• Rodeo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s interesting, because the idea is basically that knowledge and ideas should be constructive, so as not to pollute the sum of human knowledge.

    So that raises the question, what is the constructive conclusion to “memetic effluent”? Without one, is the concept itself an example of such effluent?

    • hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think that’s the implication here. Following the metaphor, pottery and arrow points have been waste products for a while. Prior to the industrial revolution, and specifically prior to the chemical revolution, industrial waste streams haven’t been as major of a problem (ignoring cholera for a bit). It’s been the development of selling chemicals for profit and the extensive use of petroleum that’s really caused massive problems threatening humanity as a whole.

      The implication then is that people should be responsible for their memes. Corporations are inherently irresponsible because there exit economic incentives to externalize costs, be that environmental or informational. AI garbage as a waste stream would be fine if the data was clearly labeled as such. Unfortunately at least some AI garbage is intended to be deceptive. There exists an economic incentives to produce AI garbage that is hard to distinguish from human output. Since AI garbage can be produced at an industrial scale, there’s a massive waste data stream that’s able to overload the systems we’ve built to parse and organize data.

      There are probably a lot more implications here, but “what are we doing with our information world” is something worth thinking about before we make it completely unusable.

      This feels like the precursor to the information Apocalypse referenced in the comic Transmetropolitan.