Superficialism is a big threat to people.
If you let AI make decisions for you, blame yourself. Who is responsible, if we offer our free will and ability to criticize some machine? When we follow the orders that the machine gives, we offer our free will to the machine.
The Internet and modern society favor superficial people. People who deliver their ability to think to some machines. When we process the information we receive, we might ask ourselves if we truly think and process that data? Or do we simply click the homepage, search for about three seconds, and then move to another homepage? Do we even read more than some titles from homepages? Can you, or I, draw some conclusions using those titles? And then, do we move to some more interesting homepages? When we search for things on the net. We can search only for homepages that please us. That is one way to see things.
If we just follow the instructions that the AI gives. We give leadership to the machine. If we never ask why AI makes something, we lose our way to introduce criticism. If we just follow orders and be quiet, that means nobody even knows that we have some different opinions. We can think what we want, but the thing is, how can we share those opinions with other people?
When people are worrying about things like reading books, we must dare to ask one thing. When did you go to the library? And lend some books? When your boss said to you that you can keep a couple of hours free to go to the library and search for information in those books? Or do we lend books that we can fill shelves? Using books? Or do we really open those books and then concentrate on those things? And when we spent our lunch break discussing books that we read? The decision is ours. Maybe we read books. Maybe we read texts from computer screens. But if we want to share our opinions with other people. There is always something more interesting.
There are two ways to think about things.
1) We can notice that something has happened.
2) We can notice that something has happened, and then ask why that thing happens.
We must realize that people always lead governments and nations. When somebody talks about value-based realism, we should ask:
Whose values? Whose realism? Or, who describes our values and realism? Or things that we tell outside as values and realism? Are those things serving only the majority? And when we defend some minorities, we must realize that those things can also serve something. We can use things like racism as an excuse to kick our competitors. So, when something comes to the newspapers and their headlines, we must ask ourselves, why did that thing become so important, just in that moment?
Things like sports and some lone island survivor reality TV are more interesting than some ideas that some writer introduced a long time ago. When we sit at our desks in our workplace. We must be quiet so that we don’t disturb other people. So we just sit, look at the screen, and be careful not to disturb our workmates. Is that the environment where it is easy to share opinions and offer analytical thoughts to people?
But otherwise, why can’t we tell our opinions to other people? That is the thing that. We must realize, before we introduce some criticism. If we just sit and look at things. That might look something. We cannot accept; we can follow two routes. We can sit quietly, and then other people say that we have nothing to say. We can share our opinions with other people. When we face social media, we must understand one thing. Many people misuse that tool. They introduce opinions that we cannot understand or accept. And we have our free will. We can read things that we know are false. We can remove that false information by closing social media accounts. Follow the official media.
And then we face a thing. Maybe we disagree with the opinions or things that official media shares. Maybe we have better knowledge than the reporter, but then how can we say that to people who read those articles? Maybe we should write that in newspaper opinion pieces. But what if they don’t publish that thing? Journalists are also human. That means the journalist has their background, opinions, and other things. That always affects people's way of thinking and writing. When we use AI, we forget. That AI uses datasets. Collected by humans. Humans make decisions about what the AI should give and what it should not give to people who use it.
Thinking is not enough. We must have the ability to say something. If we just sit and look at the music videos, we must realize that people never see our opinions. That is enough for people like Kim Jong-Un. People can have their opinions. But they must follow the regime. They are not allowed to say or write things that are against the regime. So, does the regime somehow deny Western people the way to introduce critical opinions in public media? We remember that critical workers were gifted to the company. People celebrated those people as heroes.
But then we might ask, how critical are those employees really? Did they criticize their henchmen or their leaders? Today, we say that social media kills that kind of criticism. Where employees say that they see something that is right, using evidence-based arguments. Criticism without justification is not effective way to effect. If there is no evidence. That kind of criticism is easy to knock out. But when we want to introduce criticism, we must remember that it’s easier to criticize a henchman using authority than to give critical feedback to the superior.
