this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
260 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
72702 readers
1648 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Define eugenics for me, please.
You're saying the tool in its current form with it's data "seems pretty intentionally eugenics" and..."a tool for eugenics". And since you said the people who made that data, the AI tool, and those who are now using it are also responsible for anything bad ...they are by your supposed extension eugenicists/racists and whatever other grotesque and immoral thing you can think of. Because your link says that regardless of intention, the AI engineers should ABSOLUTELY be punished.
They have to fix it, of course, so it can become something other than a tool for eugenics as it is currently. Can you see where I think your argument goes way beyond rational?
Would I have had this conversation with you if the tool worked really well on only black people and allowed white people to die disproportionately? I honestly can't say. But I feel you would be quiet on the issue. Am I wrong?
I don't think using the data, as it is, to save lives makes you racist or supports eugenics. You seem to believe it does. That's what I'm getting after. That's why I think we are reading different books.
Once again...define eugenics for me, please.
Regardless, nothing I have said means that I don't recognize institutional racism and that I don't want the data set to become more evenly distributed so it takes into consideration the full spectrum of human life and helps ALL people.
Yeah I'm done educating you tbh. Not worth my time when you're arguing in bad faith.
Learn what a strawman is. 90% of your post was strawman after strawman.
Define strawman for me, kiddo. Then re-read your above comment. I counted 6, can you find all 6 strawman arguments in your comment?
The conversation was never about you or your ego, but youve thoroughly convinced me with this conversation that you are probably both racist and a eugenicist - hit dog hollers and you seriously keep identifying yourself as the racist eugenicist here with no prompting from anyone else. Ig if that's who you are then, whatever. I dont talk to eugenicist racists either.
I expected more from an educated person.
But if you don't want to define the word and cut off the conversation, then you've just left me with the belief you are using eugenics as a "scary" word hoping to sound smart. I believe you can represent your field better.
I hope you have a good one.
For anybody still reading: The AI tool is not for eugenics, the researchers should not be punished, it's not racist to use unethical data, and it helps people who might otherwise die to a horrible disease. It doesn't help all the people we want it to right now, but hopefully, in the future it will be an amazing tool for everyone.
Lol
Sure, if you declare it, it must be so. Other people can read and can see your strawmans. You just look pompous and egotistical.