[runarberg]

That was what I was thinking when the conversation went to Derek of Veritasium. This poem was centered around humanity and our shared experiences as humans. Derek is consistently obsessed with technology, and will center every conversation around how technology will enhance the human experience (by which he probably means capitalism to be honest).

Taking the conversation to Derek of Veritasium feels like after having watched Koyaanisqatsi your mind goes to James Burke and how the invention of the plow has improved how we experience human society.

[btilly]

If that is what you think of Derek, then you really don't understand Derek.

The video that I linked to is over an hour on why new technologies never transform education. He has a number of videos that critique what capitalism has lead big industries to. For example he has one on Monsanto's war on farming, another on how forever chemicals are poisoning us, and a third on how short-sightedness on protecting the health of rubber trees could be an existential threat to civilization.

Your model of him says that he should have done none of those things. The fact that he did is strong evidence that you've got a cardboard cutout that you're using as a strawman. Because it's a convenient punching bag. And not because it matches a real human very well.

[runarberg]

James Burke would also criticize technology. But compared to Koyaanisqatsi James Burke’s critiques feel very tame indeed. While James Burke would critique bad implementations of technology, or point at a place where technology was detrimental, Koyaanisqatsi would say: “humanity has lost its way in pursuit of technology”.

Reading this poem I saw a similar critique of AI as Koyaanisqatsi critiqued technology. And any advocate of this technology for whichever purpose, even the ones who occupationally critique some aspect of it, feel very tame in comparison, and off the mark.

I put my views of Derik in parentheses on purpose. I wanted to share my bias towards him, while also saying: “This is besides the point”.

[btilly]

It's clear that you're discussing this from an ideological bias that I do not share.

I see no reason to engage further in your assertions about what content is worthwhile.

[runarberg]

We are debating a piece of art, having different interpretation is perfectly normal.