A disturbing development in contemporary political debate is the stratagem of condemning our adversaries as “haters,” individuals whose depravity places their opinions beyond the pale of civilized discourse. Demonizing our rivals is an enormously convenient ploy, one much favoured by totalitarian regimes. It proclaims our superior moral virtue while sparing us the tedious requirement of providing reasons and evidence in support of our views. Theodore Dalrymple, writing in Taki Mag, reminds us that hate is a universal emotion and fulfills a primary human need. Attempts to censor hate speech may arise from noble intentions, but they can only proceed by defining what constitutes an expression of hatred, an almost impossible task.
Keeping the AI Apocalypse at Bay
Writing in City Journal, Judge Glock examines legal efforts to control AI and dismisses the current fixation on suing for specific harms, such as bad advice. “The idea that we should treat Big Tech, including AI companies, like we treated Big Tobacco, is exactly the wrong idea,” he observes. A better approach is to assess product liability based on which parties can perform the task at the cheapest cost, as is the case with the regulation of medical equipment. This “has the benefit of putting the onus on companies themselves to game out dangerous scenarios and prevent them,” he advises. For more on AI, see this C2C article.
