Category Archives: ethics

Aiding an Enemy Nation

Posted on by
Reply

In the present case, it’s technically legal, but it’s strictly wrong.

The People’s Republic of China is a global leader in the development of artificial intelligence, and it’s on the way to becoming the global leader. AI has a number of uses of which the PRC is taking advantage, including surveillance of citizens and fighting battles and entire wars.

Despite this threat to our nation’s security, American businesses and investors have comprised more than 40% of the 400 international investments in PRC AI, and those 400 investments were 17% of total international investment in PRC AI.

Here, per the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University, are the top 10 American investors in PRC AI—companies that put their lucre acquisition ahead of our nation’s security:

The CSET has reported further that

Collectively, observed transactions involving US investors totaled $40.2 billion invested into 251 Chinese AI companies, which accounts for 37 percent of the $110 billion raised by all Chinese AI companies.

And [emphasis added]

such financial activity, commercial linkages, and the tacit expertise that transfers from US-based funders to target companies in China’s booming AI ecosystem carry implications that extend beyond the business sector. Earlier stage VC investments in particular can provide intangible benefits beyond capital, including mentorship and coaching, name recognition, and networking opportunities. As such, US outbound investment in Chinese technology, and particularly AI, merits additional attention and tracking.

This comes after Google, for instance, infamously refused to continue a contract with the US’ Department of Defense to develop battlefield-capable artificial intelligence packages while continuing actively to support the PRC’s citizen-surveillance and military AI development. Alphabet’s subsequent words and actions concerning its now wholly owned subsidiary now being willing to work with DoD do nothing to mitigate, much less correct, that infamy.

Objectivity

Posted on by
Reply

Leonard Downie, late of The Washington Post, and writing in WaPo last Monday, decried the objective use of objectivity in today’s journalism while occupying quite a number of column inches offering “objective” techniques for maintaining credibility in the preferred lack of objectivity. The core of his objection is this:

They [reporters, editors, and media critics] believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change, and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences, and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.

This, though, is just one more way in which these wonders, abetted by folks like Downie, seek to control what us average Americans know about the world around us: they deliberately, consciously, and mendaciously conflate opinion writing with fact and event reporting.

Those concerns—race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change, etc—all are valid subjects about which to write, but they belong on the opinion pages instead of being dishonestly masqueraded as facts. If these…persons…maintained that separation, they truly would be pursuing truth.

Objectivity, after all, really is expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice—everywhere, that is, except in the Left’s Newspeak Dictionary.

“The” AP Clarifies

Posted on by
Reply

The AP updated its style guide to recommend removal of the definite article “the” when referring to some groups:

…reporters should avoid “general and often dehumanizing ‘the’ labels such as the poor, the mentally ill, the French, the disabled, the college-educated.”

The AP caught flak for so blatantly disparaging Frenchmen and -women, so it “clarified” its position. In saying that it actually was acceptable to refer to Frenchmen and -women as “the French,” the outlet said,

“…But ‘the’ terms for any people can sound dehumanizing and imply a monolith rather than diverse individuals.”

Apparently, according to The AP’s Newspeak Dictionary as modified again, “‘the’ French” is acceptable, and it’s OK to dehumanize Frenchmen and -women as a group and to suggest that they’re monolithic and not diverse individuals.

Jim Crow 2.0, Deprecated

Posted on by
Reply

The Just the News lede tells the tale after President Joe Biden’s (D) widely spread conspiracy theory.

A full 0% of black voters in Georgia report having a “poor” experience voting in the 2022 midterms, a notable showing after several years of Democratic politicians arguing that the state is working to suppress black votes.

The University of Georgia’s School of Public & International Affairs ran a poll:

Among black voters, more than 72% said “excellent,” 23% said “good,” just under 9% said “fair,” and 0% said “poor.”

Will Biden or anyone in his syndicate apologize for his smear?

Nah. Suggesting that would be carrying conspiracy theories to ridiculous extremes.

In Which I Disagree with the Congresswoman

Posted on by
Reply

Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R, SC) has come out in opposition of the move to bar Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D, MN) from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

I think we have to be very careful about what we are as a constitutional republic. I am not a fan of Ilhan Omar. She’s an anti-Semite. She’s a bigot. She’s a racist. She’s a socialist. But that doesn’t mean that we cancel people in this country. Republicans don’t stand for cancel culture. And that’s essentially what this is.

And

I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. And you know, there’s so much anti-Semitism in this country. We should be condemning it right and left as we always have, but there’s also the First Amendment right to do that[.]

Mace is correct that we’re a constitutional republic with a First Amendment right for all Americans to speak their piece, whatever that piece might be.

However.

Omar wouldn’t be barred from all House committees, any more than Congressmen Adam Schiff (D, CA) and Eric Swalwell (D, CA) are barred from all House committees. They’re barred only from the House Intelligence Committee; they’re free to serve on other House committees.

Omar would be barred only from the Foreign Affairs Committee and remain free to serve on other House committees. Omar’s rank bigotry makes her presence on Foreign Affairs counterproductive; her presence would give the lie to our nation’s international efforts to counter bigotry.

Our First Amendment free speech rights are limited in certain narrow circumstances. Military members cannot speak counter to military policy while in uniform or in other situations where they can be understood to be speaking for the military or for their branch or for their particular unit. They can be subject to discipline if they do. They can speak as freely as they wish on whatever subject they wish when they’re speaking as private citizens.

When Omar espoused her bigotry, she too often spoke as a Congresswoman, not as a private citizen. It would be entirely correct to bar her from Foreign Affairs; it would be cancel culture only were she barred from all House committees.