I found that idea interesting. Will we consider it the norm in the future to have a “firewall” layer between news and ourselves?
I once wrote a short story where the protagonist was receiving news of the death of a friend but it was intercepted by its AI assistant that said “when you will have time, there is an emotional news that does not require urgent action that you will need to digest”. I feel it could become the norm.
EDIT: For context, Karpathy is a very famous deep learning researcher who just came back from a 2-weeks break from internet. I think he does not talks about politics there but it applies quite a bit.
EDIT2: I find it interesting that many reactions here are (IMO) missing the point. This is not about shielding one from information that one may be uncomfortable with but with tweets especially designed to elicit reactions, which is kind of becoming a plague on twitter due to their new incentives. It is to make the difference between presenting news in a neutral way and as “incredibly atrocious crime done to CHILDREN and you are a monster for not caring!”. The second one does feel a lot like exploit of emotional backdoors in my opinion.
Having a will means choosing what to do. Denying the existence of a person’s will is dehumanizing.
I’ve, since I was young, had mantra. If you don’t why your are doing something someone else does. Its not always conspiracy or malicious its literally the basis of the idea of memetics, shareable and spreadable ideas that form the basis of who we are and what we know.
Yeah IF you don’t know why you’re doing something. Key word.
that which influences you is more powerful than your will. You cant really choose what to do.
And dehumanization is a bad thing. I have a will. I choose what to do.
The idea that free will is an illusion is becoming more popular in philosophy. We can be human and not exactly have free will.