yield curves are the most reliable recession indicators."

He talks about home builders "getting crushed," which means they're trading at levels last seen in 2017. The large tech stock haircuts he refers to means most are at levels they traded at earlier this year.

I'm not saying he's wrong about a recession coming, but if you're looking for some real substance to justify that stance, you won't find it in this article. Just a guy copying Trump's tactic of saying "everyone knows" instead of offering evidence.

<comment><USER28> Agreed. Typical financial market herd psychology BS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > "We have lost sight of the fact that a recession has cleansing properties, > helping to right the wrong of the billions of dollars allocated to bad > businesses while getting people refocused on investing in profitable > enterprises."

If this were true, loss-making companies would never IPO. There is such a thing as a normal boom and bust cycle. The "bust" portion is the recession, the hangover after the bull market effects of the US tax cuts have petered out.</comment>


The economics of the mushy middle - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/03/29/100329ta_talk_surowiecki <comment><USER2> Did anybody try to copy and paste any portion of text from that article? Pretty nice trick</comment>


Lingt acquired - <AUTHOR> http://lingt.com/

<comment><USER2> Congratulations to Lingt. Dictionary.com, however, really needs to clean up and simplify their site - it contains a huge amount of potentially useful tools, which are hidden in the depths of the website. A while ago I stumbled upon a tool of theirs which allowed me to describe a word and it would show me a list of potential matches. Until I (again) accidentally re-found it via another website a while ago, I was unable to find it because their site is just so confusing (and Google was of no help).

</comment><comment><USER3> Since it's being moved offline (language is unclear as to what is happening) you might be interested in the (for-pay) skritter.com. It (if I understand Lingt correctly) has the same design to exploit the spacing effect (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacing_effect>). Has anyone else noticed a lot of startups popping up in the "adaptive flashcard learning" space lately?

</comment><comment><USER4> It was a great service for learning a new language. Have tried it few times (if it had more languages maybe I would've used in on a daily basis) and I really liked how it makes you learn and remember words.

<http://flashcards.dictionary.com> seems interesting too, it's evident that some of the good stuff from Lingt is reimplemented there.

</comment><comment><USER5> congrats justin and team!

</comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone know or care to share details on the acquisition?

</comment><comment><USER7> Congrats to Lingt. Nice to see some exits for YC S09!

</comment><comment><USER8> simple and useful. recipe for success. congrats to the team.</comment>


Google's new AI ethics board is already falling apart - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/3/18292526/google-ai-ethics-board-letter-acquisti-kay-coles-james <comment><USER3> It's bizarre to me that people can't seem to understand that any such panel requires vehement disagreement to make real and meaningful progress. You need people whose opinions are diametrically opposed to constantly challenge each other. Even people who hate each other or each other's opinions.

What you don't need is another echo chamber. Go debate on Twitter, Facebook or Reddit if that's what you're looking for.

<comment><USER4> I can't agree with this. This is a mistake that the BBC has been making recently, thinking that all viewpoints are equally valid and deserve equal attention. I strongly believe that that is not true.

<comment><USER5> Even if Kay Cole James is egregiously wrong about trans-people, that doesn't mean she's incapable of participating in a conversation about AI ethics. She clearly has is intelligent enough to be in the position she is today.

<comment><USER6> Should she be in a position where her opposition to trans people can possibly have a direct effect on the lives of trans people?

If one side of the argument is "trans rights matter" and the other is "trans people are just men cosplaying as women", then morally you can only choose the "trans rights matter" side. Any political concerns take a backseat to the direct wellbeing of trans people.

<comment><USER7> > then __morally __you can only choose the "trans rights matter" side

I don't think that word means what you think it means. If you think that it's acceptable to twist the words of someone you disagree with to say that, you have no basis on which to make moral judgements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The Google AI Council (1) bears a strong resemblance to the Defense Innovation Board (2). I think Google's main error is that the membership was too small. The dilutional power of increased membership would have made it harder to make a show out of any individual selectee.

Plenty of board memberships are unpaid, specifically the DoD has a bunch of them. The parent organization still pays all the fees for events, so the members are on a level playing field. As for disadvantaging the poor ... what? These councils are literally about establishing leadership positions at the national and international level. You need people with intimate visibility on the great issues of our time. If you're starting a board on prison reform, then, sure, a couple ex-cons should be on the board. But even then, you're going to look for an ex-con who went on to build a business or change the world in some way.

I don't know. I've presented to some of these "toothless" boards before, and I have to say, they were, to a T, very clever people who have worked very hard for their whole lives. I don't get the sense they're in it for the press or even for the networking. They're thinking hard and working hard, trying to get a CEO or equivalent leader to turn the ship.

(1) [https://www.blog.google/technology/ai/external-advisory- coun...](https://www.blog.google/technology/ai/external-advisory-council-help- advance-responsible-development-ai/)

(2) [https://innovation.defense.gov/Members/](https://innovation.defense.gov/Members/)

</comment><comment><USER9> > Panel member Joanna Bryson, defending Coles James's inclusion on Twitter, > said, "I know that I have pushed [Google] before on some of their > associations, and they say they need diversity in order to be convincing to > society broadly, e.g. the GOP."

Yet anyone appointed to the board will be vetted for conservative associations or statements, and if found, be objected to by the same people who object to James. Google will either have to drop this goal or be prepared to anger large numbers of their employees.

<comment><USER10> There are politically conservative organizations that do not have the baggage of the long history of transparent bad-faith argument that the Heritage Foundation has. I think it's fairly reasonable to assert that the quality of any discussion would be improved by removing all representatives of the Heritage Foundation. Moreover, some things are not worth re-litigating. A person who is opposed to same-sex marriage has no place in a discussion of technical ethics.

<comment><USER11> > A person who is opposed to same-sex marriage has no place in a discussion of > technical ethics.

Following this logic you're saying that ~30% of the population[0] is unworthy of discussing ethics. I find it amusing how Google has become hostage of its own employees in so many aspects. There already have been outrages when it comes to China censorship projects, military projects and now this. It gives Google a lot of bad publicity and I suppose it got out of control. If you think about it, no other company experiences employee revolt to the same degree as Google.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same- sex_mar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same- sex_marriage_in_the_United_States)

<comment><USER12> > Following this logic you're saying that ~30% of the population is unworthy > of discussing ethics?

I'm having trouble thinking of any unethical action that would not have a good chance of being approved by 30% of the population except perhaps where the unethical action would cause such widespread and apparent harm that it would directly affect a majority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From what I read about AI researchers and their optimism, I'm on the side of belief that it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox?wprov=sfla1](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox?wprov=sfla1)).

An ethics board would never be strong enough to stop AI development in the world if needed. We can't even limit CO2 output of the world with policy, and AI will be much more profitable than oil.

There's a strong agreement between most AI researchers that the biggest problem AI creates is the loss of jobs, and AGI is just too far to worry about, but I feel that at the same time they all hope to be the one who create the first AGI.

<comment><USER14> There is a difference in the problems that AI might create in the future (destroying all humans) vs the problems it creates now. E.g. AI products had worse STT capabilties for people with a spanish accent or from black backgrounds than american english speakers. Other AIs had more errors with black people.

This board's mission is not to prevent an AGI to become self aware and destroy all humans as a natural conclusion of being self aware. Personally I think this scenario is pretty unlikely anyway.

<comment><USER13> I'm more worried about attack vs defence assymetry increasing in the world than a self aware AI destroying it.

You just need 1 crazy human and extremely strong assymetrical warfare. If you look at the cases when a human killed lots of people with a truck, and see that in 20 years with cheap self flying drones a crazy person can kill even more people, you can extrapolate this and get to a sad conclusion (at least I did that).

<comment><USER15> [https://qntm.org/asteroids](https://qntm.org/asteroids)

> I believe that there is a threshold of power beyond which nobody can be > trusted. Where, in fact, it is impossible for any entity to even > theoretically demonstrate the track record of judgement, responsibility and > infallibility that would be necessary.

<comment><USER13> This was amazing read, thanks!

Also I believe it overestimates the power needed to kill all people.

How much time does it take for us to get to the point when an entity has live GPS coordinates of all people living in the world for example? Just 15 years ago this question sounded stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The board seems like a pointless exercise, given that it only meets 4 times in the year, and doesn't have any policy-making power.

It's crazy that people are calling for someone to be expelled from the board because they're from a conservative think thank though. You want a diversity of viewpoints at the table.

<comment> Ar-Curunir Don't downplay the issue. It's not that she's conservative; I'm sure Google's executive groups are full of relatively conservative people.

No, the problem with her is that she's a transphobe and racist.

<comment><USER17> Lots of even non-conservative people don't accept trans movement. It's quite a high bar if only trans-ok people are considered sane enough to participate in ethics board.

E.g. I'm 100% against trans participating in sports. It's disgusting when men pretend to be women just to have a record on their name. It's even more disgusting when it's celebrated as diversity or progressive or whatever.

Does that make me just a "relatively conservative" or full-on "transphobe"?

<comment><USER18> To break this down a bit instead of only downvoting:

> I'm 100% against trans participating in sports

There's a nuanced argument to be made here.

> It's disgusting when men pretend to be women just to have a record on their > name.

This is not that nuanced argument. I can assure you no one that is trans "pretends" to be a woman for sports records. That comment (as well as the word choice of "disgusting") shows a severe lack of understanding of trans people.

> It's even more disgusting when it's celebrated as diversity or progressive > or whatever.

This shows a particular bias against "progressive/diversity" ideas and colors the comments before them with an even worse light that highlights the lack of understanding.

> Does that make me just a "relatively conservative" or full-on "transphobe"?

Just like anything, there are gradients and being transphobic now doesn't mean you have to be in the future.

<comment><USER17> > This is not that nuanced argument. I can assure you no one that is trans > "pretends" to be a woman for sports records. That comment (as well as the > word choice of "disgusting") shows a severe lack of understanding of trans > people.

I understand biology that born-male will be stronger in many sports than born- female even after a lot of hormone therapy (or maybe vice-versa in some sports). Born-female taking male hormones will have advantage over regular female as well in many cases.

You got gender disphoria and need a treatment for it? Sure. But there're side effects. Just like for many treatments.

> This shows a particular bias against "progressive/diversity" ideas and > colors the comments before them with an even worse light that highlights the > lack of understanding.

I'm considering ideas on their own merit, not how they're labeled. And it's disgusting that progressive/diversity label was ruined buy affairs like that. And yes, I definitely have bias against ideas that seem to have a label they're not worth of.

> Just like anything, there are gradients and being transphobic now doesn't > mean you have to be in the future.

I hope definition of "transphobic" will change and I won't be called one in the future.

<comment><USER18> First, nothing you responded to clears up anything about your negative assumption that transgender people change for sports titles. That will always be transphobic and doesn't look at all into what the life of a trans person today or in the past has looked like.

But the body and hormone levels absolutely do affect physical sports, you're right. If you want to dig into hormones, what about intersex people? What about people classified as women with significantly higher testosterone levels? Despite the classification most hospitals do, a surprising amount of births show non-traditional genitalia, and if you go beyond the external looks then the waters only get murkier. How many athletes are actually not traditionally male or female but were simply never classified as such medically due to a lack of awareness and education? Do you then want to have all sports competitions separated based on hormone levels instead of sex/gender?

> I'm considering ideas on their own merit, not how they're labeled. And it's > disgusting that progressive/diversity label was ruined by affairs like that. > And yes, I definitely have bias against ideas that seem to have a label > they're not worth of.

But you give no argument for the unworthiness of it and instead start from the assumption. Not only that, but you paint with a very broad brush and are not digging into any of the nuance. That doesn't scream openness and combined with other things you said again comes off as ignorance or lack of education on the subject.

> I hope definition of "transphobic" will change and I won't be called one in > the future.

That definition will only go the other way as more people become educated on trans people. What defines transphobia is ignorance, not gusts of cultural wind. What would make your actions change will have to be you, not the classification of them.

As an aside generally, being transphobic or racist or sexist should not define you - it's a chance to learn and understand. It's not an identity, despite how it is assigned like one to many public figures these days. What's much more important than never saying or doing something sexist/racist/transphobic/etc is being open to changing and understanding to not do it in the future. Really it's just listening and understanding other people's experiences.

<comment><USER17> > First, nothing you responded to clears up anything about your negative > assumption that transgender people change for sports titles

I don't care if they changed gender for the sake of winning sports titles or not. I'm against them competing in sports anyway.

> If you want to dig into hormones, what about intersex people? What about > people classified as women with significantly higher testosterone levels?

That's definitely could an issue (see last paragraph). But IMO it's different that this is accidental from the individual's perspective. They themselves may be not aware of this. Sort of like getting lucky with good genes or rare mutation. Meanwhile for a transgender is purely a rational choice to transition. You may argue it's not fully rational since treatment is needed. But ultimately people do choose treatments and accept consequences for all sorts of illnesses.

> But you give no argument for the unworthiness of it and instead start from > the assumption. Not only that, but you paint with a very broad brush and are > not digging into any of the nuance.

Unfortunately interwebs comments are not well suited for a nuanced discussion. The person I originally replied to didn't go into nuance, neither did I. It'd be great if internet commentary moved towards more nuanced and longer discussions. But unfortunately old good forums with mile-long pagination are getting more and more scarce :( Especially with diverse audience.

> What defines transphobia is ignorance, not gusts of cultural wind. What > would make your actions change will have to be you, not the classification > of them.

I did research the topic and made my mind. IMO people who just jump on the ever-more-progressive bandwagon are much more ignorant. Ignorance shall be judge on refusing to look into the issue, not on coming to reasonable-yet- subjectively-wrong conclusions.

> That definition will only go the other way as more people become educated on > trans people.

Personally I went the other way after reading more into it.

> What's much more important than ever saying or doing something > sexist/racist/transphobic/etc is being open to changing and understanding to > not do it in the future.

Yes. But that ability to change must be open both ways. IMO today's definitions went way too far and are too close to doing full horseshoe. Understanding is not just pushing the boundaries of what is progressive to no end.

> Do you then want to have all sports competitions separated based on hormone > levels instead of sex/gender?

I'd support protection for the lesser (?) gender (women in endurance and power sports, men maybe in gymnastics?). Just have open group and the protected one for the lesser gender. In the long run, we'll probably need one more group for genetically-modified individuals.

<comment><USER19> _They themselves may be not aware of this. Sort of like getting lucky with good genes or rare mutation. Meanwhile for a transgender is purely a rational choice_

This gets me curious. In your definition, a person with strongly deviating hormonal levels isn't transgender until they are aware of their situation?

<comment><USER17> AFAIK modern transgender definition don't include hermaphrodites who were fixed in hospital right after birth.

Someone having issues with their hormones doesn't become transgender either.

So I'd say it's safe to say that the person has to have consciously chosen to transition to be considered a transgender. Also, people who didn't transition (yet) on hormonal level but did minor plastic surgeries and wear clothes accordingly are considered transgenders too.

If someone has XXY chromosomes and consider himself one gender their whole life, do they "trans" between something?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If we allow the big five to write the regulations and set the standards that will govern the technology for decades to come we're going to have major regrets.

<comment><USER21> We should all be so lucky that any company or group of companies hold themselves to a HIGHER standard than the law enforces.

But yes, if the companies are setting the legal bar, we should be vigilant that they're not exploiting our ignorance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I feel as though any sort of ethics board intended to do some kind of self- policing within an industry is doomed to fail. Have we seen any evidence in the past decade that the concerns of a company's investors won't eventually supersede all other considerations? It would be nice if the government had teeth nowadays and if the opinions of academics were taken at all seriously. Then there would be a US Federal AI Ethics Board. And we might have a US Federal Climate Action Board too. Alas, we're content to leave the ethical considerations to those who have every incentive to ignore them.

</comment><comment><USER23> "AI Ethics Board" but not one member of the board is an AI...

<comment><USER24> When AI gains sentience, I'm embarrassed to think how they'll reflect on how we've treated them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> James is also the first African-American to be head of the Heritage Foundation, she is a member of the NASA Advisory Council and she is the president and founder of the Gloucester Institute, a leadership training center for young African Americans.

Apparently all this is ignorable by the angry mob.

This madness must stop. True diversity means listening to qualified and civil voices from all over the political spectrum. Google must stand up.

<comment><USER26> Are you saying that because she's African-American she's automatically qualified for an ethics council? Ethics isn't about who you are, it's about whose lives you value.

<comment><USER25> No, of course that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying she is an intelligent, very well-accomplished member of the minority community. The kind of person you need on an ethics council.

Is there anything she's done (personally, directly) that you find upsetting? Or is just being politically conservative enough to disqualify her in your opinion?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> There is nothing fundamentally different between AI and "traditional algorithms" when it comes to ethical considerations. Sure, the current crop of AI systems perform unbelievably well on tasks that "traditional algorithms" suck at, but it is a change in degree, not in kind.

In the overwhelming majority of pieces reflecting on AI ethics, you can replace "AI" with "algorithms", "big data", "computers", "technology", etc and not get a significant change in meaning.

Many people have had their livelihood, rights, image, etc attacked in some way by technologically mediated processes that were deployed by organizations that didn't think things through, or prioritized eg profits over other concerns, or had anti-humanist agendas. This phenomenon is certainly accelerated by the ever increasing ubiquity of computing systems, but it certainly predates them.

AI does not bring anything radically different to the table in that regard, and if Google does not seem to care much about the ethical implications of their technology in general (see for instance the YouTube/children fiasco), why would they care about AI ethics specifically?

<comment><USER3> I think you're wrong. The tooling around training ML is becoming progressively more accessible, so much so that within ten years you won't even need a programmer to train an AI for many tasks. Who knows where that will be in 20 years.

<comment><USER28> But what you're saying, which seems to be that technology is getting more accessible over time, does not appear to me to be fundamentally different for other technological means, be it algorithms, ai or digitalization in general.

<comment><USER3> It is different. Algorithms require understanding what the algorithm does, how it operates. Lay people can't do this without significant training.

AI/ML in principle simply requires example mappings of inputs and outputs. Lay people can do this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If AI is going to learn from the information that exists in reality.. a biased world.. it will inherit those biases. Artificially removing these biases from an AI would essentially be altering it's understanding of objective reality.. and that doesn't sound great either.

</comment><comment><USER30> Yeah when you have ethics which potentially on collision course with profits, you lose to the $$$

</comment><comment><USER31> Google is a monument to hypocrisy.

Look at the way they said they would "punish" "non-mobile-friendly" sites... and then they purposefully DISABLE ZOOMING on their own mobile sites.

Jagoffs.

<comment><USER32> Mature, balanced and on topic opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The sole purpose of that board was PR. Now that they realized it of course they will quit.

</comment><comment><USER34> > and met four times over the course of 2019 to consider concerns about > Google's AI program.....

and then

> A role on Google's AI board is an unpaid, toothless position that cannot > possibly, in four meetings over the course of a year, ...

Maybe the author does not know that 2019 is barely 3 months in? There is no way that the phrase "over the course of a year" can apply to 2019.

It is bullshit like this that makes me tune out of such articles. It's just dripping with uninformed bias.

<comment><USER35> If you put the first quote in context, it would be clear that they were consistent.

> The board, founded to guide "responsible development of AI" at Google, would > have had eight members and met four times over the course of 2019 to > consider concerns about Google's AI program.

It's saying that it would have met four times over the year, not that it already has.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is a board of stakeholders not ethics.

</comment><comment><USER37> Why do the opinions of these Google employees matter on an issue like this? Employees don't get to be involved in unrelated areas/decisions/functions of the company that are not directly related to their specific role. The company is also not obligated to explain themselves to those employees. Does everyone need to be involved in every last facet of the company in some strange 90,000 person design-by-committee process? Obviously not, and so Google needs to stop tolerating the constant stream of leaks and internal activism.

If these employees don't want to work there, let them quit or fire them. If they are disrupting the workplace by constantly fomenting outrage on the Internet, fire them. If they are hurting the company's brand and working against the interests of the company (or shareholders) by engaging in self- serving political activism, fire them. If they disrespect and alienate most of their customer base by only advocating for their own worldview, fire them. This should be uncontroversial - after all, many others will line up for those jobs and Google will be just fine.

These leakers/activists/organizers need to realize how this looks. They are soliciting external signatures on this petition, and frankly those external signatures don't matter - it appears any random person can sign it (for example I see rank-and-file employees at various companies and individual university students). They should further realize that the opinions of Google employees alone do not matter. Those of their global customer base, however, do matter. And even so, only 2000 of 98000 employees have signed this letter anyways.

I hope Google leadership shows some spine and recognizes that they do not have to fear a small number of employees or manufactured outrage on Twitter. In all likelihood, at least half of Google's customer base does not agree with the US far-left progressive view on trans issues. Even here in America, only 8% are progressives after all ([https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large- majo...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities- dislike-political-correctness/572581/)). And like this article notes, the two- thirds of America that do not belong to either political extreme are simply exhausted. And I, as a customer of Google, am also exhausted by the constant stream of political controversy caused by a small subset of their employees.

So I ask again, why should this company care at all what their skewed internal demographic has to say? If Google is actually truly exposed to some kind of risk due to attrition, and actually fears that more than a few lone activists will quit, then that is a serious failure of leadership. It is the job of the CEO to reduce exposure to that risk - whether by hiring a more ideologically- diverse staff or by managing with a heavier hand to put and end to this constant activism.

<comment><USER38> I don't think G's executive leadership paying attention to this kind of complaint is as idealistic/optional as you lay it out to be.

Google software engineers have many choices as for where to work. Google distinguishes itself by (among other things) promoting an open culture of feedback and egalitarian decision making. I actually think this is a pretty good perk - feeling like your voice is heard is empowering and motivating.

If Google stops listening to it's employees, even a vocal minority of them, they risk a loss of that culture. Since there are many other major tech companies in the valley that have a similarly open culture, the risk of brain drain is real.

Obviously this has a limit. If the engineers demand Google stop serving Ads, I think they'd be swiftly ignored. But for other less crucial things it's a much harder question. It even seems like employee sway is persuasive even for significant projects (China expansion, DoD contract), so I'd reckon that Google leadership takes the threat of attrition pretty seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> > Today @heritage will critique gender identity @UN_CSW because powerful > nations are pressing for the radical redefining of sex. If they can change > the definition of women to include men, they can erase efforts to empower > women economically, socially, and politically. #CSW63

There are many other people who are saying the same thing about gender identity. It's strange that Vox describes this as "a particular cause for concern". It's not about "dehumanizing" trans people, it's about self- identification not being a valid basis for a law. If the Equality Act passes as written then the addition of gender identity would effectively remove sex as a protected characteristic.

It doesn't look like this board was a very good idea if the members were not okay with the first sign of disagreement. Will Google's actual AI projects even listen to this group at this point? It reminds me of AMP claiming to have a community driving the specification when in reality Google is just going to do whatever they want.

</comment><comment><USER40> Everybody is making this out to be about the membership...it seems far simpler than that. It seems poorly thought out from the start. Not in membership but in mandate.

The (minimal) description that Goog provides seems to put this group somewhere between an institutional review board (IRB) and a strategic advisory board.

What is their role? is it make to policy, provide guidance, provide rulings on ethical reasonableness What is their authority? can they make suggestions, shut down programs, implement restrictions What are their boundaries/goals? Who's authority do they act with?

Every element of what goog provided on this is incredibly vague. I am absolutely willing to bet that there were mixed messages occurred to the mix of people coming from academia (where IRBs are a thing) and industry (where IRBs are not a thing).

Also, this paragraph from the vox article:

"Next, the ethics panel — as has been the case with ethics panels at other top tech companies — does not have the power to do anything. Google says "we hope this effort will inform both our own work and the broader technology sector," but it's very unclear who, if anyone, at Google will rely on these recommendations and which decisions the board will get to make recommendations about."

Really bothers me. It summarizes a statement from google incorrectly. Google doesn't say they have no power - it simply doesn't say. That difference is subtle but important to the entire discussion here...and google hurt itself by writing an incredibly vague statement from start to finish.

What these companies need is an independent IRB - but that will never happen, and the fact that it won't tells you everything you need to know about their commitment to ethical development of AI. What they are doing now is conflating visioning, strategy, and tactics as if for AI they suddenly become the same

But to end by diving into the politicized portion of this...everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but your opinion is not entitled to place or space. That _especially_ includes opinions that differ over the basic humanity of a certain group of people. We've done that many times over our species history - it's time to stop. That opinion is not valid.

More directly, having contrary viewpoints is not an inherent value - <USER2> useful disagreements is. Putting a flat earther on the NASA science board is likely to create 'vehement disagreement' but it does not contribute to 'real and meaningful progress' (with apologies to naasking who I am quoting as an example rather than a nexplicit critque). The effort to encompass all viewpoints is inherently problematic in the formation of the AI review boards - because it undermines the fundamental concept of ironclad rules that have undergirded research ethics since failures like Miligan, Nazi experimentation, the Tuskegee experiment, and others.

</comment><comment><USER41> I've contracted for four different teams at Google and have only been underwhelmed by their people. Especially those who weren't engineers. This is not a surprise to me by any means.

<comment><USER42> Why?

<comment><USER43> Probably because it's rapidly becoming the quintessentially evil corporation, and there's a correlation between not having a problem with that and being a ding-bat who belongs in a cult.

edit: I mean it. I'm a programmer and I would not work at Google. It would not matter what their offer was. In my eyes, people who work at Google are _hurting_ their prestige as opposed to helping it.

<comment><USER44> I don't think there are any evil companies. people are people, and they are pretty much the same everywhere. I think big tech's mistake was trying to pretend they were somehow better and is now getting called out on it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What I Would Do, If Facing 35 Years For BS Crimes. - <AUTHOR>

I am not a US citizen, I am a Mexican (living in Mexico). Although most of the countries in the world, will pull down their pants and bend over for the USA, there are still a few nations with backbone (Russia, Venezuela, Ecuador, China, Iran, Cuba, NKorea). It is certainly possible that you could get political asylum in any of this countries. Even if you think you couldn't get out of the USA, when there is a will there is a way. Drug smugglers have it harder than ever, to cross goods and people over to the USA but they still manage, if there is a way in there is a way out. If political asylum is not granted you could still hide and have several years of freedom, despite all the technology, money, power & bought governments the USA has. Seriously if you are going to die you might as well die fighting, if your own country is going to turn its back on you, do the same. <comment><USER2> What exactly would Aaron have done in North Korea if he chose to seek asylum there?

<comment><AUTHOR> Any nation where computers are used needs talented hackers, and AFAIK this guy was one. NKorea was my last choice if you noticed.

<comment><USER3> and then how do you escape when Kim Jong-un decides that it's better for you to be in a labor camp?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The choice that Aaron faced was not a fight-or-die-trying. The persecution by the government was a contributing factor in addition to his existing depression. Many face harsher prosecutions (as you've noted) without committing suicide. And many commit suicide without facing any prosecutions. Simply escaping his judicial fight here would not have been the end to what Aaron was suffering on a personal level.

<comment><AUTHOR> >Seriously if you are going to die you might as well die fighting...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You cannot leave the USA while being instigated for a crime like that. They take away your passport, you are put on a no-fly list, and not allowed to leave the county.

You'd have to assume a fake name, get a fake passport, and hope that inspectors don't notice everything is fake. Either that or join some human smuggling ring and be shipped in cargo containers on ships with oxygen tanks or something, which is very risky and you could die.

Aaron Swartz was not about running away, he did fight it as best he could. He made the decision to die a free man, before they took his freedom away.

The Internet is a neutral zone, no one country controls it, but many do try. The Internet was designed to be free, and distribute free information and knowledge to encourage people to learn and grow. Now that it has become commercialized with paywalls, government monitoring, and making an 'example' out of someone who downloaded one too many articles and journals with a web robot (the same thing Google does but the government does not care about it) by legally railroading him in the legal system without a fair trial or one solid shred of evidence so The Internet is slowly becoming a prison, being locked down one site at a time, our rights, freedoms, and liberties are being taken away so private companies can profit from it. Information and knowledge that used to be free, now costs money, and if you want anything you'll have to pay for it as far as the government is concerned the free-ride is over.</comment>