There is a huge difference between an obvious and confirmed extinction threat (in this case a comet on a collision course), climate change models (note that climate change is not an extinction-level threat and is not considered to be one by the experts), and conjectures that are being hotly debated by actual subject matter experts in the area (AI extinction risk). If there was anything like a way to test and verify models of AI-caused extinction, the debate would be unnecessary. In general, the movie, while capturing a lot of salient points of the sadly polarized modern discourse, is a left-wing propaganda, where the outgroup is portrayed as a caricature.
I really like the way you explained “If there was anything like a way to test and verify models of AI-caused extinction, the debate would be unnecessary.”Can you say more about how you define propaganda? I see this word used a lot and I’m often underwhelmed by its applicability.
Can you say more about how you define propaganda? I see this word used a lot and I’m often underwhelmed by its applicability.
That’s a good question! I guess in the local parlance it would be something like arguments as soldiers, where we try to convince the other side that we are right and they are wrong. Where accuracy matters less than “your side” winning. In this particular example, the movie writers/directors/producers stuck with the standard left anti-establishment anti-capitalism anit-billionaire ideology, without going into any nuanced analysis. Which is fine for a satire/parody, the way the film was apparently intended. I am by no means a film studies expert though, maybe I got it wrong.
Thank you for taking the time to explain that! I agree with your assessment that accuracy mattered less than the framing and conclusion of the movie. You’ve convinced me that propaganda was appropriate here.
There is a huge difference between an obvious and confirmed extinction threat (in this case a comet on a collision course), climate change models (note that climate change is not an extinction-level threat and is not considered to be one by the experts), and conjectures that are being hotly debated by actual subject matter experts in the area (AI extinction risk). If there was anything like a way to test and verify models of AI-caused extinction, the debate would be unnecessary. In general, the movie, while capturing a lot of salient points of the sadly polarized modern discourse, is a left-wing propaganda, where the outgroup is portrayed as a caricature.
I really like the way you explained “If there was anything like a way to test and verify models of AI-caused extinction, the debate would be unnecessary.”Can you say more about how you define propaganda? I see this word used a lot and I’m often underwhelmed by its applicability.
That’s a good question! I guess in the local parlance it would be something like arguments as soldiers, where we try to convince the other side that we are right and they are wrong. Where accuracy matters less than “your side” winning. In this particular example, the movie writers/directors/producers stuck with the standard left anti-establishment anti-capitalism anit-billionaire ideology, without going into any nuanced analysis. Which is fine for a satire/parody, the way the film was apparently intended. I am by no means a film studies expert though, maybe I got it wrong.
Thank you for taking the time to explain that! I agree with your assessment that accuracy mattered less than the framing and conclusion of the movie. You’ve convinced me that propaganda was appropriate here.