It’s Friday, but that’s not really a big deal for me, since I’m working tomorrow.  Honestly, though, the difference between leisure time and work time for me anymore is mainly just where I happen to be, since I don’t find any significant joy in either situation.  There’s not much I can do about that, other than just lay down and die, which has its appeal.

I walked to the train station this morning, having walked very little yesterday.  I made good time, and my ankles seem to be okay, more or less, which is nice.  I listened to parts of a couple of old podcasts while walking, one by Sean Carroll, the other by Sam Harris, and each one led me briefly to make a voice recording of a thought that came to me at the time.

First, the Sean Carroll one led me to make a rather bad play on words:  “It’s no exaggeration that to say that y equals one over x is to be speaking hyperbolically.”  It’s a silly play on the fact that “hyperbolic” can refer to an exaggeration or to the mathematical shape, a hyperbola.

Hey, I’m be here all week.  Make sure to tip your servers.

(Should you tip your local area network, though?  That’s a trickier question.)

So, that was the silly thought.  The more serious one came as I listened to Sam Harris’s podcast with Nina Schick, the author of Deepfakes: The Coming Infocalypse, in which they discussed the advent and potential impacts of the increasing ability to make (and the decreasing cost of) convincing simulated representations of real people’s voices and appearances.  Of course, among the potential issues being presented was that this will actually increase the deniability of inconvenient events for political and other public figures, but at root, to me, it brings to mind something I wrote some time ago in a blog post on the problem of attribution.

When one quotes a person who said something one thinks is worth repeating, it’s generally considered appropriate to give an attribution, to credit the quote.  But even before the advent of possible deep fakery, the tendency to attribute quotes is a problem because humans are so idiotically tribal.  If you say a quote comes from Karl Marx or from Ayn Rand, you will automatically gain free credit and presumptive agreement from one group and automatic dismissal, disdain, and even hatred from another.

That’s stupid.  It’s not who says something that makes it true or valuable or worthy of note; it’s the actual thing being said.  This is one of the reasons I dislike formal debates, and the techniques of rhetoric in general.  They all boil down to primate dominance displays‒manipulations rather than actual, useful reasoning and sharing of the best available information.

I remember back in the late 90s, when people were getting all excited about the burgeoning web and internet, and about how they were going to make information so much cheaper and more readily available.  I agreed that would be the case, but I also had real misgivings, because I knew that also meant that misinformation, disinformation, and noise would become ever easier to disseminate.  And now, of course, people can “see” things online that never took place, and which nevertheless will influence their sense of what is real.  But reality does exist, outside of any perceptions or biases, though we may always only imperfectly apprehend it.

I think people shouldn’t worry nearly as much about who said something as about what exactly was said and whether or not it was true or plausible or reasonable or rational.  I suppose that being aware of a source’s credentials and track record can make one better able to decide whether to pay any attention whatsoever to what they say or write‒we all have only finite time and attention‒but even so, you should think rigorously about what someone says, no matter who says it.  Your favorite person can be (and is) wrong about many things, and your most hated enemy can say things that are correct (sometimes about you).

Hitler and Stalin were both quite aware that 2 + 2 = 4 and that the sun comes up in the east (so to speak), but the fact that these odious figures accepted such truths doesn’t make the facts any less true.  And the fact that the son and nephew of beloved historical political figures claims (miserabile* dictu) that vaccines cause autism and Wi-Fi causes cancer does not for a moment gainsay all the research that has demonstrated that they do not and that it does not.

Maybe people should just stick to print media and perhaps even only to printed print media.  At least there’s some cost to its production and that might weed out some of the riff-raff.  Though, come to think of it, maybe it wouldn’t.  It’s not as though there haven’t long been whole bookstores full of psychic and supernatural bullshit, and large sections of such material selling quite well even in reputable emporia.

Maybe people should just use online media of various kinds as entertainment but not as sources of information and evidence for too many things.  Then again, there are very good science programs and other kinds of information online that are wonderful to behold, and that can be informative and thought-provoking.  Even some blogs are quite good (this is probably not one of them).

I guess, maybe people should just try to think carefully and rigorously, and to recognize their own fallibility and that of their idols, as well as the potential for their “enemies” to be right sometimes and to be often other than pure incarnations of evil.

Maybe pigs should grow wings and take a skiing trip to Hell.

I’m not optimistic.  But hopefully I’ll be dead before everything goes to shit.  Unless that’s already happened, and this is the dystopia.  After all, how does one know one is in a failed society from the inside?  I suppose there are objective facts to be noticed in such a case, but that’s the heart of the problem.

Heavy sigh.

*That was deliberate, not a typo.