Testing my thesis statement (in the recent Project Snapshot), Paul Diduch pointed out to me that significant impacts are usually not hard to discern. That’s true, but there are exceptions. I believe orgregores are one of them. Here is first cut justification of my claim.
My "Not" Rule (if a senior executive claims something, one gets closer to the truth by taking the negative) is doing well in the current UK government meltdown.
On Thursday October 13, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng said in Washington, DC, "I'm not going anywhere" (BBC). He resigned the next day after a hurried return from the US (Reuters).
In Parliament on Wednesday October 19, Prime Minister Liz Truss insisted that “I am fighter and not a quitter” (CNBC, PM questions video). She resigned on Thursday October 20 (CNBC).
There are many ways to define agency. The ones I’ve seen provide criteria for deciding whether an entity is or is not an agent. However, once it’s established that something is an agent it would be useful to assess degrees of agenthood.
I’m enjoying Justin Gregg’s new book, If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal: What Animal Intelligence Reveals About Human Stupidity. In the fourth chapter he discusses some problems with human morality. It made me realize that we need to be just as skeptical that ethics is an unalloyed good as we are that technological progress will always have beneficial outcomes.
The emotional invisibility of Big Tech mystifies me. Why don’t I get more worked up about it? I can only speak for myself since I don’t have any survey data, but I suspect it’s not just me.
