I earlier wrote an idea that there can even be compensation for people to record their opinions so that those may be available for analysis for government, hopefully for a better one than we have now. This would provide the discourse analysts a richer repository to study to find context and settings for other discourses. It would also make their job much more difficult. Context and setting are easier to construct when you have very little information about either.
This is not a blogging site. Instead, it is a site I use for typing. Instead of throwing typed paper into a trash can, I throw it out to the Internet, and lately even feed it to some AI to vocalize. The Internet is my trash can.
Information technology is separating us individually by demoting our ability to find each other in searches. Now, AI is replacing my voice. It is expressing my ideas, but if there is an audience that audience will have no connection to my person. At least with my written word, there is a personal connection of these letters coming from keystrokes from my fingers. Changing the content to AI podcaster eliminates that connection.
Its been more than 4 decades since I’ve handwritten in paragraphs over multiple pages. I have a lot to discuss with myself.
Maybe that is why I write this blog, I am anticipating my fantasy government will be my audience. It would learn about me and figure out where I might be useful. The current world mostly ignores me and I am absolutely fine with that. At the same time, I am writing here to announce to the world that I am here, in case it wants to use me.
We are hearing claims that certain technologies such as machine learning are becoming more human like. These advancements are providing benefits to humanity (as well as risks). Similar consequences will come from having humans behave more machine-like, in particular to have each human log their actual unfiltered thoughts and feed those thoughts into a some big data store. Analysis may show that what seemed to be an outlier is actually our misunderstanding reality.
We could restore debates by an analog to a fight to the death. The defeated in the debate would have to kill his presence in social media and then build a new presence with a new identity. Lacking such finality in a debate allows a person to return to the established fortress of his channel with its established subscriber base, and within weeks resume content as if the debate never occurred.
This interpretation presents a problem in that the first amendment is a single statement that contradicts itself. People have a right to attempt to persuade others, while the others have a right to never be persuaded.
A couple posts (here and here) on the dailypost.wordpress.com caught my attention. The first post follows its own advice to resurrect the second older post by adding some additional information. The result drove in a point that some blog posts remain interesting and relevant despite being old. Such posts have what they call evergreen content.…
This is yet another post I will produce without a stock photo at the top. I didn’t realize that the modern definition of a blog is that it must have some graphic content at the top (and ideally also in the middle somewhere). Often this is some stock photo that the author would…