joshgellers.bsky.social
Professor, Political Science. Expert, Global AI Ethics Institute. Author, Rights for Robots. Co-editor, OUP’s AI in Society series. https://www.joshgellers.com
291 posts
983 followers
795 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Why are you using scare quotes around the word experts?
comment in response to
post
Oh maybe he’ll announce another grifting business venture meant to enrich the president and his family?
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
This is the intended result of a fear campaign.
comment in response to
post
Whither guardrails?
comment in response to
post
Super interesting phenomenon. One of the IEEE groups I’m involved with (P7017) focuses on religious robots and this might serve as a cautionary tale case study.
comment in response to
post
The cruelty is the point. People who score high on status threat/social dominance orientation are frothing at the mouth over this. This is exactly what they wanted, empathy be damned.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for following up. I definitely did not review for this journal that doesn’t seem to exist (at least in the name that was given).
comment in response to
post
I know there will be a LOT of criticism of this but it shows where universities are heading. Small schools will simply crumble if they can’t adapt. Students will turn to LinkedIn learning if we can’t train them for the AI-powered economy.
comment in response to
post
Don’t go down the Cocomelon rabbit hole…
comment in response to
post
Except when the government said he wasn’t and tried to pin it on an obscure employee who was on vacation.
comment in response to
post
Yes! Regenerative braking is amazing. Also helps with real-time data for insurance companies (less evidence of braking hard) and puts less wear and tear on your brakes.
comment in response to
post
To clarify- I meant the relationship IS severed, not that it SHOULD be that way. Polls show people just don’t care about climate when they can’t afford eggs.
comment in response to
post
In the US, the two are effectively severed.
comment in response to
post
Yes, saying “Reagan might as well have written this book himself” is comically inaccurate. You are conflating “reduce EIA laws” with “deregulate entire industries.”
comment in response to
post
I think a central (unspoken) tension in the book involves the elimination of processes intended to produce environmental justice in favor of outcomes that EJ advocates seek to obtain.
comment in response to
post
If the lesson you got from 2024 was “we shouldn’t try to engage the enemy,” you don’t have a winning strategy for 2028.
comment in response to
post
Yes! Nowhere in the book do they discuss the stagnation of wages and the exponential increase in executive compensation. This is a huge problem.
comment in response to
post
This is the right critique.
comment in response to
post
Except they take specific aim at Reagan in the chapter on science and argue for a strong role played by GOVERNMENT, as opposed to merely REGULATIONS.
Did you actually read the book?
comment in response to
post
Agreed, and yet, I’m not sure it’s a winning strategy for the Dems to build more dense places where low income Trumpers might have to rub elbows with people who don’t look like them. Abundance elides the cultural issues that drove low info voters to the polls.
comment in response to
post
Floridian here.
Is this “America First”?
comment in response to
post
RIP his tenure as Fed chair.
comment in response to
post
The first solo piece on her GS list has 35 cites (her dissertation).
comment in response to
post
*begin
comment in response to
post
Way too literary a reference for the ESPN set.
comment in response to
post
*Who’d have thunk it.
comment in response to
post
What did you think about TC’s portrayal of Dylan?
comment in response to
post
If you only focus on one kind of antisemitism, you aren’t concerned with antisemitism everywhere.
comment in response to
post
@jeffsebo.bsky.social @birchlse.bsky.social @sentientism.bsky.social @coeckelbergh.bsky.social @davidgunkel.bsky.social @jacyanthis.bsky.social @kamilmamak.bsky.social @futuritas.eu @svennyholm.bsky.social @visakurki.bsky.social @profjecker.bsky.social @ezzyod.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
*oil companies enter the chat*
comment in response to
post
Every tech startup is like this- once you are successful you have to constantly find new revenue streams to please shareholders.
comment in response to
post
Translation- states rights are only relevant when we say they are.
comment in response to
post
Leading by example. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
comment in response to
post
Hitch your wagons to a dying, dirty energy source while China runs circles around you in an autonomous spaceship, all to own the libs.
comment in response to
post
By Democrats, do you mean the Federal Reserve and its Trump-appointed chairman? That’s the entity that deals with inflation in our Federal government.
comment in response to
post
@jordanjessego.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
You mean as a result of the stimulus checks signed by Trump?
comment in response to
post
Recall that people who did not consume any news at all scored higher on a test about current events than people who watch Fox News. The real question here is “what is driving the dissatisfaction among low info voters”? Maybe egg prices are still high after all (despite what Trump says)?
comment in response to
post
Europe gets it! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
comment in response to
post
Right here!
comment in response to
post
No, I’d say my whole book is a much more sophisticated analysis of the issue punctuated by two real-world examples in which I deploy my theoretical arguments.
comment in response to
post
That take really glosses over the debate between functionalists and biological naturalists in terms of a theory of mind.
comment in response to
post
OP is making a generalization about people in tech, not the dozens of scholars who have written on this subject. Also, even some human rights theorists are open to the potential of AI rights. I recommend Raman and Schulz’s book, The Coming Good Society. Rights are not a zero-sum game.