there's this interesting ethical dilemma that i read about. well, i didn't read the article i just looked at the headline, but i don't think that removed too much from it. autonomous vehicles, which are powered by ai, may have to face similar trolley-style dilemmas if an accident is imminent. and how the computer decides which direction to steer towards is based on assigned values. for example, a baby in a stroller might have a higher value than an old person, since the baby has an entire life ahead of them. so that in itself is interesting to think about. like, how a computer will decide that and it won't be up to human error or whatever. but more interesting, and frightening, is the idea that these values can change with different inputs. if the values for things destined to be hit is crowd-sourced, or at least calculated using various people's input, that opens the possibility for bias to set in. an example being, some people really like dogs. they love dogs. so much so that they'd feed a dog on the street if it looked hungry. but they wouldn't do that for a homeless person. since they can get a job. and should've made better life choices. something to that extent. that would be taken into account, possibly. like people valuing animal lives over other people. even racial bias can set in. should the car steer towards a white man or a black man? ai is based on a collection of data, so it's almost inevitable for that to seep in

this also reminded me of the idea that dog lives are worth more than other animal lives. like people will cry about dogs being eaten in china or something, but still partake in eating factory-farmed meat here in the states. it just doesn't make sense. dogs are more domesticated, sure, but that doesn't make them inherently more valuable than a cow or pig. yet people believe they are. they can't fathom eating dog for whatever reason, but having livestock mass murdered is fine. look, i don't particularly care if people eat meat. i understand it's one of the few ways we can cutback on our individual carbon footprint, but that won't change too much without widespread adoption. but i know it's hard to stop, so it's not like i particularly judge someone for it. i do it, though i have been trying to cutback whenever possible. anyway, eating dog isn't that big of a deal. it can't be worse ethically than the meat we already consume. and, i would argue, eating dog might even be more ethical in some ways. there's a lot of people going hungry. in the states and worldwide. but, at least here, dogs are always just euthanized and buried or something. seems like a waste to me. okay, i'm not saying we should start factory farming dogs or even eating dogs, the larger point is that it's all unethical and we should try to at least eat less. especially as americans

deleted the twitter app, but didn't deativate. that's the next step for a later date. i want to get rid of snapchat too. and instagram. snapchat will proabably go next. just trying to abandon that social pressure to brag or show off or just generally compare yourself to others

as sheila heti put it, 'that old custom: that you have to live a better life than everyone else.'