States have been astroturfing internet for a long time. It’s gotten exponentially worse since the Ukraine and Gaza wars though.
As such they often hold opinions that are not based in fact on reality, and instead are based on false belief making them even more susceptible.
Can people even be people if they lack rationality? Human's are much more closer to animals when those people cannot use reason.
We can be mad at both advertisers and what happened here, there’s no need to choose one.
Regardless, research must be done ethically and with full consent. These researchers did neither so they must face consequences.
My contention is that humans are experts at creating tools they are unable to control and/or incapable of using exclusively constructively. This is a damning case study and wonderful for progress in social science. Just modify this “AI” entity into another “human being at a protest or rally or social forum” and suddenly the ethics dispute hold much, much less weight. HUMAN BEINGS LIE ALL THE TIME.
Not everyone who claims to be a victim actually is one. Not everyone who human who advocates violent uprisings does so because they truly want to engage in such behavior. The current President of the US is a consistent liar, easily proven with evidence such as Sharpie marker on a hurricane map (Question: “Who added that?” Response: “I don’t know”) and yet look at the outcome.
Humans are absolutely in a hell of their own making and clutching pearls about this experiment is a clear reminder that many people have erroneous and laughable understandings of human nature. They choose to live in an idealized bubble. It’s much easier than admitting the flaws and cruelty and savagery not “civilized out” but superficially cloaked in modern times.
Great work and I’d love to read the actual paper one day.
This is a textbook case of using human subjects without consent. There is absolutely no room for argument that this isn't an ethic violation, regardless of whether you feel harm was caused to people or not.
Calling it "not an ethics violation" is like saying that a theft wasn't theft because of what was stolen or who from. It's irrefutably not true. No journal would accept this research, and for very good reason.
People don't have to claim that they were a victim, anyone involved without informed consent in this 'is' a victim.
Your reasoning is fallacy. There is no greater weight, no weight at all. Its simply a did it happen, when you conduct a scientific experiment without informed consent or need, on unsuspecting people.
This is what the Nazi's, and many other destructive and evil regimes have done. Supporting this, making light of it, is the same as supporting one of those camps.
Humanity as a whole hasn't made a hell on earth, evil and blind people have.
There are many people that think they are good when in fact their souls are darker than black, and they have just willfully blinded themselves. The study authors would definitely fit this definition.
>This is what the Nazi's, and many other destructive and evil regimes have done. Supporting this, making light of it, is the same as supporting one of those camps.
If it's parody, absolutely pitch perfect. Well played.