Let me venture a guess. This will be all about how in the modern discourse certain, shall we say, _pernicious elements,_ or _the usual suspects,_ whichever you prefer, like to use data-points in the abstract without following them up with any argument, relying on the audience to fall back on certain cultural stereotypes and create an argument on their own? Because I hate that that happens.
To quote Snowden: "Saying you don't care about your right to privacy because you've got nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you've got nothing to say."
All of a sudden my privacy lost value. I mean damn. There's nothing in the world more soul-crushingly depressing than a reminder than people aren't exactly sheep, but they're certainly not fit to choose their own leaders nor have a say in pretty much any matter. Do you have any idea how many people are plain ignorant? Do you know how many are proud to be ignorant? Or let's drop the vague language and say something relevant and relatable: Do you know how many people are Trump voters? How many are celebrating Brexit? I fully agree that overall, *everyone's* voice matters. *Everyone's* privacy matters. *Everyone's* vote matters. And yet nothing is to change that, paraphrasing Animal Farm, some people are more equal than others. Nothing is to change that this imbalance in inequality also empowers/is powered by false narratives. If you haven't heard of Ruport Murdoch by now, time to change that. All democracy really did is change the idea of one power hungry king to 10. That's it. Changing that to 100 under socialism, communism or whatever isn't going to solve anything neither, just give the illusion that it's morally superior. It's going to take a herculean effort for democracies to fix themselves, and we all know the Earth would sooner die than that happening anytime soon.
@@sdgdhpmbp , You are right that the situation is dire. But do not forget why so many people are kept poor and uneducated. It is precisely because there are two main classes in society - those with power, and those who follow. Capitalists and workers. The soviet union was not much different except for the name of the ruling class, and the way they handled power. It is easy to tell uncritically thinking people that this or another socioeconomic system is better, fairer etc. But the only way we can tell that a system is better is that the people within don't have to be told. This is what communism (academic definition) is all about. Giving the power directly to people in their communities as to how they organise life. Not through the "people's party". And using your own way of putting things, the people following 1, 10, or 100 people's ideas means exploitation. But following 7 billion ideas wouldn't, because a truly fair society is one where everyone can make their own decisions. How would people still form a cohesive society if everyone followed their own mind? Well, any society where that is true must be one of material fairness, and people will support and continuously adapt the system to be as good as possible. But how do you enable the possibility of each of us being our own masters together? You educate people in critical thinking, so that they can truly make informed decisions in their favour, and any communist society would do exactly that. Will that happen in our society. Highly unlikely. Because our capitalists masters would only lose out if the majority of people could actually think for themselves. On the other hand, as the proportion of jobs requiring critical thinking increases due to automation, it is possible they'll trip themselves up. So do we just sit here and wait for a better future to emerge? NO. WE FIGHT! Everyone who can must try to create a world with more critical thinkers. Whether by direct teaching, lobbying the government or any other conceivable way. And what must we do with other critical thinkers? Build a new society. A new world, free from the bonds of master-slave, capitalist-worker relations. How? By pooling expertise from every profession and experience and making them anew. New, community based engineering and industry. New systems of economic relations. New visions of a prosperous community. First done on a small scale, then multiplied, attracting all to join the communist federation. I am working on plans for a new industry which I aim to put into practice when I finish my education, and of course I work to gather as many as possible in this quest for a better world.
@@chalichaligha3234 I'm facing eviction due to a greedy landlord right now. Renovictions suck balls. I pay $890/ month (Canadian) for a roomy 2 bdrm with an eat in kitchen bc I've been here 7 years. Everybody else in this building pays between $1200 and $1600. The only reason they have to boot me is that they want to jack up the rent, so hopefully the rental housing tribunal will rule in my favour. But if it all hits the fan over the next year or 2 and I end up homeless bc I can't afford to pay $1600/month, I'll look you up. A workers' collective sounds much better than a homeless shelter :)
I took me right up until the end to understand what the framing device was doing. As the conversation repeats over and over again, they're each gathering more data on the other, allowing them to ask more and more, well, "targeted" questions, until eventually their true selves are revealed: powerlessness for the patron, and willful ignorance for the bouncer. And that's the kind of conclusion that macro level data collection is incapable of coming to, but two human beings understanding each other are. Brilliant work as usual, Philosophy Tube.
The fun part of experiencing this thought process for me is that I could operate with it Before I Knew What It Was? It reminds me of Life Is Strange and other choice-based games I've played, but specifically Life Is Strange because of the Rewind aspect. The game is just bits. But on the other side of those bits, someone told me a story, and while the code is only gathering information so it knows which direction to keep the story going, *I* am not interacting algorithmically with a program. I am, in every way that matters, interacting with a person, AS a person. So I'm watching this, literally holding my breath, KNOWING what it's doing without UNDERSTANDING what it's doing. And then I scroll down here and you've done Words to it. Thank you.
I love how this manifests in even the smallest of ways. The patron, who is ordinarily very measured in his questions and responses, brings up Magic Mike and Kim Petras so confidently after the bouncer cites "insitutionalised gay bashing" as one of the reasons he left the police force in an alternate timeline.
Should police officers should be able to choose which laws they enforce? Is moral objection a valid reason to refuse to do a job your paid and willingly show up for?
@@bitshifter9191 yes, but there shouldn't be police officers in the first place, and yes obviously or else morality in general has broken down lmao. not hard questions
Considering she was working from her own script, and thanks to the Rewind feature and literally reusing some clips multiple times, my guess is playing both parts streamlined production significantly. I could be wrong, but I'd wager that it's easier to read your own script with the desired inflection/delivery, rather than give an actor their lines and instruct them on some of the nuances you may be wanting/trying to capture.
“..But do you have a camera in your boss’s office to make sure they’re not underpaying you?” Some statements are so self-evident and show the inequity of our world so simply..that they actually hurt to hear.
Yes! And it's so obviously ridiculous that you realize: "is it as ridiculous the other way?" which leads to the more terrifying realization: "why does the other way feel... normal?“.
I always hated that "go live in the forest" argument. Where the hell would I go to do that? We don't have the common land anymore! And with Google Earth and satellites and all that, you literally wouldn't even be safe in the forest
Exactly. If I had the means to, I would've already. Issue is, to buy a lone house in the forest costs a Million. I mean... I would actually just like to be able to buy a house at all. Renter life ... shoot me.
Yeah the "go live in the forest" cliche is a deliberate dodge meant to make the argument itself impossible to make. If you don't live in the woods, you're engaging in the system you claim to hate and a hypocrite who shouldn't be listened to. If you DO go live in the woods, you're a nutcase out of touch with modern society who shouldn't be listened to.
"Go live in the forest" is the same reductive argument as a bunch of others, most notably the one I'm seeing a LOT right now, "If you don't like this country, go live somewhere else". It's designed to shut down the dialogue by suggesting it's absurd to think that the thing you like is even capable of being challenged, so the only other option is to complete remove yourself from said thing, which is generally impossible. Instead, you're left thinking you face two impossible choices, so instead you're meant to meekly comply.
Always stupid when it's used as an argument re Capitalism especially, as if somehow hiding in the woods in your own little hut would mean you could magically avoid all aspects of capitalism for the rest of your life.
Alternative interpretation: I think it’s a metaphor for functional fixedness. The scanner is just for scanning ids to allow people to come in, and that’s where the thinking stops. The doorman is not thinking about how this hammer came to be, what it actually does or how it could be used. The doorman keeps saying: “It’s just a scanner.” But the person trying to come in keeps asking what it does, trying to break open the doorman’s mind going: “Hey, what’s that? Let’s look at the bigger picture here!” A typical interaction between people who agree and disagree about data collection, I think
I do like all these interpretations, but to be fair the impression I had at first was that he was trying to say: "A hammer is a technical/technological artifact as much as a sofisticated scanner". By this I mean that is not the scanner per se, but the whole 'essence' of human technical behaviour. I mean, we have always created tools to increase and express our ability to interact with the environment, but every technological advancement also undermined our ability to have a direct control, giving a part of it away, transferring it from the body to the technical object. Then, the real problem with data is that while a hammer is a prothesis for our hands, so we can keep a certain control at that stage even if it modifies our behaviour, our data duplicate is an external prothesis of our mind/brain/psychology and this has far more serious implications on how our psychology can be modified. But for sure he chose a hammer also for lack of money, I really liked the materialistic interpretation
i just let out an audible "ohhhhhhh!" because i couldn't figure out the metaphor with the hammer. this makes perfect sense. technology is a tool that can improve our lives but can easily become a weapon.
I find it very interesting the ways that we can condition viewer's suspension of disbelief. "Why is that man clearly holding a hammer over a driver's license?" "It's a scanner." "Oh I guess it is a scanner and I will now intrinsicly believe this for the rest of this narrative."
"The tool could so easily become a weapon," and "when all your problems look like nails" comes together here in a really deep way that my mind can't stop coming back to.
The 'nothing to hide' argument is so flawed. Everyone has things to hide. Passwords, bank account details, private documents, photos, the privacy of their home, emails, messages, etc.
@@Solisus but that distinction is irrelevant to the government. You have to give them access to your private life as I detailed above for them to be able to see if you're doing anything illegal or not. It's none of their business. Plus you're just handing them power and ammunition if they ever want to persecute you.
@@Solisus how do you kmow; memorised all of the laws, everywhere, did you? I'm a professional hacker. Would you like to make this a challenge, that I can find nothing that you wouldn't like made public? 2 things I can tell you: Once the looking starts, it don't stop I would have to follow you for no more than 1 mile to find you breaking laws you never knew existed. Minor edit: the same is all true of me, I'm no legal guru - so I act accordingly.
People who claim they've "got nothing to hide" are displaying a remarkable lack of imagination in regards to what some other people may want to cause them harm over... "You're gay/trans/very poor/an ethnic minority/a single mother/socialist/communist/humanist/climate change activist/rape victim/Jew/Muslim/Atheist/etc? Well, it would be a pity if the wrong people learned about that, huh? Someone who may want to lock you up in some sort of facility for not being what they approve of, for example?"
im a bartender and bouncer in a nightclub where we scan I.D.s and can attest that it does very little to stop people getting drunk and fighting and people getting their shit stolen. like someone got their purse stolen this weekend and we looked thru the cameras and looked thru the i.d.s scanned that evening, and literally, didnt solve shit. the person who took this young womans purse had their backs turned to the camera on the way out, so their was little to be seen to match by i.d.s. also people bring in someone elses id card cuz they have similar facial features and shit. fuck this surveillance bullshit. love this video and a huge fan of philosophy tube. keep up the good stuff mate
How did I realize this video IS an algorithm: >while watching I thought about how he came up with this many probabilities and kept optimizing them. >thought about how much easier that would've been for the computer. >"oh! this IS a data structure in computers. A tree graph where the algorithm goes through parsing the info, each branch getting smarter than the next to explore possible reactions" >but is the algorithm the bouncer trying to convince a human to agree on surveillance and reached a dead end? or is it the skeptic trying to convince the bouncer to doubt themselves with more and more pointed questions and succeeded? or is it a simulator playing a scenario and analyzing it to understand possible arguments and collect as much data as possible from them? >"this is making me think and I don't want to think" >"oh well existential crisis meh what am I gonna do about it" >"oh"
On you confusion whether the algorithm is the bouncer or the patron the answer can be both. There is a thing in machine learning that pits two algorithms against each other in order for both of them to improve. if you want to do some reading on it look for Generative Adversarial Networks .
@@panoshanos1 I have NO background in the subject, but thanks to a relatively recent Tom Scott video and RandomAlien doing an excellent job describing their thought process, I was going to chime in saying roughly the same thing as you.
Depends of jurisdiction. They are some jurisdictions where a contract can't be in Comic Sans. They are also font size regulations. However, I do not think that it would go far legally given how it is readable...
For anyone who's wondering, this type of AI/ML is often called Reinforcement Learning. You figure out which sequential steps lead to greater reward, often by randomly changing actions.
Someone pointed out earlier how the video game style of restarting can represent the growing data gathering, and I'm floored by how amazing that is. We see, that just given the regular way of talking, you would've gotten nowhere with the bouncer, but after each reset, each bit of data collected you're able to push the bouncer just a little bit further. And then the process repeats and it starts to dawn on you just how powerless the bouncer is. With this video game rinse and repeat, the growing data collection, the ability to convince the bouncer goes from being a near impossibility to a near certainty. It doesn't matter how good the arguments that the bouncer had were, they just don't have the same playing field, and suddenly I'm stuck by how awfully unfair it is. That when the opposition is able to limitlessly gather data on you, you're almost lost from the outset. The house always wins. Gosh Abby did a great job with this video
But in that case the patron didn't win anytjing despite his being on an AI playing field. The bouncer just ended with a personal boundary, potentially hinting threat of violence.
algorithm: n. a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. this video wasn't that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'd fucking hate every second of it, and I actively disdain the idea of 'get rid of technology'... but hey, if somebody else wants to have a go, I also don't really have a right to tell them they can't.
The bouncer’s comment at the end is a trauma response. He is overwhelmed and trying to keep himself from being overloaded. His nervous system is trying to keep him safe and being confronted puts him at risk of flooding. In fact, being able to even say he doesn’t want to think is more than most people would be able to face. Social change won’t work unless it’s trauma informed.
Yeah, it gives me goosebumps and nearly brought me to tears. I didn't realize until now just how much I was thinking like the bouncer when I thought I was thinking like the patron. The bouncer is right in one way. I DON'T want to think about what Facebook knows about me. I DON'T want to think about how much dirt the big tech companies might have on me or be able to fake about me if they pooled their information together, or if I got hacked by a bad actor. But with how much I do know about tech sometimes I am forced to. And I don' like where the thinking goes.
@@1993greeksoldier I got no particular tricks for strangers, might wanna just see this video again and see how Abi does it. Maybe not get too heated but at same time don't be Mr Logic and not show any emotion at all, don't use too much technical jargon, be simple ,and provide simple analogies. basically explain calmly, simply and swiftly. But if it does happen, you wanna give them a soft landing, so to speak. And even if they say they don't think, they probably do, atleast a little. Like if I was in Abi's place, I would say something like "I am sad for you,man, it's normal for people to have this stance, for certain topics, but you shouldn't keep it forever because that's not a good way to be, for anyone. Cause you can't stop the thinking part of you for long, and we are on this Earth for a long time." Then I'd probably just leave and not go in unless I had to do some important in there. Did the best I could, rest is up to the bouncer. Now, if it's someone close to you I think best to induce the trauma and then work it out with them, help them deal with it so they become wiser in dealing with other traumas in their life and maybe even some of yours, but you can't really do that with a stranger for obvious reasons. So with a stranger, you try and prevent the trauma from happening. And with a close one, you help them deal with it.
"I don't want to think." Such a simple phrase, but a perfect note to tie all the failed scenarios together. An unfortunate amount of us don't want to think about the possibility that the privacy of the people is being compromised for the sake of security. They just want to reap the benefits they get in return, so they keep on rolling with the punches. This has been another masterfully crafted thinkpiece. You just keep knocking it out of the park.
I think there is potentially more to this scene: You can see the pressures in his face of his economic and fiscal reality which pushes / force him not want to think about what he is doing because he needs to keep doing it (and deep down "knows" that it is wrong). Behind cognitive sentiments can be (coded and uncoded) social realitys (personally I even would go further).
I think there's more to it than that. It feels more like, what good does thinking do me? Oh, I definitely believe knowledge is the first step to power. But only the first. Your'e just one person, what can you do? Sure, if we could make everyone aware and band together, we could really do something, but we don't trust that others will do anything. That, in turn, drains our motivation to do anything. It's easier to just not think about it. And what happens then? The devil of it is, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING! I sure do, anyway. We're only powerless when we believe we are. But how do you stop believing it when others believe in it? I think this is may be the greatest paradox of our time. Maybe of ANY time.
Let me turn it around: We shouldn't have to think. We shouldn't have to live in an environment so hostile and exploitative that we have to think about every single action, every single object. There are truly stupid people out there and they are simply at the mercy of this, they can't just think about it. Human progress should be used to make our environment easier to navigate, not harder. And we've made progress. On the sidewalk we don't have to think about holes or roots potentially breaking our ankles. We never have to think about where we'll get clean drinking water. When injured we can leave the medical thinking to the doctors. It used to be that we didn't have to worry about having money in old age. But the social state is eroding, suddenly people do have to think about old age money problems again. Suddenly people do have to think about compromising on their living situation in order to afford rent. Suddenly we again have to worry about being murdered in the streets by nazis. Why should the burden of morality and rightness be placed on a low-income person like a bouncer? Why is the bad thing not illegal?
Ooooh, I get it. It's a reference to machine learning. Every time the discussion reaches a dead end, the machine rewinds it and tries a new approach. The end goal presumably being to get the bouncer to think about his own role in the system, which ultimately fails, ending the video on a tragic note. Stellar job honestly. The Socratic dialogue lives on.
13:26 Can we just appreciate Abby's silent reaction to the bouncer saying that he'd still enforce a law he doesn't support? I absolutely loved this little moment. Show's why Olly's a great writer and actor.
I agree with him on that. It reminds me of an argument I had on The Law Of Infinite Probability where someone called me immoral for saying I would eventually kill an immortal dog if I was the only one who could (and with me being immortal too). Just because you don’t agree with the action doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do. This scenario he gets money that he might even use for activities that are even more important than privacy.
@@booketoiles1600 A good soldier will not obey a bad order. Police have discretionary options but everybody understands that enforcing a rule you don't believe in, or don't need to enforce, is a form of hypocrisy, a pleasure that can only be enjoyed from a position of power. Too many people talking about right and wrong when they are dealing with power that has no values.
"It's not a problem with human beings that they don't think like mathematical machines." This has cut very deep in me. I'm a scientist and usually super rational. But, man, the above sentence is true.
I'm a leftist, I work security, and I study computer science. One night, there was a shooting just outside the event I was working. I once let a guy in who could barely speak english, and just wanted to go see his brother who was working there temporarily. I once let a family in after they got there just a few minutes too late to get tickets. I once basically profiled a group of kids who looked like they were setting up to rush the exit, and prepared to shut the gate on them. I once led a group of kids to the nearest bus stop who confided to me that they snuck in. I once denied a guy entrance who said he wanted to go in to meet the girl of his dreams. I once accidentally let a group of teens sneak past me, due to them pulling a smart distraction. I don't know how to combine all this in my head into any kind of coherent picture. I don't know if I'm a good person or not. I never want to work a job where I'm spying on people, but what the fuck do you do when your primary skill is writing code? Is there any ethical work under capitalism? I feel helpless. I think the best thing I can do is try to minimize harm and get involved in my community, but I don't think my best is good enough.
"I don't know if I'm a good person or not." - This is a false dichotomy. It suggests that someone is either good or bad, without anything in-between or any other axes of measurement. At the end of the day you're just a human being, trying to fulfill a complex set of (often conflicting) goals and desires with imperfect information and mental faculties, under time-pressure, and without the concrete reassurance that your goals or desires are even worth pursuing in the first place, or which ones are worth prioritizing when they inevitably come into conflict. This doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions, but it is almost a certainty that there will be actions that you commit in the moment that you will come to regret later, or are unsure were the correct decision. This doesn't make you a 'bad' person. This also doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive to be a 'good' person, however you choose to define that. What it does mean is that your definition of a 'good' person shouldn't be so strict that you lose all hope as soon as you do something that you later regret, or that others (even those that you respect), judge you negatively for doing.
One thing this video doesn't mention is that data can be actually used to make things more equal. Like, the question "who gets to go on parole" - it is scary to think of an algorithm deciding that, but the alternative in the current reality is humans deciding that. Now, humans are also "black boxes", that make biased, often discriminating choices. And with humans, that issue is hard to fix because you can try to "educate them" to work against their biases, but because we don't make probabilistic choices, this is really hard. When you have an AI make those decisions, you can explicitly look for bias. For that parole system, for example, it has been proven that this bias exists - because the AI only mirrors society and society is pretty racist. But as a developer, you now have the opportunity to explicitly fix this issue by explicitly encouraging the AI to not just minimize the general error but to also minimize the difference in error (both positive as well as negative) between white and black people, so that the resulting algorithm, while still a black box, is going to be significantly less racist than the average human that would otherwise make that choice. Technology is neither good nor bad, it is what we do with it that matters. And AIs making some choices for us could actually lead to a more equal society because we can find and address unfair bias way better in an algorithm than in actual humans.
Hi, as a programmer you have relevant information, get it to people who can use it. Find philosophers, politicians, ect tell them what you know. Obviously none of us can solve any of these problems alone. But find someplace to put the information you have. Your experience is worth more than you probably give it credit for
Capitalism is designed to make you feel this way. To feel hopeless, to doubt yourself. To make to accept the blame of something you didn't do. The biggest obstacle we face fighting against such a dystopian system is the self doubt that was forced into us. The hopelessness makes people give up the fight for freedom - and that's why Capitalism makes us feel hopeless. Never give up. They have enslaved us in almost every way, but if you're a Leftist, then there's one way in which you're free - your mind. Don't let them enslave that too, because they will in a heartbeat if you let them. I know because I see the people around me, and they're all just cogs in the machine, they feel hopeless, but they've accepted it. Never accept helplessness. Because together, we can and will win this war.
I like how the more he listens to the security guard the further he gets, it's great commentary on the importance of listening to people and meeting them where they are. Leftists will have experiences to indicate it, but we still often get caught up in scoeing points, but it's not as effective, or as affective, as letting people pour their hearts out, and just guide them. If people dissagree with us fundamentally, we are likely to be wrong, or they are incapable of seeing the truth, but most people agree deep down, so helping them process info, and giving them access to it in the first place is often enough to get them to agree, but it's still really hard. Edit: I originally misspelled security guard sexurity guard.
this fails to account for the fact that lots of people don't have many thoughts beyond what they are told to be the case and then get angry when the cognitive dissonance between their pride, fears and morals just make them get angry or dismissive. staying within your critique though, It was fairly important to note that even by listening to the bouncer, nothing changed, in circumstance or the bouncers opinion.
@@sotetsotetsotetsotetsotet2379 however we the viewer did learn more. Much like the Socratic dialogue that is mentioned, arguing like this isn't always about trying to convince the person you are talking to, it is to convince observers. I *try* to have this attitude in online discourse. If others come across our conversation, which side will persuade them?
I think it's rather more that the more data he has to work with from the security guard's opinions, the more likely he will be to convince the security guard to change his mind.
@@DrDirtyHarryI definitely agree with you and thank you. For me it is extremely important. I enjoy entering videos with interesting controversial topics and going to the exact comments that i am sure that I absolutely disagree. Then I observe the reaction, the response if you will, of like-minded individuals and try to put my self on both ends. I humbly feel that the observation of a discussion and the strength and validity of some arguments and especially the way they are presented and expressed, can be better studied if I do it from my screen. I can read it. Stop. Then reread it. Google if there is something I don't get or know etc etc. Every time there is a big controversy on the internet I skip all the comedic or irrelevant comments and I try to find the debates that interest me and especially the best possible arguments against my initial belief/conviction. I don't know it feels.. like some kind of self criticism to challenge everything you THINK you believe.
oh man, that ‘because it makes me feel powerless’ line really got me. i occasionally try to limit data collection, but it always leaves me feeling like it’s a futile effort
Every time I bother to make the effort to declare what cookies I'm willing to have tracked, a sad little voice in my head sighs and another laughs at the futility. Like a little gremlin that thinks "ha ha haaa, think you can foil meeee?"
@@camillajefferson386 There is a show Show Vendors or Show Purposes button. You can disagree with everything. I don't know if it actually works but it's there, so I use it.
I wanna start this out by saying, this should NOT be our responsibility. The government is supposed to control and regulate this. However, as long as it IS our responsibility, there's a lot you can do. Run Linux full-time. Cut out social media, except for when it's critical (this is good for your mental health too). Be disconnected from the internet on your computer whenever you can. Use a privacy-focused Android ROM, like GrapheneOS. Use a browser that's not connected to your Google account + privacy addons (Brave is actually really good by default). It's a lot to learn. But it's possible, if difficult. The smartphone and browser steps are the most important and will cut out the most. Operating system choice is second priority.
you know when you have an argument with someone and it goes kinda badly for you bc you’re all flustered about the subject and then for days afterwards you’re replaying the conversation in your mind and thinking of far better things you could have said in response to everything your opponent put forwards? that’s what this video feels like
I've been the bouncer on the other side of this conversation and scanned more IDs than I could ever count. In all that time, fewer than 1% ever asked why we scanned the IDs. Even fewer pressed for an explanation of what was done with the information scanned. We were told just to say it was for security purposes and that the data was not stored. The data was definitely stored.
It sucks, because we have options. We vote, join unions, make some fuss online... But at the end of the day, we still have to live. We have to put these issues down and go to work, go to school, see friends, have lives. At the end of the day, we don't want to think about it. And it sucks.
@@freewillie8487 I guess that's what I'm (clumsily) trying to say. Olly pointed out the issue, and why it isn't as well discussed as it probably should be. And it's a situation that sucks. I understand the seriousness of the situation, and I am concerned, but I'm physically incapable of keeping it in mind all the time. I have to have a life.
@@robotbirb7321 sorry if I came off as aggressive, I completely agree the situation sucks and it's meant to be that way. I have way too often been told "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about". You are right it's incredibly hard to inform yourself of the facts and the truth let alone do something about it.
@@freewillie8487 Lol yeah text loses a lot of tone! It happens. Sorry if I sounded aggressive too, totally not meant that way. I'm just lamenting the state of everything- we have to be cognizant of what your data is being used for, and we probably should be less cavalier about how it's gathered and used. But the bouncer isn't wrong. I don't want to think about it. Olly's Socratic Dialogues are fantastic- I'm the bouncer, having to re-evaluate if I can afford to continue to be the bouncer, and I'm trying to come to terms with that in the RUclips comments section. Lol.
Oliver does a really good job of making steel man arguments. In this video, the ben Shapiro one, and the gaming one. Rather than strawmen, which oversimplifies and misrepresents your opponent’s argument, Oliver uses steel man, which is when you argue for your opponent’s point of view better than they could and then take down that argument.
I see the point that you're making. Do you think Oliver tryied to show the steel men when he wrote the the script and played the played the role of the guy scanning the ID?
the part about poor people selling their data really hit me even though it was only five seconds long. when the bouncer proposed the idea i thought “yeah, i’d sell my data, bills would be easier to pay.” i guess i’ve just been desensitised to the dangers of selling your data
The ironic thing is: none wants to think. The bouncer does not want to think but neither does the other guy. The bouncer wants to do his job and go back home and live his life absentmindedly, but so does the club goer. The only difference is that he realizes that constant surveillance IS want prevents you from just living your life absentmindedly. Because we should be able to live our lives without having to think too much about everything. They both stand in the same side, but multinational corporations with massive surveillance apparatuses pitch them against each other. One doesn't want to think, the other want wants the same thing but realizes that he can't afford that luxury until certain things are solved. I think it would have been badass if the customer, at the end, would have said: me neither, and that's the problem, ain't it? Because it would have been right in so many lvls!
Oh I quite enjoy thinking for its own sake, but of course only about things that interest me. What I don't want are things impeding the pleasures of thinking freely, which forces the otherwise pleasurable activity of "reflection" into a burdensome task of thinking about the loss of pleasure in thinking, identifying what led to the loss, and finding the remedies. I'd rather not think about any of that, but since it affects and taints something I'm generally interested in ("thinking freely"), I feel there isn't much of a choice.
@@AMomentousMori Agreed on all counts, with both your comment and the original, too. Reflection is well and good - and can be quite pleasurable, I mean, many people don't realise what fun bonkers purely and rigorously rationally-constructed (epistemo-)logical musings can be even on their own, not to mention the mix in with the intuitive, creative part, like the kind Olly does - but only when done freely, out of interest and pleasure, and not forcefully, because of necessity. One should have the choice to think or not, and not the obligation to think about that either. Sometimes everyone likes to think and train their mental muscles. Sometimes everyone likes to kick back, stare at the ceiling listening to music and emptying one's mind, or eating coco-pops with ice-cream and watch soap operas, or whatever it is each of us does to accomplish that state. And no-one likes to have to think about thinking itself, unless it's done in the fun way, at least. Let's go mad, but for the right reasons and in the right way, at least. :P
The other guy definitely wants to think, or else there would be no pause and reflect/rewind. He could have just shrugged, been squicked by the experience and moved on. And yes its a framing device but both characters rewind through the conversation at some point. The bouncer just denies that he has feelings for his rewind and ultimately is engaged in the conversation so long as he can remain feeling superior (And/or Olly is just flirting with himself at some point). As soon as any sort of vulnerability is required on the bouncer's part the conversation ends. The main dude definitely doesn't like being vulnerable, from the awkward squirming after each emotional outpouring, but he still is willing to for the conversation. I'd like to keep thinking. Or better yet, I'd like to keep feeling unlike the bouncer.
@@charalampostsakirides-pala2761 Comes with the name ;p But in all seriousness, I'm kinda of just paraphrasing Satre and Simon de Beauvoir with some context to back it up.
@@PanicbyExample I don't see it as them underappreciating the battle, I see as two things. 1. They represent convenience, or Olly at the beginning. Don't make a fuss, don't waste other people's time. The bouncer has kids at home, bills to pay, a game to watch, and Olly is standing in the way of that. In the same way the other people in line want to go in, forget their days, and just have fun with friends. To protest is to inflict harm in a way, its standing in a road and making someone late to work, or its going on a strike and causing the manager to lose money that she needs to send her kid to college. 2. They represent bystanders. It's not that they underappreciated the battle in front of them, though that might play a part. Maybe they just don't know, or don't care, or they agree but they think it'll all work itself out in the future. Olly can't go and run into the woods because of them, if he steps aside and lets the bouncer scan his card, they're next. And yeah it might not hurt them specifically, but what about the next guy in line? And the kid after that? And the prisoner after that? It's why individual actions to protect privacy are meaningless, because even if Olly somehow beats the bouncer he still hasn't gotten rid of the scanner.
this dialogue was not only a brilliant way not only to present the arguments and counterarguments, but to illustrate the most effective way for the left to reach out to the average worker. your argument won't land until you've connected with the other person, when what you've said resonates with them and you approach the conversation as equals. when ellis jokingly agreed that, yeah, this surveillance thing is kinda shitty, the boss has got cameras everywhere, that's when he became open to the debate. ugh. your mind olly
As the end shows, however, getting through to someone doesn't assure change. It can just as easily leave them even more distant and unwilling to learn.
This format seems like it’s gonna be really gnawing and repetitive and then you look up from the screen and it’s 26 minutes later, and realize you found it really enjoyable
I'm a cashier, and cannot believe how much i resonate with this message. I have recently been forced to start scanning id's, and i didn't think much of it. "I dont want to think", i suppose. Just yesterday a customer was spouting about how strange it is we have barcodes associated with us. This video is a perfect representation of how absolutley powerless we all are, and how senselessly oblivious the general public is to it. We trust too much, and we will always be exploited as long as we allow it.
> I'm a cashier ... I have recently been forced to start scanning id's How does that even work? People in a store have to show ID to buy some stuff? Or is it just when you need to see ID (like for alcohol and tabacco), you also scan them? I'm in central Europe, I've never heard of this before. How common is this?
@@argh523 it's becomming mandatory accross the states one gas statiom chain by another. I personally work in a tobacco shop, so it's especially enforced. But i've been denied nicotine because my id doesn't scan. Another halarious fault of the gov. They are mandating "federal id's" as opposed to state level within a the next few years, and the ones in my state fail to scan.
So if someone comes in and just wants to spend a $1 for a lotto ticket or buy a candy bar with cash, you still have to scan their id? Or is it just for alcohol and tobacco?
this is probably the best visual representation of the depression and defeat that is felt when going over things in one's mind - what could have been said to change anything, to make even one small change, to make things even a little bit better, to have gained even one thing only to feel like it always just ends up like this Enjoyed the CC, thanks
I too don't want to think, because it makes me angry. At the end of the day, I don't want to be angry anymore. I just want to enjoy life as little as they're letting me to. I purposely isolate myself from what's happening in the world because I just want to be at peace. I'm a mentally ill person which is a enough problem of itself and adding up on things to worry about only makes it more difficult to heal, only prevents it from getting better. I used to be way more involved, way more worried, way more angry everyday, but it DRAINED me dry, it worsened my health. So yeah, I don't want to think. I just want to embroider pretty patterns on my clothes and watch cartoons and look at the fucking sunset everyday. And I want people to let me be, because I need that tiny bit of peace. This video made me feel guilty, in an absolutely good way. But I admit I don't feel like I can do much about it. I'm so glad that you made it though. Your work is great Oliver, please keep going. And if you need to stop thinking and go look at the fucking sunset or whichever daily natural phenomenon you like in order to not go mad, PLEASE do it. They can't figure out ads for that.
“No one is in control of their life just go and have a pint” geez that is dark how familiar that thought feels. But at least we seem to be in a moment where there is hope for something better.
This was a very bold framing of a socratic dialogue, I like the way you take the concept to its fullest potential. Honestly, by the half way point I surprised you had so much left to do with it, but you found so many ways to keep it fresh. I would guess a lot of people will have clicked away earlier than they might have on your other videos, given the inherently repetition in the dialogue, but I'd like to say that I really appreciated this.
@@DJ-vg1pr lewk, if you wanna correct my spelling of slag that's your prerogative, but phonetically I'm still accurate. Plus, I am actually a Scot and I dinny think it's that big a deal, pal.
@@christophersnedeker There's not a square inch of land in the world that someone could live of for free and freely. Only remote places that are less likely to have you caught.
This is an impressively concise if horrifying intro to the irony of most people's fears about AI. Most people fear AI becoming too smart and taking over, not realizing the scarier reality is AI is incredibly dumb and it pretty much already has. AI would be actually be less frightening if it if was smarter than us and not shackled by an evolved tendency towards short-term thinking. However the predicament we're in is that the companies awkwardly fumbling with this collected data know they're doing a shit job, however it's still works well enough to be more profitable than the equivalent results from expensive humans. They've even acknowledge and accept the consequences of the damaged reputation because it still doesn't tip the equation away from doing it. And they can simply buy any potential competitors that try to carve out some market share with a principled stand. The only way to change the behavior is through legislation, which is incredibly unlikely anytime soon since it's generally left-leaning politicians that propose it and packaged into a "liberal agenda" and opposed without understanding the irony the threat it poses to them So may as well enjoy the traffic update you didn't ask for and
Does anyone else want to see The Arsonist and his sister, going at it? Watched through a keyhole by Sir Nigel Piss, from the Confucius video, his monocle steaming and having to be furiously polished.
Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'
You might not be able to convince someone in 1 perfect dialogue to change their opinion, but over like 4 dialogues you can get someone to be ruder and ruder to the people behind you in line
In this video: Ollie tries to talk his way into getting into a club he's been banned from. To do so he needs to convince the bouncer not to look at his ID
He was banned for having such an engaging conversation with the bar staff about the enduring relevance of Marxism that nobody could buy any drinks for three and a half hours. That's my theory 🤷♂️
Currently doing my PhD in high-dimensional statistics ("Big Data"), so this topic is very close to my heart. I generally agree with the points raised here, data privacy is an issue well worth giving thought to. I can't say I know much about location tracking data, but I know of some pretty concerning cases where people managed to match anonymous data to facebook profiles and get more information about them through other publicly available information. Fortunately, this is pretty well-known issue and in most cases there are measures in place to prevent abuse. For example, most income data tends to be "top-coded"; values above a certain threshold are censored, so you only know that they are above that threshold, not the actual value. This is done because there tends to be a relatively small number of extreme outliers who are easy to match with real people (yes, income inequality is also a data privacy issue). Data censoring is a well-studied issue and work goes into developing statistical methods that take it into account. There were two specific points I take issue with. The first is your example of the police using an algorithm to detect child pornography, or trying to tell if the animal is a wolf or not. These "black box" neural network algorithms are pretty old news now, and there are lots of methods which focus on identifying exactly which features of the data are important in predicting the correct outcomes. In many applications, knowing these features is far more important than the actual prediction itself. Of course, not knowing what exactly the algorithm is doing is a serious problem. My biggest gripe was with the part at 11:45 regarding different interpretations of what "probable" means. I very much disagree with this separation of the mathematical concept of probability with how we use it in our practical lives. The concept of probability has existed before any of the mathematical rules did; the problem with probabilities is that we suffer from systematic cognitive biases that make our intuition very unreliable - that's why we make a system with axioms that we all agree should hold for any internally consistent concept of probability. We then use maths to derive rules, free of our biases. To give an analogy, take the Müller-Lyer illusion. You look at the lines, and say that one line is longer than the other. When a ruler is used to compare the lines, you say "The question is flawed, when people think of length, they think of how long it appears to be, not long a ruler would measure it to be." Just because we're ill-equipped to answer a question intuitively doesn't mean the question is flawed. If there's a problem with internally contradictory concepts, then there's a problem with human beings if we cannot evaluate probabilities in the same way a "mathematical machine" can. Cheers :)
The subtlety and beauty of the videos Olly makes are just astonishing every time. The transition of power in this video is so clever that I almost didn't notice. You start by thinking that Olly is on your side and that the bouncer represents the established power and control. You end the video realizing that you are the bouncer and you never had control in the first place.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean enough to be sure, but I feel like I agree - would you mind clarifying this point a bit to help me figure it out? :)
@@the_potato_herald they mean that the bouncer is just like all of us; we get paid to participate in things that sometimes we straight up dont want to do. Sometimes when doing this, we like to not think about it, because thinking about all of it makes us miserable. We are on both ends. Fighting the data collecting, as well as indirectly participating in the collection!
@@the_potato_herald Well, the fact that Olly is rewinding the video to change the way that he is presenting his arguments every time the bouncer doesn't understand or gets frustrated initially feels like it's under the bouncer's control. However, the video ends when the bouncer admits that he doesn't want to think. He gives up his power and control over the situation, the conversation, and his privacy in that moment, and Olly doesn't reply at all. You could then conclude that the bouncer giving up is what Olly was trying to accomplish the whole time. Thus, Olly was acting as the "algorithm" whose entire goal was to stop the bouncer from thinking by adjusting its personalized approach to each argument. (This could be read as an easy metaphor for targeted advertising, if somewhat dramatic depending on your point of view.) In viewing the allegory that way, we (the uneducated public - and I mean uneducated on this topic, not necessarily generally uneducated) play the role of the bouncer who thought he was in control, but was really being manipulated the whole time.
@@natschlamp I believe Olly has a Patreon, and I don't know if it's the case for this video but other RUclipsrs have a Patreon tier where you can pay to get early access to the video, before it's even released.
I usually find Socratic dialogues confusing to parse at a certain point but this one really kept my attention. The way multiple arguments were integrated into the essay showed the different ways to approach rebuttals which I thought was nice. This was a really inventive video and I really liked it.
I watched that video like 4 or 5 times and it's only now I realised what the framing does. Because the person coming to the club is shown a little from the above and the bouncer is shown from lower perspective we unconsciously have the feeling that the bouncer is superior to the other person, and he actually is because they can decide whether to let somebody walk in providing they give they data to the club. Truly a masterpiece.
The “I don’t want to think” line really hit me. It’s exactly what I see in people that choose to avoid problems that glaring, but it’s also what I see in myself quite often. Willful ignorance seems to be the easiest way to deal with these types of issues, but it doesn’t solve anything.
It kind of summed up my day and feelings sometimes. You do your best in whatever way you can, but ultimately you just try not to think about how fucked up things are and how helpless we are to really make a measurable difference. When you think about it too much it drags you down and you stop doing anything helpful because you feel like there's no point.
I think it's less that you choose to avoid it, but that there's little if nothing to gain to try and question it, at least on the individual level and the immediate future, and that's by design.
I appreciate how the editing itself is also commentary on the futility of arguments like these. I've personally had many conversations with different people about data privacy, and they always feel like this; even if I had the ability to go back constantly and change what I said, we're so powerless as consumers that there's no conclusion to the argument that isn't mired in either intentional ignorance or dystopic misery. And it isn't like these megacorporations like Facebook and Google are evil, data collection like this is just an inevitable outcome of capitalistic optimization. Data is just too useful for them to reasonably stop.
21:51: You're making me think about myself. I don't want to think about myself, do you understand? I don't wanna think about what this machine does. I wanna get through my shift, and go home, and on the weekend, I wanna get drunk and watch celtic beat the rangers, do you hear me? *I. Don't. Want. To think.* A very powerful, down-to-earth line that gets to the heart of the problem of convincing society to change for the better. It's that exhaustion, that desire for the simple, easy way, in a universe of complexity, that makes it easy for scams and fascism to flourish, and hard for democracy and positive social changes to get going and be effective. Brilliant work, Olly!
@@PlatformNo14 not necessarily. I am unfamiliar with Nord VPN's workings exactly, but if they store any of your data, it is in the terms of service you agree to. Read it before buying a VPN
Huawei: Hmmm this random Nord IP automatically logged into a Gay Bar WiFi in San Francisco. Was it stolen? Google: Oh no, it's just Kyle, he googled fake IDs and bought NordVPN on his way to hook up with an older man... Facebook: oh yeah I read that. There's lewds here. Want me to share just in case Kyle is underage? Huawei: this phone was sold to a... 28 year old lady. And it frequently connects to a middleschool's WiFi. CIA: OH SHIT WADDUP
Honestly, one of the best vids you've ever put out. Having the whole spill play out as a Socratic Dialogue between 2 lower/middle class individuals is a perfect way to show how massive the scale of the problem is. And the dialogue was very fleshed out and natural. Absolutely brilliant episode mate!
Clever metaphor, when all you have is a hammer, all problems become nails. Data collection is the hammer. There are other ways to solve crimes and such.
Abi's made so many wonderful videos, but this has to be my favorite of hers. It's so incredibly clever and thought-provoking, I find myself coming back to it often.
My public high school now requires all students to wear ids. Need one to ride the bus, need one to get lunch now. Students need to pay for replacement ids, and after using 6 temporary ids you get detention. Students of color and any students already more targeted by hall monitors are way more likely to get noticed and sent to their dean. Almost no teachers speak out around students. When students raise complaints teachers just say “its just the way it is now, so you need to do it whether you like it or not”
I will never forgive Abby for the fact that whenever I’m playing Fallout: New Vegas (which is often), every time they say “the Mojave” (which is a LOT) the only thing I can hear in my head is “That’s nay a pair of tits, that’s the Mojave”
I don't believe "I don't want to think" is a decision made willingly and without coercion. "Coercion" in this case means a society that makes its people constantly: tired, distracted, stressed, and depreciated. It's hard to care about things like your internet and IRL privacy in a society where you can go from financially OK to financially ruined in the time it takes for your car to get T-boned on the way to work, hard to care when 24/7 news channels blast Awful News on top of Awful News all day and night (and bad news is addicting the way a really good cup of french fries is hard to put down), hard to care when bills are months late and the kids need food and your food budget is $5 and a shoebox, hard to care when you work long hours with garbage pay managed by people who got their position through socializing rather than skillsets (and, of course, you have no promotion potential because Reasons™)... "I don't want to think" is not a common result born of a vacuum. It is a carefully planned and calculated endgoal.
maybe not, but at least the information was put out there. thinking about these things can be really scary but now the hypothetical bouncer is sort of forced to contend with the fact that they're complacent in a system that dehumanizes them. who knows, it might be the start of their willingness to participate in activism. oof sorry to give a serious reply to your joke post x~x
The point is that there isn't a good ending. The objective of the conversation was always kind of depressing, and people won't be happier on an individual level just because you made them think more "wokely" about their situation.
@@tenchimuyo69 Nono, you're confusing a good ending individually with a good ending globally. This conversation was never ending in The Left Winning, ever. It's just a discussion at a club. It won't change anything. The good ending WOULD be "winning the argument and getting your points across" but that does in fact happen. The good ending was achieved, and it wasn't all that good. Because winning arguments on an individual scale doesn't really help that much.
This was incredible. Maybe one of my favorite videos from Philosophy Tube, if not the entirety of RUclips. I can’t believe I slept on it for so long. Thank you, Abigail!
"Oi d'you mind shuttin' your face, sweetheart? I'm tryn'a have a Socratic dialogue over here!" -Ellis, (the best character in the philosophy tube mythos)
I think about privact in terms of herd immunity. Sure, I have nothing to hide. But a journalist reporting on corruption, a person in dire straits... They could need privacy more than I can understand. By forfeiting my right to privacy, I make it easier for the rights of those who need them to be taken away. Humans must stand in solidarity against surveillance.
You *think* you don't have anything to hide, but algorithms that can affect your live (e.g for insurance, lending, even bail or jail time) can possibly take into account something that you consider benign.
It's not a problem with us as people, but it is a problem in our logic. We aren't perfectly logical, but we should try not to be biased when determining probability.
It took until the second failure, over 12 minutes in that I was like "Wait, if that's a failure, who's the player-Wait... Okay, it's not just a conversational device, it's the algorithm."
Well, I agree with the point which makes me an easy target but my favorite part of this video is that it is an honest analysis of how to speak to people about complex issues, and it clearly shows how pretentious point-scoring keeps the conversation from moving forward.
As a man who has been a longtime wearer of beanies... I can attest that this, indeed, the case. Now, who would like to hear about the JFK assassination?
The part where you mentioned kids with smartphones sent chills down my spine. We won't have a future where kids don't have smartphones. They're becoming too essential to our everyday lives. My little brother has a phone to call his mom to get him from work at variable hours, another, from school, because he stays late for electives. The fact that if someone with their data were so inclined, they could kidnap them anonymously using it at any point - is terrifying.
There’s a thing which some startups keep trying to make happen of bringing back “dumb” phones, which can only make calls and send texts. Not sure how well that’s going though.
As someone who works to eliminate user targeting from ad tech by developing privacy-respecting alternatives, let me say this video is spot on, and I appreciate it. The problems with machine learning are particularly nuanced but you got a handle on them very effectively here. Thank you!
It's rewind time!
I just realised the whole Ellis being a "pure braw legend'" part and the earlier bit about institutionalised gay bashing. It is rewind time indeed.
W
It’s data collecting time
Let me venture a guess. This will be all about how in the modern discourse certain, shall we say, _pernicious elements,_ or _the usual suspects,_ whichever you prefer, like to use data-points in the abstract without following them up with any argument, relying on the audience to fall back on certain cultural stereotypes and create an argument on their own?
Because I hate that that happens.
Its ethical hacking time!
To quote Snowden:
"Saying you don't care about your right to privacy because you've got nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you've got nothing to say."
Snowden deserves the congressional medal of honor, instead he's exiled in Russia.
All of a sudden my privacy lost value.
I mean damn. There's nothing in the world more soul-crushingly depressing than a reminder than people aren't exactly sheep, but they're certainly not fit to choose their own leaders nor have a say in pretty much any matter. Do you have any idea how many people are plain ignorant? Do you know how many are proud to be ignorant? Or let's drop the vague language and say something relevant and relatable: Do you know how many people are Trump voters? How many are celebrating Brexit?
I fully agree that overall, *everyone's* voice matters. *Everyone's* privacy matters. *Everyone's* vote matters. And yet nothing is to change that, paraphrasing Animal Farm, some people are more equal than others. Nothing is to change that this imbalance in inequality also empowers/is powered by false narratives. If you haven't heard of Ruport Murdoch by now, time to change that.
All democracy really did is change the idea of one power hungry king to 10. That's it. Changing that to 100 under socialism, communism or whatever isn't going to solve anything neither, just give the illusion that it's morally superior. It's going to take a herculean effort for democracies to fix themselves, and we all know the Earth would sooner die than that happening anytime soon.
@@sdgdhpmbp , You are right that the situation is dire. But do not forget why so many people are kept poor and uneducated. It is precisely because there are two main classes in society - those with power, and those who follow. Capitalists and workers. The soviet union was not much different except for the name of the ruling class, and the way they handled power.
It is easy to tell uncritically thinking people that this or another socioeconomic system is better, fairer etc. But the only way we can tell that a system is better is that the people within don't have to be told.
This is what communism (academic definition) is all about. Giving the power directly to people in their communities as to how they organise life. Not through the "people's party". And using your own way of putting things, the people following 1, 10, or 100 people's ideas means exploitation. But following 7 billion ideas wouldn't, because a truly fair society is one where everyone can make their own decisions.
How would people still form a cohesive society if everyone followed their own mind? Well, any society where that is true must be one of material fairness, and people will support and continuously adapt the system to be as good as possible.
But how do you enable the possibility of each of us being our own masters together? You educate people in critical thinking, so that they can truly make informed decisions in their favour, and any communist society would do exactly that. Will that happen in our society. Highly unlikely. Because our capitalists masters would only lose out if the majority of people could actually think for themselves. On the other hand, as the proportion of jobs requiring critical thinking increases due to automation, it is possible they'll trip themselves up.
So do we just sit here and wait for a better future to emerge? NO. WE FIGHT!
Everyone who can must try to create a world with more critical thinkers. Whether by direct teaching, lobbying the government or any other conceivable way.
And what must we do with other critical thinkers? Build a new society. A new world, free from the bonds of master-slave, capitalist-worker relations. How? By pooling expertise from every profession and experience and making them anew. New, community based engineering and industry. New systems of economic relations. New visions of a prosperous community. First done on a small scale, then multiplied, attracting all to join the communist federation.
I am working on plans for a new industry which I aim to put into practice when I finish my education, and of course I work to gather as many as possible in this quest for a better world.
@@chalichaligha3234 I'm facing eviction due to a greedy landlord right now. Renovictions suck balls. I pay $890/ month (Canadian) for a roomy 2 bdrm with an eat in kitchen bc I've been here 7 years. Everybody else in this building pays between $1200 and $1600. The only reason they have to boot me is that they want to jack up the rent, so hopefully the rental housing tribunal will rule in my favour. But if it all hits the fan over the next year or 2 and I end up homeless bc I can't afford to pay $1600/month, I'll look you up. A workers' collective sounds much better than a homeless shelter :)
@@chalichaligha3234 Are you in the US? Or elsewhere?
"Will ya shut ya face sweetheart, I'm tryna have a socratic dialogue here" is possibly the best line on youtube
Now I plan on using that when I see people having meltdowns over wearing masks at the grocery store...
might be my senior quote
+
"that's no a pair of tits, that's the mojave."
It's right up there with "Don't break the fourth wall, I'm trying to make a video about post-modernism!"
I took me right up until the end to understand what the framing device was doing. As the conversation repeats over and over again, they're each gathering more data on the other, allowing them to ask more and more, well, "targeted" questions, until eventually their true selves are revealed: powerlessness for the patron, and willful ignorance for the bouncer. And that's the kind of conclusion that macro level data collection is incapable of coming to, but two human beings understanding each other are. Brilliant work as usual, Philosophy Tube.
The fun part of experiencing this thought process for me is that I could operate with it Before I Knew What It Was? It reminds me of Life Is Strange and other choice-based games I've played, but specifically Life Is Strange because of the Rewind aspect. The game is just bits. But on the other side of those bits, someone told me a story, and while the code is only gathering information so it knows which direction to keep the story going, *I* am not interacting algorithmically with a program. I am, in every way that matters, interacting with a person, AS a person.
So I'm watching this, literally holding my breath, KNOWING what it's doing without UNDERSTANDING what it's doing. And then I scroll down here and you've done Words to it. Thank you.
Oh fuck that's incredible
Excellent analysis!
I love how this manifests in even the smallest of ways. The patron, who is ordinarily very measured in his questions and responses, brings up Magic Mike and Kim Petras so confidently after the bouncer cites "insitutionalised gay bashing" as one of the reasons he left the police force in an alternate timeline.
It's powerlessness for both, the bouncer is just doing his best to not feel it, by distracting himself and suppressing any troubling thoughts.
going to 3 gay events and then moving to sweden to start a turnip farm with 9 golden retrievers is my ideal life actually
you just told it to Google xD
They have a gay scene in Sweden.
That just sounds like Animal Crossing honestly
This is just the plot to Stardew Valley
Sounds a bit like animal crossing
Instead of coming out as gay, I’m coming out as a “pure braw legend.”
Do it, you pure braw legend.
ur mom pure braw legend
Μom... dad.... I have to tell you something.... I... I'm a pure braw legend...
I too identify as a pua braw legend like.
OP is a pure braw legend.
"SHUT YER FACE SWEETHEART - i'm tryn'ta have a socratic dialogue" is my new favourite arrangement of words.
Yeah, but for a moment I was like "howay leave Alice alone ya weegie gyet"
😂
Oli is just an absolutely brilliant writer-I chortled at that, and the Mojave line.
Your band rules but I was really hoping it would sound like a mix between Motorhead and Portishead.
Stolen and slightly rearranged.
"if you were still a police officer would you enforce it"
"yeah"
**perfectly executed look of horror**
13:23
13:12
@@Squin52X AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Should police officers should be able to choose which laws they enforce? Is moral objection a valid reason to refuse to do a job your paid and willingly show up for?
@@bitshifter9191 yes, but there shouldn't be police officers in the first place, and yes obviously or else morality in general has broken down lmao. not hard questions
I love how she hires three extras and still plays both roles
Edit: she
four tho?
Considering she was working from her own script, and thanks to the Rewind feature and literally reusing some clips multiple times, my guess is playing both parts streamlined production significantly. I could be wrong, but I'd wager that it's easier to read your own script with the desired inflection/delivery, rather than give an actor their lines and instruct them on some of the nuances you may be wanting/trying to capture.
That's what happens when you have such a large ego.
@@potmki6601 the forth is barely in shot lol
the other people are probably just her friends and not actors like her
“..But do you have a camera in your boss’s office to make sure they’re
not underpaying you?”
Some statements are so self-evident and show the inequity of our world so simply..that they actually hurt to hear.
Yes! And it's so obviously ridiculous that you realize: "is it as ridiculous the other way?" which leads to the more terrifying realization: "why does the other way feel... normal?“.
I always hated that "go live in the forest" argument. Where the hell would I go to do that? We don't have the common land anymore! And with Google Earth and satellites and all that, you literally wouldn't even be safe in the forest
Actually,google earth can't penetrate dense forests so it's off to the amazon I guess
Exactly. If I had the means to, I would've already.
Issue is, to buy a lone house in the forest costs a Million.
I mean... I would actually just like to be able to buy a house at all. Renter life ... shoot me.
Yeah the "go live in the forest" cliche is a deliberate dodge meant to make the argument itself impossible to make. If you don't live in the woods, you're engaging in the system you claim to hate and a hypocrite who shouldn't be listened to. If you DO go live in the woods, you're a nutcase out of touch with modern society who shouldn't be listened to.
"Go live in the forest" is the same reductive argument as a bunch of others, most notably the one I'm seeing a LOT right now, "If you don't like this country, go live somewhere else". It's designed to shut down the dialogue by suggesting it's absurd to think that the thing you like is even capable of being challenged, so the only other option is to complete remove yourself from said thing, which is generally impossible. Instead, you're left thinking you face two impossible choices, so instead you're meant to meekly comply.
Always stupid when it's used as an argument re Capitalism especially, as if somehow hiding in the woods in your own little hut would mean you could magically avoid all aspects of capitalism for the rest of your life.
I really like that the scanner is a hammer, it really reinforces the "this is tool that so easily becomes a weapon" aspect. Excellent work Olly!
Alternative interpretation: I think it’s a metaphor for functional fixedness. The scanner is just for scanning ids to allow people to come in, and that’s where the thinking stops. The doorman is not thinking about how this hammer came to be, what it actually does or how it could be used. The doorman keeps saying: “It’s just a scanner.” But the person trying to come in keeps asking what it does, trying to break open the doorman’s mind going: “Hey, what’s that? Let’s look at the bigger picture here!” A typical interaction between people who agree and disagree about data collection, I think
Third interpretation: he just has an really low budget and could not afford an real scanner
It also seems to be a reference to that saying "if all you have to use is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."
I do like all these interpretations, but to be fair the impression I had at first was that he was trying to say: "A hammer is a technical/technological artifact as much as a sofisticated scanner". By this I mean that is not the scanner per se, but the whole 'essence' of human technical behaviour. I mean, we have always created tools to increase and express our ability to interact with the environment, but every technological advancement also undermined our ability to have a direct control, giving a part of it away, transferring it from the body to the technical object. Then, the real problem with data is that while a hammer is a prothesis for our hands, so we can keep a certain control at that stage even if it modifies our behaviour, our data duplicate is an external prothesis of our mind/brain/psychology and this has far more serious implications on how our psychology can be modified.
But for sure he chose a hammer also for lack of money, I really liked the materialistic interpretation
i just let out an audible "ohhhhhhh!" because i couldn't figure out the metaphor with the hammer. this makes perfect sense. technology is a tool that can improve our lives but can easily become a weapon.
I find it very interesting the ways that we can condition viewer's suspension of disbelief.
"Why is that man clearly holding a hammer over a driver's license?"
"It's a scanner."
"Oh I guess it is a scanner and I will now intrinsicly believe this for the rest of this narrative."
I just thought that it was a clever way of putting that the tool can very easily become a weapon.
You know what they say: When the only tool you have is a scan^h^h^hammer …
"The tool could so easily become a weapon," and "when all your problems look like nails" comes together here in a really deep way that my mind can't stop coming back to.
It’s also about the “it’s just a scanner” thing
People will just accept that things are certain things without asking bigger questions
Its symbolic. The threat of "dropping the hammer".
The 'nothing to hide' argument is so flawed. Everyone has things to hide. Passwords, bank account details, private documents, photos, the privacy of their home, emails, messages, etc.
blumousey this is actually called the “privacy fallacy”, fun fact
@@Solisus but that distinction is irrelevant to the government. You have to give them access to your private life as I detailed above for them to be able to see if you're doing anything illegal or not. It's none of their business. Plus you're just handing them power and ammunition if they ever want to persecute you.
blumousey Thoughts
@@Solisus how do you kmow; memorised all of the laws, everywhere, did you?
I'm a professional hacker.
Would you like to make this a challenge, that I can find nothing that you wouldn't like made public?
2 things I can tell you:
Once the looking starts, it don't stop
I would have to follow you for no more than 1 mile to find you breaking laws you never knew existed.
Minor edit: the same is all true of me, I'm no legal guru - so I act accordingly.
People who claim they've "got nothing to hide" are displaying a remarkable lack of imagination in regards to what some other people may want to cause them harm over... "You're gay/trans/very poor/an ethnic minority/a single mother/socialist/communist/humanist/climate change activist/rape victim/Jew/Muslim/Atheist/etc? Well, it would be a pity if the wrong people learned about that, huh? Someone who may want to lock you up in some sort of facility for not being what they approve of, for example?"
olly just straight up took the inner monologue conversations we have with ourselves and made it a short film
It's called a Socratic dialogue!
It's a supervised learning algorithm
@@LvLupXD It's both! Which is what makes this video brilliant!
im a bartender and bouncer in a nightclub where we scan I.D.s and can attest that it does very little to stop people getting drunk and fighting and people getting their shit stolen. like someone got their purse stolen this weekend and we looked thru the cameras and looked thru the i.d.s scanned that evening, and literally, didnt solve shit. the person who took this young womans purse had their backs turned to the camera on the way out, so their was little to be seen to match by i.d.s. also people bring in someone elses id card cuz they have similar facial features and shit. fuck this surveillance bullshit. love this video and a huge fan of philosophy tube. keep up the good stuff mate
read this in Ellis's voice
How did I realize this video IS an algorithm:
>while watching I thought about how he came up with this many probabilities and kept optimizing them.
>thought about how much easier that would've been for the computer.
>"oh! this IS a data structure in computers. A tree graph where the algorithm goes through parsing the info, each branch getting smarter than the next to explore possible reactions"
>but is the algorithm the bouncer trying to convince a human to agree on surveillance and reached a dead end? or is it the skeptic trying to convince the bouncer to doubt themselves with more and more pointed questions and succeeded? or is it a simulator playing a scenario and analyzing it to understand possible arguments and collect as much data as possible from them?
>"this is making me think and I don't want to think"
>"oh well existential crisis meh what am I gonna do about it"
>"oh"
On you confusion whether the algorithm is the bouncer or the patron the answer can be both. There is a thing in machine learning that pits two algorithms against each other in order for both of them to improve. if you want to do some reading on it look for Generative Adversarial Networks .
@@panoshanos1 I have NO background in the subject, but thanks to a relatively recent Tom Scott video and RandomAlien doing an excellent job describing their thought process, I was going to chime in saying roughly the same thing as you.
He's right, I went to three gay events and now I'm very happy on my swedish turnip farm with my nine golden retriever's
This is the gay agenda.
Välkommen till Sverige!
Please write a self help book so we can follow in your footsteps
@@bbinkovitz Hell, it's my agenda, and I'm almost straight.
Almost...
@@UsenameTakenWasTaken the gays are taking our retrievers to their turnip farms.
The sign is in Comic Sans, you're legally allowed to disregard anything it says.
Ponj
Well, no, but if it was... Papyrus *shrugs*, you would.
Depends of jurisdiction.
They are some jurisdictions where a contract can't be in Comic Sans. They are also font size regulations.
However, I do not think that it would go far legally given how it is readable...
I like how the whole video is an algorithm going through potential interactions.
holy shit you're right
What's better, it probably came to many of its viewer _by way of an algorithm_
Is this what an algorithm is?
can we all take a quick sec to appreciate how tedious this must have been to edit? fantastic work, ollie !
Edit? Imagine the writing!
Pretty sure this is just writing
@@DavidJamesHenry the video still had to be edited :/
Or maybe he stopped recording and changed outfits every time it another character needed to speak
Right? Crazy!
...It took me twelve and a half minutes to realize all the rewinds were a representation of AI learning.
It took me until reading this comment
WeNeedMoreFarads me too.
i saw it like a video game thing where you try the different options to see all the dialogues
but your take makes much more sense
@@Dimipim1 That's what I got, too. I don't think the two readings are mutually exclusive, though.
For anyone who's wondering, this type of AI/ML is often called Reinforcement Learning. You figure out which sequential steps lead to greater reward, often by randomly changing actions.
"My privacy should not be for sale"
"Nobody's in control of their life. Just go 'ave a pint"
"I don't want to think"
Get out of my head.
Shouldn't have to make the argument for my privacy, is what's on my mind
Thank you COVID-19, very cool
Someone pointed out earlier how the video game style of restarting can represent the growing data gathering, and I'm floored by how amazing that is.
We see, that just given the regular way of talking, you would've gotten nowhere with the bouncer, but after each reset, each bit of data collected you're able to push the bouncer just a little bit further. And then the process repeats and it starts to dawn on you just how powerless the bouncer is. With this video game rinse and repeat, the growing data collection, the ability to convince the bouncer goes from being a near impossibility to a near certainty. It doesn't matter how good the arguments that the bouncer had were, they just don't have the same playing field, and suddenly I'm stuck by how awfully unfair it is. That when the opposition is able to limitlessly gather data on you, you're almost lost from the outset. The house always wins.
Gosh Abby did a great job with this video
But in that case the patron didn't win anytjing despite his being on an AI playing field. The bouncer just ended with a personal boundary, potentially hinting threat of violence.
this video... _is_ an algorithm. it's trying to find the best way to convince the bouncer as quickly as possible, isn't it?
That's the vibe I got from it too! That or Olly going through all the things he could have said to the bouncer irl to convince him
shame the algorithm never found the answer
@@KerpowBang well i did type this comment before i saw the end of the video.
algorithm: n. a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.
this video wasn't that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@@kumoyuki alright, i edit my statement. the video _contains_ an algorithm.
"Why can't you just go live in the woods?"
Because "land rights" - everything is "owned" by someone.
Either that, or its protected nature reserve. Which means you'd be jailed for disturbing the ecosystem, if you try to make your home there.
@@frederik7338 Ironic because they don't jail oil barons.
I wonder how many people out there would love to just go live in the woods, except they're not allowed to.
I'd fucking hate every second of it, and I actively disdain the idea of 'get rid of technology'... but hey, if somebody else wants to have a go, I also don't really have a right to tell them they can't.
RUclips doesn't deserve this production quality.
but WE do
aye, it dinnae belong ta youtube, but ta the people
The bouncer’s comment at the end is a trauma response. He is overwhelmed and trying to keep himself from being overloaded. His nervous system is trying to keep him safe and being confronted puts him at risk of flooding. In fact, being able to even say he doesn’t want to think is more than most people would be able to face.
Social change won’t work unless it’s trauma informed.
Any recommendations on trying to encourage someone with trauma in ways that let's them learn accurately about the world without overwhelming them?
yes, it's a very good point
Yeah, it gives me goosebumps and nearly brought me to tears. I didn't realize until now just how much I was thinking like the bouncer when I thought I was thinking like the patron. The bouncer is right in one way. I DON'T want to think about what Facebook knows about me. I DON'T want to think about how much dirt the big tech companies might have on me or be able to fake about me if they pooled their information together, or if I got hacked by a bad actor. But with how much I do know about tech sometimes I am forced to. And I don' like where the thinking goes.
Yeah it's not fun.
@@1993greeksoldier I got no particular tricks for strangers, might wanna just see this video again and see how Abi does it.
Maybe not get too heated but at same time don't be Mr Logic and not show any emotion at all, don't use too much technical jargon, be simple ,and provide simple analogies. basically explain calmly, simply and swiftly.
But if it does happen, you wanna give them a soft landing, so to speak. And even if they say they don't think, they probably do, atleast a little. Like if I was in Abi's place, I would say something like
"I am sad for you,man, it's normal for people to have this stance, for certain topics, but you shouldn't keep it forever because that's not a good way to be, for anyone.
Cause you can't stop the thinking part of you for long, and we are on this Earth for a long time."
Then I'd probably just leave and not go in unless I had to do some important in there. Did the best I could, rest is up to the bouncer.
Now, if it's someone close to you I think best to induce the trauma and then work it out with them, help them deal with it so they become wiser in dealing with other traumas in their life and maybe even some of yours, but you can't really do that with a stranger for obvious reasons.
So with a stranger, you try and prevent the trauma from happening.
And with a close one, you help them deal with it.
"I don't want to think." Such a simple phrase, but a perfect note to tie all the failed scenarios together. An unfortunate amount of us don't want to think about the possibility that the privacy of the people is being compromised for the sake of security. They just want to reap the benefits they get in return, so they keep on rolling with the punches.
This has been another masterfully crafted thinkpiece. You just keep knocking it out of the park.
Only: How to engage those who make use of their right not to think?
I think there is potentially more to this scene: You can see the pressures in his face of his economic and fiscal reality which pushes / force him not want to think about what he is doing because he needs to keep doing it (and deep down "knows" that it is wrong). Behind cognitive sentiments can be (coded and uncoded) social realitys (personally I even would go further).
I think there's more to it than that. It feels more like, what good does thinking do me? Oh, I definitely believe knowledge is the first step to power. But only the first. Your'e just one person, what can you do? Sure, if we could make everyone aware and band together, we could really do something, but we don't trust that others will do anything. That, in turn, drains our motivation to do anything. It's easier to just not think about it. And what happens then? The devil of it is, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING! I sure do, anyway. We're only powerless when we believe we are. But how do you stop believing it when others believe in it? I think this is may be the greatest paradox of our time. Maybe of ANY time.
Let me turn it around: We shouldn't have to think.
We shouldn't have to live in an environment so hostile and exploitative that we have to think about every single action, every single object. There are truly stupid people out there and they are simply at the mercy of this, they can't just think about it.
Human progress should be used to make our environment easier to navigate, not harder. And we've made progress. On the sidewalk we don't have to think about holes or roots potentially breaking our ankles. We never have to think about where we'll get clean drinking water. When injured we can leave the medical thinking to the doctors. It used to be that we didn't have to worry about having money in old age. But the social state is eroding, suddenly people do have to think about old age money problems again. Suddenly people do have to think about compromising on their living situation in order to afford rent. Suddenly we again have to worry about being murdered in the streets by nazis.
Why should the burden of morality and rightness be placed on a low-income person like a bouncer? Why is the bad thing not illegal?
Ooooh, I get it. It's a reference to machine learning.
Every time the discussion reaches a dead end, the machine rewinds it and tries a new approach. The end goal presumably being to get the bouncer to think about his own role in the system, which ultimately fails, ending the video on a tragic note.
Stellar job honestly. The Socratic dialogue lives on.
13:26 Can we just appreciate Abby's silent reaction to the bouncer saying that he'd still enforce a law he doesn't support? I absolutely loved this little moment. Show's why Olly's a great writer and actor.
I can only like this comment once :(
I agree with him on that.
It reminds me of an argument I had on The Law Of Infinite Probability where someone called me immoral for saying I would eventually kill an immortal dog if I was the only one who could (and with me being immortal too).
Just because you don’t agree with the action doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do. This scenario he gets money that he might even use for activities that are even more important than privacy.
He is a cop after all. Enforcing unjust laws is their job
@@booketoiles1600 A good soldier will not obey a bad order. Police have discretionary options but everybody understands that enforcing a rule you don't believe in, or don't need to enforce, is a form of hypocrisy, a pleasure that can only be enjoyed from a position of power.
Too many people talking about right and wrong when they are dealing with power that has no values.
"It's not a problem with human beings that they don't think like mathematical machines."
This has cut very deep in me. I'm a scientist and usually super rational. But, man, the above sentence is true.
the inherent homoeroticism of save-state booting a grayscale discussion on data with a faceless yet oddly familiar club bouncer
You win the internets.
Why is nobody talking the inherent homoeroticism of save-state booting a grayscale discussion on data with a faceless yet oddly familiar club bouncer?
"Oi, d'you mind shuttin' your face sweetheart? I'm trying to have a socratic dialogue here" incredible. amazing. the voice of a generation
I'm a leftist, I work security, and I study computer science. One night, there was a shooting just outside the event I was working. I once let a guy in who could barely speak english, and just wanted to go see his brother who was working there temporarily. I once let a family in after they got there just a few minutes too late to get tickets. I once basically profiled a group of kids who looked like they were setting up to rush the exit, and prepared to shut the gate on them. I once led a group of kids to the nearest bus stop who confided to me that they snuck in. I once denied a guy entrance who said he wanted to go in to meet the girl of his dreams. I once accidentally let a group of teens sneak past me, due to them pulling a smart distraction.
I don't know how to combine all this in my head into any kind of coherent picture. I don't know if I'm a good person or not. I never want to work a job where I'm spying on people, but what the fuck do you do when your primary skill is writing code? Is there any ethical work under capitalism?
I feel helpless. I think the best thing I can do is try to minimize harm and get involved in my community, but I don't think my best is good enough.
"I don't know if I'm a good person or not." - This is a false dichotomy. It suggests that someone is either good or bad, without anything in-between or any other axes of measurement. At the end of the day you're just a human being, trying to fulfill a complex set of (often conflicting) goals and desires with imperfect information and mental faculties, under time-pressure, and without the concrete reassurance that your goals or desires are even worth pursuing in the first place, or which ones are worth prioritizing when they inevitably come into conflict.
This doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions, but it is almost a certainty that there will be actions that you commit in the moment that you will come to regret later, or are unsure were the correct decision. This doesn't make you a 'bad' person. This also doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive to be a 'good' person, however you choose to define that. What it does mean is that your definition of a 'good' person shouldn't be so strict that you lose all hope as soon as you do something that you later regret, or that others (even those that you respect), judge you negatively for doing.
One thing this video doesn't mention is that data can be actually used to make things more equal. Like, the question "who gets to go on parole" - it is scary to think of an algorithm deciding that, but the alternative in the current reality is humans deciding that. Now, humans are also "black boxes", that make biased, often discriminating choices. And with humans, that issue is hard to fix because you can try to "educate them" to work against their biases, but because we don't make probabilistic choices, this is really hard. When you have an AI make those decisions, you can explicitly look for bias. For that parole system, for example, it has been proven that this bias exists - because the AI only mirrors society and society is pretty racist. But as a developer, you now have the opportunity to explicitly fix this issue by explicitly encouraging the AI to not just minimize the general error but to also minimize the difference in error (both positive as well as negative) between white and black people, so that the resulting algorithm, while still a black box, is going to be significantly less racist than the average human that would otherwise make that choice. Technology is neither good nor bad, it is what we do with it that matters. And AIs making some choices for us could actually lead to a more equal society because we can find and address unfair bias way better in an algorithm than in actual humans.
Chill out man
Hi, as a programmer you have relevant information, get it to people who can use it. Find philosophers, politicians, ect tell them what you know. Obviously none of us can solve any of these problems alone. But find someplace to put the information you have. Your experience is worth more than you probably give it credit for
Capitalism is designed to make you feel this way. To feel hopeless, to doubt yourself. To make to accept the blame of something you didn't do.
The biggest obstacle we face fighting against such a dystopian system is the self doubt that was forced into us. The hopelessness makes people give up the fight for freedom - and that's why Capitalism makes us feel hopeless.
Never give up. They have enslaved us in almost every way, but if you're a Leftist, then there's one way in which you're free - your mind. Don't let them enslave that too, because they will in a heartbeat if you let them. I know because I see the people around me, and they're all just cogs in the machine, they feel hopeless, but they've accepted it.
Never accept helplessness. Because together, we can and will win this war.
I like how the more he listens to the security guard the further he gets, it's great commentary on the importance of listening to people and meeting them where they are. Leftists will have experiences to indicate it, but we still often get caught up in scoeing points, but it's not as effective, or as affective, as letting people pour their hearts out, and just guide them. If people dissagree with us fundamentally, we are likely to be wrong, or they are incapable of seeing the truth, but most people agree deep down, so helping them process info, and giving them access to it in the first place is often enough to get them to agree, but it's still really hard.
Edit: I originally misspelled security guard sexurity guard.
I really need to work on that - if only there was a rewind in real life.
this fails to account for the fact that lots of people don't have many thoughts beyond what they are told to be the case and then get angry when the cognitive dissonance between their pride, fears and morals just make them get angry or dismissive. staying within your critique though, It was fairly important to note that even by listening to the bouncer, nothing changed, in circumstance or the bouncers opinion.
@@sotetsotetsotetsotetsotet2379 however we the viewer did learn more. Much like the Socratic dialogue that is mentioned, arguing like this isn't always about trying to convince the person you are talking to, it is to convince observers.
I *try* to have this attitude in online discourse. If others come across our conversation, which side will persuade them?
I think it's rather more that the more data he has to work with from the security guard's opinions, the more likely he will be to convince the security guard to change his mind.
@@DrDirtyHarryI definitely agree with you and thank you. For me it is extremely important. I enjoy entering videos with interesting controversial topics and going to the exact comments that i am sure that I absolutely disagree. Then I observe the reaction, the response if you will, of like-minded individuals and try to put my self on both ends. I humbly feel that the observation of a discussion and the strength and validity of some arguments and especially the way they are presented and expressed, can be better studied if I do it from my screen. I can read it. Stop. Then reread it. Google if there is something I don't get or know etc etc. Every time there is a big controversy on the internet I skip all the comedic or irrelevant comments and I try to find the debates that interest me and especially the best possible arguments against my initial belief/conviction. I don't know it feels.. like some kind of self criticism to challenge everything you THINK you believe.
oh man, that ‘because it makes me feel powerless’ line really got me. i occasionally try to limit data collection, but it always leaves me feeling like it’s a futile effort
Every time I bother to make the effort to declare what cookies I'm willing to have tracked, a sad little voice in my head sighs and another laughs at the futility. Like a little gremlin that thinks "ha ha haaa, think you can foil meeee?"
@@camillajefferson386 There is a show Show Vendors or Show Purposes button. You can disagree with everything. I don't know if it actually works but it's there, so I use it.
I wanna start this out by saying, this should NOT be our responsibility. The government is supposed to control and regulate this.
However, as long as it IS our responsibility, there's a lot you can do. Run Linux full-time. Cut out social media, except for when it's critical (this is good for your mental health too). Be disconnected from the internet on your computer whenever you can. Use a privacy-focused Android ROM, like GrapheneOS. Use a browser that's not connected to your Google account + privacy addons (Brave is actually really good by default).
It's a lot to learn. But it's possible, if difficult. The smartphone and browser steps are the most important and will cut out the most. Operating system choice is second priority.
you know when you have an argument with someone and it goes kinda badly for you bc you’re all flustered about the subject and then for days afterwards you’re replaying the conversation in your mind and thinking of far better things you could have said in response to everything your opponent put forwards? that’s what this video feels like
I've been the bouncer on the other side of this conversation and scanned more IDs than I could ever count. In all that time, fewer than 1% ever asked why we scanned the IDs. Even fewer pressed for an explanation of what was done with the information scanned. We were told just to say it was for security purposes and that the data was not stored. The data was definitely stored.
" *MMMMMÑYEEOOMMM* "
"whats that?"
"An ID scanner"
"What does it do?"
" *MMMMMÑYEOOOMMMM* "
@@free_siobhan:D
@@free_siobhan prehistoric instrument sound used in modern technological dystopia.
It sucks, because we have options. We vote, join unions, make some fuss online... But at the end of the day, we still have to live. We have to put these issues down and go to work, go to school, see friends, have lives. At the end of the day, we don't want to think about it. And it sucks.
That's kind of the point, if you are always busy working you have less time to question
@@freewillie8487 I guess that's what I'm (clumsily) trying to say. Olly pointed out the issue, and why it isn't as well discussed as it probably should be. And it's a situation that sucks. I understand the seriousness of the situation, and I am concerned, but I'm physically incapable of keeping it in mind all the time. I have to have a life.
@@robotbirb7321 sorry if I came off as aggressive, I completely agree the situation sucks and it's meant to be that way. I have way too often been told "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about". You are right it's incredibly hard to inform yourself of the facts and the truth let alone do something about it.
@@freewillie8487 Lol yeah text loses a lot of tone! It happens. Sorry if I sounded aggressive too, totally not meant that way. I'm just lamenting the state of everything- we have to be cognizant of what your data is being used for, and we probably should be less cavalier about how it's gathered and used. But the bouncer isn't wrong. I don't want to think about it. Olly's Socratic Dialogues are fantastic- I'm the bouncer, having to re-evaluate if I can afford to continue to be the bouncer, and I'm trying to come to terms with that in the RUclips comments section. Lol.
Oliver does a really good job of making steel man arguments. In this video, the ben Shapiro one, and the gaming one. Rather than strawmen, which oversimplifies and misrepresents your opponent’s argument, Oliver uses steel man, which is when you argue for your opponent’s point of view better than they could and then take down that argument.
a FANTASTIC way of handling that "refute your opponent" thing
It's the perfect strategy to deal with this age of deluge of deflection and misdirection we get from the internet.
@@tbirdguy1 Is it, though? I've only ever seen people dismiss it as a strawman argument in itself.
Its just a sincere socratic dialogue. That's what happens when people care about the arguments more than the rhetoric.
I see the point that you're making. Do you think Oliver tryied to show the steel men when he wrote the the script and played the played the role of the guy scanning the ID?
the part about poor people selling their data really hit me even though it was only five seconds long. when the bouncer proposed the idea i thought “yeah, i’d sell my data, bills would be easier to pay.” i guess i’ve just been desensitised to the dangers of selling your data
__
These subtitles are great.
The ironic thing is: none wants to think. The bouncer does not want to think but neither does the other guy. The bouncer wants to do his job and go back home and live his life absentmindedly, but so does the club goer. The only difference is that he realizes that constant surveillance IS want prevents you from just living your life absentmindedly. Because we should be able to live our lives without having to think too much about everything.
They both stand in the same side, but multinational corporations with massive surveillance apparatuses pitch them against each other. One doesn't want to think, the other want wants the same thing but realizes that he can't afford that luxury until certain things are solved.
I think it would have been badass if the customer, at the end, would have said: me neither, and that's the problem, ain't it?
Because it would have been right in so many lvls!
Oh I quite enjoy thinking for its own sake, but of course only about things that interest me. What I don't want are things impeding the pleasures of thinking freely, which forces the otherwise pleasurable activity of "reflection" into a burdensome task of thinking about the loss of pleasure in thinking, identifying what led to the loss, and finding the remedies. I'd rather not think about any of that, but since it affects and taints something I'm generally interested in ("thinking freely"), I feel there isn't much of a choice.
@@AMomentousMori Agreed on all counts, with both your comment and the original, too. Reflection is well and good - and can be quite pleasurable, I mean, many people don't realise what fun bonkers purely and rigorously rationally-constructed (epistemo-)logical musings can be even on their own, not to mention the mix in with the intuitive, creative part, like the kind Olly does - but only when done freely, out of interest and pleasure, and not forcefully, because of necessity. One should have the choice to think or not, and not the obligation to think about that either.
Sometimes everyone likes to think and train their mental muscles. Sometimes everyone likes to kick back, stare at the ceiling listening to music and emptying one's mind, or eating coco-pops with ice-cream and watch soap operas, or whatever it is each of us does to accomplish that state. And no-one likes to have to think about thinking itself, unless it's done in the fun way, at least. Let's go mad, but for the right reasons and in the right way, at least. :P
The other guy definitely wants to think, or else there would be no pause and reflect/rewind. He could have just shrugged, been squicked by the experience and moved on. And yes its a framing device but both characters rewind through the conversation at some point. The bouncer just denies that he has feelings for his rewind and ultimately is engaged in the conversation so long as he can remain feeling superior (And/or Olly is just flirting with himself at some point). As soon as any sort of vulnerability is required on the bouncer's part the conversation ends. The main dude definitely doesn't like being vulnerable, from the awkward squirming after each emotional outpouring, but he still is willing to for the conversation.
I'd like to keep thinking. Or better yet, I'd like to keep feeling unlike the bouncer.
@@Azlinea Wise.
@@charalampostsakirides-pala2761 Comes with the name ;p
But in all seriousness, I'm kinda of just paraphrasing Satre and Simon de Beauvoir with some context to back it up.
i just want to commend the incredible patience of the people waiting behind him
And the one in the middle who also figured out how to defeat the Met's facial recognition tech by keeping their cap down the whole time.
the way i figure it that's us... potentially underappreciating the battles right in front of us
@@PanicbyExample I don't see it as them underappreciating the battle, I see as two things.
1. They represent convenience, or Olly at the beginning. Don't make a fuss, don't waste other people's time. The bouncer has kids at home, bills to pay, a game to watch, and Olly is standing in the way of that. In the same way the other people in line want to go in, forget their days, and just have fun with friends. To protest is to inflict harm in a way, its standing in a road and making someone late to work, or its going on a strike and causing the manager to lose money that she needs to send her kid to college.
2. They represent bystanders. It's not that they underappreciated the battle in front of them, though that might play a part. Maybe they just don't know, or don't care, or they agree but they think it'll all work itself out in the future. Olly can't go and run into the woods because of them, if he steps aside and lets the bouncer scan his card, they're next. And yeah it might not hurt them specifically, but what about the next guy in line? And the kid after that? And the prisoner after that? It's why individual actions to protect privacy are meaningless, because even if Olly somehow beats the bouncer he still hasn't gotten rid of the scanner.
Since technically they're not "living" the rewinds the conversation is not THAT long, waiting 10-15 minutes in lines at a club is pretty normal
this dialogue was not only a brilliant way not only to present the arguments and counterarguments, but to illustrate the most effective way for the left to reach out to the average worker. your argument won't land until you've connected with the other person, when what you've said resonates with them and you approach the conversation as equals. when ellis jokingly agreed that, yeah, this surveillance thing is kinda shitty, the boss has got cameras everywhere, that's when he became open to the debate. ugh. your mind olly
As the end shows, however, getting through to someone doesn't assure change. It can just as easily leave them even more distant and unwilling to learn.
This shows that the key is not to attack the person, but to make him cooperate with you towards the same goal.
This format seems like it’s gonna be really gnawing and repetitive and then you look up from the screen and it’s 26 minutes later, and realize you found it really enjoyable
i watched it twice in a row to understand it better and catch all the metaphors,, felt like 5 minutes lol
I'm a cashier, and cannot believe how much i resonate with this message.
I have recently been forced to start scanning id's, and i didn't think much of it. "I dont want to think", i suppose. Just yesterday a customer was spouting about how strange it is we have barcodes associated with us.
This video is a perfect representation of how absolutley powerless we all are, and how senselessly oblivious the general public is to it.
We trust too much, and we will always be exploited as long as we allow it.
> I'm a cashier ... I have recently been forced to start scanning id's
How does that even work? People in a store have to show ID to buy some stuff? Or is it just when you need to see ID (like for alcohol and tabacco), you also scan them? I'm in central Europe, I've never heard of this before. How common is this?
@@argh523
it's becomming mandatory accross the states one gas statiom chain by another. I personally work in a tobacco shop, so it's especially enforced. But i've been denied nicotine because my id doesn't scan. Another halarious fault of the gov. They are mandating "federal id's" as opposed to state level within a the next few years, and the ones in my state fail to scan.
Wait this is real? What? I thought this was like a dystopian future...
@@jenniferpearson9707 Very real.
So if someone comes in and just wants to spend a $1 for a lotto ticket or buy a candy bar with cash, you still have to scan their id? Or is it just for alcohol and tobacco?
this is probably the best visual representation of the depression and defeat that is felt when going over things in one's mind - what could have been said to change anything, to make even one small change, to make things even a little bit better, to have gained even one thing
only to feel like it always just ends up like this
Enjoyed the CC, thanks
I've heard that the French call this "the spirit of the stairwell", when you think of what you should have said long after it would have mattered.
I too don't want to think, because it makes me angry. At the end of the day, I don't want to be angry anymore. I just want to enjoy life as little as they're letting me to. I purposely isolate myself from what's happening in the world because I just want to be at peace. I'm a mentally ill person which is a enough problem of itself and adding up on things to worry about only makes it more difficult to heal, only prevents it from getting better. I used to be way more involved, way more worried, way more angry everyday, but it DRAINED me dry, it worsened my health. So yeah, I don't want to think. I just want to embroider pretty patterns on my clothes and watch cartoons and look at the fucking sunset everyday. And I want people to let me be, because I need that tiny bit of peace.
This video made me feel guilty, in an absolutely good way. But I admit I don't feel like I can do much about it. I'm so glad that you made it though. Your work is great Oliver, please keep going. And if you need to stop thinking and go look at the fucking sunset or whichever daily natural phenomenon you like in order to not go mad, PLEASE do it. They can't figure out ads for that.
I feel that so much
Amen.
“No one is in control of their life just go and have a pint” geez that is dark how familiar that thought feels. But at least we seem to be in a moment where there is hope for something better.
This was a very bold framing of a socratic dialogue, I like the way you take the concept to its fullest potential. Honestly, by the half way point I surprised you had so much left to do with it, but you found so many ways to keep it fresh. I would guess a lot of people will have clicked away earlier than they might have on your other videos, given the inherently repetition in the dialogue, but I'd like to say that I really appreciated this.
My brain when I realized this whole video is an algorithm. It keeps rewinding whenever it hits a dead end, and going back to find the right path.
👏👏👏👏
it's brilliant
Philosophy Tube: extremely well scripted and thought out procedural dialectic
Me: AIII BOP AFTER BOP WI KIM!
Its not "AII BOP AFTER BOP WI KIM!" its "AYE BOP AFTER BOP WI' KIM"
@@DJ-vg1pr lewk, if you wanna correct my spelling of slag that's your prerogative, but phonetically I'm still accurate. Plus, I am actually a Scot and I dinny think it's that big a deal, pal.
@@picksleydust4985 as a Scot how would you rate Oliver's performance?
@@picksleydust4985 I am also a Scot, and I only mean it as a bit of friendly patter
“If you hate technology so much, why don’t you go live in the woods?”
“BECAUSE I SHOULDN’T BLOODY HAVE TO!!!”
And you legally can't do it. You'd be arrested for squatting and illegally hunting and fishing.
@@christophersnedeker There's not a square inch of land in the world that someone could live of for free and freely. Only remote places that are less likely to have you caught.
This must have been a nightmare to script and edit.
Thanks for all the hard work.
Here's some food for thought - I found Philosophy Tube via targeted advertising.
Jesus christ that's actually extremely fitting
This is an impressively concise if horrifying intro to the irony of most people's fears about AI. Most people fear AI becoming too smart and taking over, not realizing the scarier reality is AI is incredibly dumb and it pretty much already has. AI would be actually be less frightening if it if was smarter than us and not shackled by an evolved tendency towards short-term thinking.
However the predicament we're in is that the companies awkwardly fumbling with this collected data know they're doing a shit job, however it's still works well enough to be more profitable than the equivalent results from expensive humans. They've even acknowledge and accept the consequences of the damaged reputation because it still doesn't tip the equation away from doing it. And they can simply buy any potential competitors that try to carve out some market share with a principled stand.
The only way to change the behavior is through legislation, which is incredibly unlikely anytime soon since it's generally left-leaning politicians that propose it and packaged into a "liberal agenda" and opposed without understanding the irony the threat it poses to them
So may as well enjoy the traffic update you didn't ask for and
Now I want there to be a dating sim where you play as a basic Olly trying to seduce various characters that are also Olly.
A perfect world
Link to the Kickstarter?
Oof, this comment REALLY didn’t age well
Does anyone else want to see The Arsonist and his sister, going at it?
Watched through a keyhole by Sir Nigel Piss, from the Confucius video, his monocle steaming and having to be furiously polished.
@@sasserine Only if there's also a snake on somebody's chest!
Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'
Discworld is just the best
I'm always happy to see a Discworld reference.
You might not be able to convince someone in 1 perfect dialogue to change their opinion, but over like 4 dialogues you can get someone to be ruder and ruder to the people behind you in line
In this video: Ollie tries to talk his way into getting into a club he's been banned from. To do so he needs to convince the bouncer not to look at his ID
He was banned for having such an engaging conversation with the bar staff about the enduring relevance of Marxism that nobody could buy any drinks for three and a half hours.
That's my theory 🤷♂️
Currently doing my PhD in high-dimensional statistics ("Big Data"), so this topic is very close to my heart. I generally agree with the points raised here, data privacy is an issue well worth giving thought to.
I can't say I know much about location tracking data, but I know of some pretty concerning cases where people managed to match anonymous data to facebook profiles and get more information about them through other publicly available information. Fortunately, this is pretty well-known issue and in most cases there are measures in place to prevent abuse. For example, most income data tends to be "top-coded"; values above a certain threshold are censored, so you only know that they are above that threshold, not the actual value. This is done because there tends to be a relatively small number of extreme outliers who are easy to match with real people (yes, income inequality is also a data privacy issue). Data censoring is a well-studied issue and work goes into developing statistical methods that take it into account.
There were two specific points I take issue with. The first is your example of the police using an algorithm to detect child pornography, or trying to tell if the animal is a wolf or not. These "black box" neural network algorithms are pretty old news now, and there are lots of methods which focus on identifying exactly which features of the data are important in predicting the correct outcomes. In many applications, knowing these features is far more important than the actual prediction itself. Of course, not knowing what exactly the algorithm is doing is a serious problem.
My biggest gripe was with the part at 11:45 regarding different interpretations of what "probable" means. I very much disagree with this separation of the mathematical concept of probability with how we use it in our practical lives. The concept of probability has existed before any of the mathematical rules did; the problem with probabilities is that we suffer from systematic cognitive biases that make our intuition very unreliable - that's why we make a system with axioms that we all agree should hold for any internally consistent concept of probability. We then use maths to derive rules, free of our biases. To give an analogy, take the Müller-Lyer illusion. You look at the lines, and say that one line is longer than the other. When a ruler is used to compare the lines, you say "The question is flawed, when people think of length, they think of how long it appears to be, not long a ruler would measure it to be." Just because we're ill-equipped to answer a question intuitively doesn't mean the question is flawed.
If there's a problem with internally contradictory concepts, then there's a problem with human beings if we cannot evaluate probabilities in the same way a "mathematical machine" can.
Cheers :)
The subtlety and beauty of the videos Olly makes are just astonishing every time. The transition of power in this video is so clever that I almost didn't notice. You start by thinking that Olly is on your side and that the bouncer represents the established power and control. You end the video realizing that you are the bouncer and you never had control in the first place.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean enough to be sure, but I feel like I agree - would you mind clarifying this point a bit to help me figure it out? :)
@@the_potato_herald they mean that the bouncer is just like all of us; we get paid to participate in things that sometimes we straight up dont want to do. Sometimes when doing this, we like to not think about it, because thinking about all of it makes us miserable. We are on both ends. Fighting the data collecting, as well as indirectly participating in the collection!
@@the_potato_herald Well, the fact that Olly is rewinding the video to change the way that he is presenting his arguments every time the bouncer doesn't understand or gets frustrated initially feels like it's under the bouncer's control. However, the video ends when the bouncer admits that he doesn't want to think. He gives up his power and control over the situation, the conversation, and his privacy in that moment, and Olly doesn't reply at all. You could then conclude that the bouncer giving up is what Olly was trying to accomplish the whole time. Thus, Olly was acting as the "algorithm" whose entire goal was to stop the bouncer from thinking by adjusting its personalized approach to each argument. (This could be read as an easy metaphor for targeted advertising, if somewhat dramatic depending on your point of view.) In viewing the allegory that way, we (the uneducated public - and I mean uneducated on this topic, not necessarily generally uneducated) play the role of the bouncer who thought he was in control, but was really being manipulated the whole time.
@@alesdaer thank you, that makes a lot of sense, and adds a nice layer I wouldn't have picked up on
Gosh, I've had one of those fancy ID scanners in my shed for years and I didn't even know that's what it was for.
Does yours also sound like a didgeridoo, to is that just the newer models?
How is this comment six days old on the day this video was released?
"6 days ago" wtf
@@natschlamp I believe Olly has a Patreon, and I don't know if it's the case for this video but other RUclipsrs have a Patreon tier where you can pay to get early access to the video, before it's even released.
I usually find Socratic dialogues confusing to parse at a certain point but this one really kept my attention. The way multiple arguments were integrated into the essay showed the different ways to approach rebuttals which I thought was nice.
This was a really inventive video and I really liked it.
I watched that video like 4 or 5 times and it's only now I realised what the framing does. Because the person coming to the club is shown a little from the above and the bouncer is shown from lower perspective we unconsciously have the feeling that the bouncer is superior to the other person, and he actually is because they can decide whether to let somebody walk in providing they give they data to the club. Truly a masterpiece.
The “I don’t want to think” line really hit me. It’s exactly what I see in people that choose to avoid problems that glaring, but it’s also what I see in myself quite often. Willful ignorance seems to be the easiest way to deal with these types of issues, but it doesn’t solve anything.
It kind of summed up my day and feelings sometimes. You do your best in whatever way you can, but ultimately you just try not to think about how fucked up things are and how helpless we are to really make a measurable difference. When you think about it too much it drags you down and you stop doing anything helpful because you feel like there's no point.
I think it's less that you choose to avoid it, but that there's little if nothing to gain to try and question it, at least on the individual level and the immediate future, and that's by design.
I appreciate how the editing itself is also commentary on the futility of arguments like these. I've personally had many conversations with different people about data privacy, and they always feel like this; even if I had the ability to go back constantly and change what I said, we're so powerless as consumers that there's no conclusion to the argument that isn't mired in either intentional ignorance or dystopic misery. And it isn't like these megacorporations like Facebook and Google are evil, data collection like this is just an inevitable outcome of capitalistic optimization. Data is just too useful for them to reasonably stop.
21:51: You're making me think about myself. I don't want to think about myself, do you understand? I don't wanna think about what this machine does. I wanna get through my shift, and go home, and on the weekend, I wanna get drunk and watch celtic beat the rangers, do you hear me? *I. Don't. Want. To think.*
A very powerful, down-to-earth line that gets to the heart of the problem of convincing society to change for the better. It's that exhaustion, that desire for the simple, easy way, in a universe of complexity, that makes it easy for scams and fascism to flourish, and hard for democracy and positive social changes to get going and be effective. Brilliant work, Olly!
this whole starting scene feels like a weird improv exercise and i’m not complaining
edit: holy shit it’s the whole video. you pure braw legend
Best NordVPN ad I've seen in a while
You're still giving your data to NordVPN in that scenario
@@PlatformNo14 not necessarily. I am unfamiliar with Nord VPN's workings exactly, but if they store any of your data, it is in the terms of service you agree to. Read it before buying a VPN
Huawei: Hmmm this random Nord IP automatically logged into a Gay Bar WiFi in San Francisco. Was it stolen?
Google: Oh no, it's just Kyle, he googled fake IDs and bought NordVPN on his way to hook up with an older man...
Facebook: oh yeah I read that. There's lewds here. Want me to share just in case Kyle is underage?
Huawei: this phone was sold to a... 28 year old lady. And it frequently connects to a middleschool's WiFi.
CIA: OH SHIT WADDUP
Please use TOR
Honestly, one of the best vids you've ever put out.
Having the whole spill play out as a Socratic Dialogue between 2 lower/middle class individuals is a perfect way to show how massive the scale of the problem is. And the dialogue was very fleshed out and natural.
Absolutely brilliant episode mate!
“What’s that?”
*holds up generic hammer*
“It’s an id scanner”
yeah. we have all seen the video...
Clever metaphor, when all you have is a hammer, all problems become nails. Data collection is the hammer. There are other ways to solve crimes and such.
It also speak of the violence potential of the scanner and how we change our way of being bc of it's presence.
*continues playing didgeridoo*
Beyond these other observations, it could be anything. A hammer, a can of peas, a plush toy.
These algorithms are black boxes.
Abi's made so many wonderful videos, but this has to be my favorite of hers. It's so incredibly clever and thought-provoking, I find myself coming back to it often.
It’s such an underrated masterpiece that remains relevant
>her
😂😂😂
I just wish that "Will you shut up? We're trying to have a Socratic dialogue over here!" would be a more acceptable response in any social situation
"um excuse me we're having some DISCOURSE over here m8"
The infinite patience of the extras in the bg checking their phones across dozens of timelines is Inspiring
My public high school now requires all students to wear ids. Need one to ride the bus, need one to get lunch now. Students need to pay for replacement ids, and after using 6 temporary ids you get detention. Students of color and any students already more targeted by hall monitors are way more likely to get noticed and sent to their dean. Almost no teachers speak out around students. When students raise complaints teachers just say “its just the way it is now, so you need to do it whether you like it or not”
I will never forgive Abby for the fact that whenever I’m playing Fallout: New Vegas (which is often), every time they say “the Mojave” (which is a LOT) the only thing I can hear in my head is “That’s nay a pair of tits, that’s the Mojave”
"I dont want to think" the words that will end our civilization
I don't believe "I don't want to think" is a decision made willingly and without coercion.
"Coercion" in this case means a society that makes its people constantly: tired, distracted, stressed, and depreciated.
It's hard to care about things like your internet and IRL privacy in a society where you can go from financially OK to financially ruined in the time it takes for your car to get T-boned on the way to work, hard to care when 24/7 news channels blast Awful News on top of Awful News all day and night (and bad news is addicting the way a really good cup of french fries is hard to put down), hard to care when bills are months late and the kids need food and your food budget is $5 and a shoebox, hard to care when you work long hours with garbage pay managed by people who got their position through socializing rather than skillsets (and, of course, you have no promotion potential because Reasons™)...
"I don't want to think" is not a common result born of a vacuum. It is a carefully planned and calculated endgoal.
words that characterize my reaction to Pete Buttigieg and subsequent inevitable ketamine addiction
I think they already ended our civilization.
"calm down sweetheart were I'm trying to have a Socratic dialogue here"
Said no bouncer ever ! XD
So much save scumming and we still didn't make it to the good ending...
maybe not, but at least the information was put out there. thinking about these things can be really scary but now the hypothetical bouncer is sort of forced to contend with the fact that they're complacent in a system that dehumanizes them. who knows, it might be the start of their willingness to participate in activism. oof sorry to give a serious reply to your joke post x~x
Oh god i know right?!! lol
The point is that there isn't a good ending. The objective of the conversation was always kind of depressing, and people won't be happier on an individual level just because you made them think more "wokely" about their situation.
Despite Olly's "why the left will win" video.
There's a very real possibility that we'll never get that good ending. Ever. It isn't zero.
@@tenchimuyo69 Nono, you're confusing a good ending individually with a good ending globally. This conversation was never ending in The Left Winning, ever. It's just a discussion at a club. It won't change anything. The good ending WOULD be "winning the argument and getting your points across" but that does in fact happen. The good ending was achieved, and it wasn't all that good. Because winning arguments on an individual scale doesn't really help that much.
This was incredible. Maybe one of my favorite videos from Philosophy Tube, if not the entirety of RUclips. I can’t believe I slept on it for so long. Thank you, Abigail!
"Oi d'you mind shuttin' your face, sweetheart? I'm tryn'a have a Socratic dialogue over here!"
-Ellis, (the best character in the philosophy tube mythos)
Really loved this format, kind of felt like a videogame dialogue tree or something where you keep quick saving on every dialogue choice lmao
I think about privact in terms of herd immunity. Sure, I have nothing to hide. But a journalist reporting on corruption, a person in dire straits... They could need privacy more than I can understand. By forfeiting my right to privacy, I make it easier for the rights of those who need them to be taken away. Humans must stand in solidarity against surveillance.
Irksome Consumer this
Thank you.
You *think* you don't have anything to hide, but algorithms that can affect your live (e.g for insurance, lending, even bail or jail time) can possibly take into account something that you consider benign.
I love how the captions have become an integral part of the humour.
12:14 'synth that sounds like failure'
12:24 '
“It’s not a problem with humans that they don’t think like mathematical machines.”
Just a mildly profound quote
That's just a psychological bias.
It's not a problem with us as people, but it is a problem in our logic. We aren't perfectly logical, but we should try not to be biased when determining probability.
It took until the second failure, over 12 minutes in that I was like "Wait, if that's a failure, who's the player-Wait... Okay, it's not just a conversational device, it's the algorithm."
Well, I agree with the point which makes me an easy target but my favorite part of this video is that it is an honest analysis of how to speak to people about complex issues, and it clearly shows how pretentious point-scoring keeps the conversation from moving forward.
No, but it's true tho. If a man in a beanie walks up to you, he'll never stop talking. That's your whole night.
As a man who has been a longtime wearer of beanies... I can attest that this, indeed, the case.
Now, who would like to hear about the JFK assassination?
Life is Strange: Cyberpunk Edition.
Katana Zero but it's the secret scene outside the bar.
YES
It even has a emotional, angry tornado
The part where you mentioned kids with smartphones sent chills down my spine. We won't have a future where kids don't have smartphones. They're becoming too essential to our everyday lives. My little brother has a phone to call his mom to get him from work at variable hours, another, from school, because he stays late for electives. The fact that if someone with their data were so inclined, they could kidnap them anonymously using it at any point - is terrifying.
There’s a thing which some startups keep trying to make happen of bringing back “dumb” phones, which can only make calls and send texts. Not sure how well that’s going though.
Seeing the lore of Abby's little metaverse evolve through philosophical dialogue is absolutely amazing.
How tf did you predict the metaverse in a youtube comment WTF
"If it's sinister to do to children, then why isn't it sinister to do it to adults to?"
Olly proves sex is bad with facts and logic.
I fucking knew it.
Consent dude
@@ryan1840 He's joking honey, we know.
Because adults can consent. I know this is a joke but there is an answer
@@ilan5821 "do it to" implies that there is no consent given.
Point taken: Don't stand behind Olly on a queue.
Maybe not stand behind Olly in a queue... but I'd def have his back in a queue.
Orrr....Stand behind Olly in a queue, eat popcorn and wonder if this is some sort of elaborate flitation with the hot Scottish bouncer I guess...
Note that his butt is under direct human surveillance the entire time.
This comment thread is getting progressively more parasocial and I am here for it I guess...
As someone who works to eliminate user targeting from ad tech by developing privacy-respecting alternatives, let me say this video is spot on, and I appreciate it. The problems with machine learning are particularly nuanced but you got a handle on them very effectively here. Thank you!
"Oi d'you mind shuttin' yer face sweetheart, I'm tryn'a have a Socratic dialogue over here!" is my new favorite sentence i think :D