I'd guess making this a national pride thing will just make it less diverse. Answer would be training models on broader sources, not more nationalistic models.
This was an inevitable step for a surveillance state. Technology will consolidate the position of the leaders while making organised resistance impossible.
What's to explain? Seeing gay porn doesn't increase the number of gay people but can let gay people feel less abnormal. If cause equaled normalisation they would be synonymous.
Only because no one is presenting both options to the public as a choice - cheap gas but you'll screw up dozens of countries and create insecurity for your kids. They would be less likely to want that if they understood the tradeoff. Let's be clear, this choice was made by rich people who'll make a lot more money from it, and they won't be the ones bearing the costs. So this isn't on Americans' greed, just their ignorance.
It's not about what should be the case. It IS the case. If we should decide to change that it won't work if one government unilaterally decides who stays or who goes for obvious reasons. Last month we saw Trump prostrate himself before MBS, who is apparently totally legitimate.
"I don't need to care about privacy because I have nothing to hide."
One counter is "since I've done nothing wrong, you have not need to care about what I hide". Both make assumptions, the difference is about who is trusted. Why should it be the authorities.
Ah yes, the gateway drug straw man. Poster didn't say it causes that consequence, just that it normalises it. Just like video games normalise violence, gay porn normalises being gay etc. Doesn't mean it should be banned, but it does shift the winds about what is acceptable. And that is a worthy discussion when it comes to images of child exploitation.
It just doesn't. It's about how to make the most from altruism. It's got nothing to do with predictions. If you make enough to pay some people to work in a soup kitchen, don't quit your job to make soup. It's nothing more.
If you can afford to hire 10 people to do it then they'll probably be able to do more good than just you. That sounds like a more efficient allocation of effort and resources.
The origins of EA were never in question, nothing new there. It was Peter Singer's work on maximising value for charitable outcomes. Comment section seems to be about something else altogether.
Maybe a book clarifying what it really is is a good idea.