In Memex crowd thinking environment for thoughts unthinkable to separate beings, human-machine general intelligence raises superintelligent offspring to help all life.
If we delete all disinfo including the canonical lunatic post I suggest, we’ll push the lunatics into their echo chambers with no-one to prove them wrong, and then they’ll vote wrong in elections. Somebody has to refute the russian propaganda in a place where the believers read it. My idea is a way to do it without letting disinfo flood Lemmy.
If the blocklist subscription isn’t part of Lemmy registration procedure, a new user will see tankies and leave.
How about containing the trolls under one canonical troll post? See comment https://lemmy.world/comment/14443401
Let’s say every community allows one lunatic post. It’s downvoted to hell and thoroughly refuted in the comments.
Every time someone tries to say the same thing again under a different post, the comment gets a reply “[lunatic opinion] was refuted under [lunatic post link] - you may comment there” and then the stray lunatic comment is removed. Only the reply stays to inform other lunatics. Other comments saying the same lunatic opinion again are removed, because the canonical reply linking the canonical lunatic post is already in the comments. All discussion about the lunatic opinion will be contained under the canonical lunatic post.
Would this work?
How about containing the lunatics under one canonical lunatic post? See comment https://lemmy.world/comment/14443401
And then you trampled your own human rights by privatising healthcare and legalising propaganda.
If those skills don’t overlap, you’ll be half as good at each. Some jobs need a dedicated specialist.
If they’d choose to do dysgenics, sure. Why though? Making a slave race?
Eugenics could be used ethically to improve humanity
Improving humans via new eugenics by transhumanists is compatible with human rights.
We allow natural mutation to produce illness and other problems. Why not design babies?
Gene editing will be cheap and widespread. What laws produce ethical results? Should personal eugenics be a human right? How about parental eugenics? Which baby designs are ethical? Don’t say the current natural ones, because many of them are unhappy, ill, or die young.
Misplacing the blame
Genocidal people having used eugenics as an excuse for mass murder doesn’t make eugenics itself bad. Blaming eugenics does nothing to prevent further genocide with excuses. Hate does genocide, the various excuses do not.
(Similarly, over-optimistic fools slamming one version of communism on a whole country without prototyping different versions in villages first, crashing the whole country, doesn’t make communism itself bad. Blaming communism does nothing to prevent foolhardy mistakes in societal change. Development should be nimble, prototypes should be cheap.)
We don’t ban money because it’s used to hurt people - we regulate dangerous stuff to protect human rights. Or, should regulate.
Eugenics works on animals:
Dogs have better social skills than wolves = eugenics.
Some dogs have trouble breathing = dysgenics.
Stray dogs in the wilderness are worse hunters than wolves = dysgenics in that environment.
Humans could be better:
Humans could be designed to work well in their lives:
Humanity could be better:
Humanity could be designed to work well in its evolution:
Separate the human kinds from incompatibles
Echo chambers (countries, languages, professions) are cultures protecting their own environment from incompatible cultures. When a group of people demands seemingly absurd laws, they should be allowed to apply those laws to all volunteers, babies being non-volunteers with universal rights. At least personal eugenics should be legal, like body modification is now. Ear piercing is a modification some abhor.
Transhumans and conservatives need to stay away from each other, and current technology could help: phones could navigate people, routing incompatibles around like oil and water. On shared ground, weirdos would always happen to be on the other side of the street. Train cars and elevators filled with groups of people approximately their own kind. All cars good looking on every commute, timed just right for people’s tastes. On the web, OkCupid and Quora used to be good at that, matching tastes and interests.
Do the opposite of what the for-profit sensationalist media does, smearing the wildest progressive stunts in the conservative’s face, because rage sells, anger is addictive. The blame is mistakenly placed on the depicted, not the media breaking people’s boundaries by pushing incompatible people into knowledge of each other.
Application writing is a completely different skill from application writing.
If they got access to the DNA data that many companies collect to analyse heritage and health, the eugenics could work well.
Changing the business model from pay-to-play into escrow-held matching success reward would change dating.
If a user likes another, and wants more matches of the same kind, they must admit the dating company was successful, and the escrow pays them.
If you choose not to release the payment, it means the match was bad and the matching algorithm must be corrected according to your stated reason for dissatisfaction. If you hold on to the deposited money despite success, your matches get worse.
Enshittified public toilet
It cheats you in through a back door, looking like an ad-covered kiosk. The main entrance is on the other side.
In stalls, there are two screens playing ads, sound coming from the one you’re facing.
Toilet paper brands advertise on dispensers, all brands owned by the same conglomerate.
Softest toilet paper has printed portraits of the toilet company’s political enemies.
Facial recognition measures usage, you pay at exit.
Exiting after 5 minutes is expensive, but a monthly plan is cheaper.
OkCupid used to be the best for finding matching people: they crowdsourced thousands of relevant multiple choice questions from which you built your search filter: which answers you accept, how important each is to you, and a voluntary explanation. The questions and match results were factored into friendship, dating, and sex.
Then Match Group bought it. First they let it be, but then they:
Avoid the whole Match Group.
Now that I think of it, the destruction of OkCupid looks like a politically motivated attack against the minorities and intellectual power users who used to flock there.
Hashtags don’t work as well as disambiguated topics used to work on Quora before enshittification. Many real topics have many hashtags associated to them: acronyms, whole names, misspellings. Meanwhile, many hashtags have many real topics associated to them, especially acronyms with many possible collisions: https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AGI
Quora used to have a fantastic crowd-edited question topic ontology/taxonomy for feed shaping, but they enshittified the system away, and now it’s all LLM misunderstandings of what the question topics should be. The bot thinks a question is about apples when the question is a mathematics word puzzle; “How many apples…”. The excuse for AI tagging was “tags can be abused” when in reality the crowd corrected the abuses quickly. With the new AI tagger, my feed turned into viral trash from Quora-celebrities, mostly about recent news.
They never made the obviously needed features of:
Industrial electric arc furnace temperatures can reach 1,800 °C (3,300 °F)
Your comment in pictures:
Changes for the better in deserts: https://farmingdale-observer.com/2025/01/05/china-confirms-desert-solar-panels-permanently-alter-ecosystems-environmental-impact-revealed/
As there is no import function on Lemmy; https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-things-schools-should-teach-but-dont/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen