Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

3 anni fa · 2 min. di lettura · visibility 0 ·

chat Contatta l'autore

thumb_up Rilevante message Commentare

When Playing It Safe Is the Best Strategy: The Case of A.I. Safety

When Playing It Safe Is the Best Strategy: The Case of A.I. Safety


Just like many other people involved in applied science today, I enjoy taking risks. In fact, I’m a big supporter of the idea that not taking risks is the riskiest thing of all. Nevertheless, when it comes to A.I. taking risks is not only dangerous for the individual, but also potentially catastrophic for the whole.

Still, chances are that A.I. is not going to one day become self-aware and decide to kill us all Terminator style! The safety concerns with it are far more subtle and because of that, easier to dismiss as flukes. After all, when it comes to safety, we are not the most cautious species, as history has shown. What’s worse, when it comes to potential profit, we often let temperance go out the window, since we focus too much on what the competitors are doing.

Perhaps that why we have chat-bots running wild in conversations we cannot comprehend. Granted that this is not a serious safety issue, the underlying problem is quite real, namely the fact that we are not fully aware of how A.I. works and how it could evolve as we set it on auto-pilot. And if you think I’m speculating, just take a look at Google’s self-reproducing A.I. systems. Naturally, these are still weak AIs, focusing on very specific tasks, but given how fond of automation big tech companies are, this whole endeavor is a more of a slippery slope than it looks like.

With the relentless propaganda on this matter by the people who have an unhealthy fixation on the wonders of this tech, many people are sold on the idea that everything is going to be fine because some super A.I. (aka ASI) will evolve once a certain level of A.I. is attained (AGI). Then, out of some strange urge to help us, this A.I. is going to solve all of our problems, including those caused by the A.I. tech itself. I don’t know about you, but I find this scenarios quite implausible. As an engineer I’ve grown quite confident of the empirical fact that “if something can go wrong, it will!” (aka Murphy’s Law).

But not all is doom and gloom. Despite the variety of potential issues A.I. brings about, there are many potential solutions that can help us avert any major mishap. Many A.I. researchers today are actually studying this topic seriously, while several A.I. professionals raise awareness of the fact that A.I. Safety is a matter that concerns all of us and that deserves close consideration. In my latest video on Safari I talk about all this, along with the idea of a safe advanced A.I. as it’s good to put some thought on what a positive A.I. can be like, instead of just dwelling on imagery of malicious robots.


What are your thoughts on this topic? Will A.I. be a useful power tool, or will it create more problems than it solves? Feel free to let me know in the comments.


thumb_up Rilevante message Commentare
Commenti
Proma 🐝 Nautiyal

Proma 🐝 Nautiyal

3 anni fa #22

This is a rather important subject, Zacharias \ud83d\udc1d Voulgaris that is hardly discussed. I find myself rather divided on the entire matter, depending on the circumstance that is. Sometimes, I am a fan of AI and deep learning seeing its efficiency and ability to add more ease to our daily lives. Take something as simple (or as advanced) as Alexa. Although, it is not a perfect AI companion as I have to keep barking orders and requests till it actually returns the right results sometimes, but I like the fact that I can do so from the next room without typing every search word into my phone. After a year of togetherness, it has actually learnt about me way better that I had imagines. However, on the other hand, this is all raw data about me that is on my Alexa and hence somewhere o the Big Data Forum with some (I fear) Big Brother seeing everything. It does not necessarily need to be human (creepy!!!). It reads our chats, and now it can chat with all the idiosyncratic expressions we use in our chats and there is no way our friends can tell us if it is us or Google auto-suggesting my every word. Throughout my life I have felt, the more we divulge to someone, the more vulnerable we are. I feel vulnerable, now.Google knows everything. When I ordered my last pizza, from where, if I ordered in or visited the store and even my favorite toppings. Even if AI does not go rogue, it could be manipulated. What we need is firm control over everything that is happening. Control feels good and happy, and this is the reason why. You get the best of both worlds. I know it's not easy, but I know it's possible.

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

3 anni fa #21

#19
Harvey Lloyd On the contrary rather than apology I would say thanks are in order. Zacharias's actual goal is educational but in making his case for education around A.I. safety, it fed into my own contemplation of what a perfect storm looks like and how artificial intelligence may aid and abet that perfect storm, and why it is not a safe strategy to address AI safety in isolation. In an America that was governed by checks and balances one can hold a much safer view of artificial intelligence. Unless the go forward solution is anarchy, a system of government is required but as Peter McShane points out in his book "Madison's Nightmare: How Executive Power Threatens American Democracy", we have seen the erosion of checks and balances for many decades. Yet as the US is surrendering safety intelligence, China is strengthening it. In that regard, the way China has gone about sowing up strategic contracts in Africa is incredibly impressive. Why? Since their safety intelligence is looking forward 50 years ahead. Short-term thinking is the dangerous choice. So I contemplate what the perfect storm looks like. With AI there are two obvious inputs. Nefarious use of AI https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/21/ai-security-threats-cybercrime-political-disruption-physical-attacks-report and again China https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-artificial-intelligence-strategy-poses-credible-threat-us-tech-leadership The perfect storm has other factors which include militia a.k.a. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/15/sovereign-citizens-rightwing-terrorism-hate-us-government and https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/armed-militia-groups-surging-across-nation Safety intelligence is whole system not just AI 😊

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

3 anni fa #20

#19
Harvey, you say, "Although i agree the wealthy use the capitol gains tax as opposed to income tax, 15% of 20M is still a large chunk of money for one citizen to pay. We also have to realise that if this capital gains is profits from a venture then the venture to paid taxes." But I say both these statements are (unintentional) distortions of the facts. 1) To my mind, all income has to be considered in regard to what constitutes a generous living standard. Even if we set that level at, say, $300,000 per year (an amount that most people would have to work hard in order to spend), and even if someone (Mr.Rich) with a capital gains income of $20M pays an effective (not nominal) rate of 15%, that person retains discretionary income equal to 57 times that generous living standard. Compare that to the fellow who earns wages of, say, $200,000 and pays an effective progressive income tax rate of only 30%. This fellow (Mr. Middleclass), even though paying only 2% of what Mr. Rich pays in taxes in absolute terms, Mr. Middleclass still only clears less than 47% of what we've agreed by definition to be a "generous" standard of living. So please don't tell me to feel sorry for how much Mr. Rich has to pay -- especially when he takes advantage of society's infrastructure in order to make the gains he does. 2) It is simply false that every venture which yields capital gains pays taxes. Someone could have gained big time on capital invested in Amazon stock, while Amazon lost money for more than two decades and paid no taxes. (Give Jeff Bezons a pat on the back.) Or could have achieved capital gains on real estate appreciation while the real estate -- which is not an enterprise at all -- paid no taxes while appreciating. Q.E.D. And cheers!

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

3 anni fa #19

#18
Yes Phil it is a Red Herring because the chief reason poorer people don't pay Federal Tax is because they don't earn enough to be taxed. How voters over so many election cycles have failed to see that productivity gains have had a fair chunk come from the decimation wages. So much so that people around me thinks it is normal now to be contingent worker or engage precarious work. It is shocking that there are no alarm bells being rung as to how easily workers have had hard won rights being stripped away ever since corporations were treated as "persons". There used to be a time when I was perplexed at watching rich people in Mumbia live next to shanty towns mired in poverty and think nothing of the disparity. Today, this jarring third world picture is showing up in the landscape of America. It is the red herring stuff that seems to be the blindspot - as big as a blindspot I once used to see between the rich Indian treating the existence of slums seen from their windows as a part and parcel of how existence is. If there was one thing I would have told my younger self 30 years ago, it would have been to advise myself to learn Mandarin and to recognize the importance of learning code. I think I missed a couple of tricks there.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

3 anni fa #18

#17
No appreciate both your entry and CityVP \ud83d\udc1d Manjit follow up comment. First i misinterpreted the comments and wish to apologize for my tit for tat comment. Phil you bring an interesting concept that i would have to ponder mathematically. Although i agree the wealthy use the capitol gains tax as opposed to income tax, 15% of 20M is still a large chunk of money for one citizen to pay. We also have to realise that if this capital gains is profits from a venture then the venture to paid taxes. I would, off the cuff, state that fed taxes versus state taxes is somewhat another boondoggle as the feds establsih under funded programs that the states have to pick up the cost. In my opinion the rates should be reversed. We should pay 6-10% to the fed and the higher rates to to the state. I will review this equation you have presented Phil.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

3 anni fa #17

#14
-- I am reluctant, Harvey, to enter this conversation between you and Manjit, but feel obliged to point out the following: You say, " But the rich being the issue is purely a political boondoggle that has run its course... " I think that is a giant red herring. Nobody says the rich are the problem, except insofar as some of the rich seek to control the political and social direction of the U.S. by exerting disproportionate influence via their vast financial resources, witness the Koch brothers. No, the problem is the preferential way in which the rich are treated in terms of taxation and otherwise. And even some of the wealthiest people in the U.S. will acknowledge that as fact. As to your observation that "... 25% of wage earners pay 80%+ of the federal taxes collected...." and Manjit's statement that " ... 45% of Americans do not pay income tax ....", both are again red herrings. (continued part II ....)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

3 anni fa #16

@Harvey Lloyd -- Part II -- First, while true, wage earners do not form even a significant portion of the wealthy in the U.S. One of the perks of being really wealth is that it gets one out of being a wage-earner and so places one's income in the category of capital gains. It also provides one with a multiplicity of options for sheltering real income from taxation. Second, not paying income tax can be seen as part of a conspiracy of wealthy interests to shift the tax burden for the poor and middle class to state sales and real estate taxes, which are regressive in nature, while Federal income taxes are progressive (not in the political sense but as the terms apply to rate structure. To explain, in the Federal income tax as you earn more money, the marginal rate goes up (to a set maximum). But in a state sales tax, it does not. The result is that the actual tax load on the poor and middle class represents an astronomically higher percentage of their total disposable income than it does for the wealthy. That's why, all other factors held constant, the rich get richer and the poor (and the middle class) get poorer. Cheers!

Jan 🐝 Barbosa

Jan 🐝 Barbosa

3 anni fa #15

Interesting article and interesting debate of ideas CityVP \ud83d\udc1d Manjit Harvey Lloyd

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

3 anni fa #14

45% of Americans do not pay income tax. That is true, but they do pay state and income taxes and sales taxes. The reason I bring China into this and AI is because as Christopher Walken exclaimed in the movie Dead Zone "The Ice is Going to Break!' There are folks in the 1% that are realizing that now so I am not talking on behalf of the rich or against the rich, I am looking at a confluence of emerging things that are from away from safety that Zacharias's buzz focuses on as can be. Under a single global economic system the Chinese are vulnerable to market fluctuations if the US National Debt implodes. By creating a separate economic structure, eventually what China is creating is a shield to protect themselves from the financial tsunami that will occur in America. The Chinese can see the debt situation and that they are one of the primary lenders of that debt ! Add to this job loss from AI and the time it will take for new jobs to replace those automated by artificial intelligence and other technologies, that is why nations are talking about the necessity to create Basic Income - which literally is a bail out between jobs lost through technology and jobs that will eventually be gained by the very same disruptive technologies. I don't want to be telling my family "I told you so" after the shit hits the fan. Yet I don't want to run from this situation either because America has one more election cycle to get this one right post-Trump. If they don't it will be smart for me to figure out where the safe haven will be - and when that time arrives, most Americans will not be on beBee - they will be busy fighting each other in utterly bloody civil war. Even the rich know they can't tempt that revolution https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/even-super-rich-see-plutocracy-flawed.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

3 anni fa #13

#12
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File%3ACBO_Infographic_2017.png If we could leave character out of it for a moment and do the math we can see that the top 25% of wage earners pay 80%+ of the federal taxes collected. What does it cost to be a citizen within a country? This also does not account for the giving these folks do with non profits and the number of payroll jobs that pay taxes created. No the issues we have is the war on poverty began with Roosevelt and sent into outer space with Johnson are now a growing concern. Not to say that we should not be attempting to lift those out of poverty, but the current methods not providing sustainable life positions. AI will be the undoing of the federal budget and tax base. We cant solve a social problem by taxing/ spending more money. One of the single most slavery type positions we have today is student loan debt. No bankruptcy, the private sector has a guaranteed position of being paid while they charge above market rates. Rich people didnt do this, the government did. Programs such this one are the core issue we face in our future. We are not in trouble because of the rich, it is a problem that is created with buying votes through give always. China, well thats a story that haunts us all. They think generationally, they see what our social spending is and its unsustainable. They merely wait. The larger question between our two countries is who will fail first if corrections are not made. They carry off the books debt that will grab them before its over. I appreciate many of your insights and thoughts surrounding the geopolitical environment we find ourselves. But the rich being the issue is purely a political boondoggle that has run its course.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

3 anni fa #12

Zacharias \ud83d\udc1d Voulgaris, the core danger is, to my mind, the tendency of so many to be willing to turn even judgment decisions over to algorithms. This drift is abetted by the continued propagation of the myth that Ai is light years further advanced than it really is. Part of playing it safe in this case consists in not turning things over to the likes of Alexa and Siri and deluding ourselves into believing that the output is anything truly intelligent -- witness the autonomous vehicles that are currently running people over and killing them. IMO, the development of true artificial intelligence is waiting for the emergence of synthetic neural networks. And if and when that happens, then we will have to be very cautious indeed. Good piece this. Cheers!

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

3 anni fa #11

#11
It has been two generations since Reagan took office and ironically he warned against mortgaging our kids future. Those kids are being born as we speak and the time after Reagan reveals a story that did not change with each administration, indeed at Barbara Bush's funeral, this motley crew looked pretty much like my own definition of a cabal https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/25/24-presidents-first-ladies.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.jpg Ultimately it is not a case of them and us, while I aim to position my life within the "us" category, I can't help the feeling that I will eventually end up being "them". It is not who has the wealth but who has lobbying power to change policy and game the system in a perverse way. This article about what Reagan said about government being the problem adds much needed context http://factmyth.com/factoids/reagan-said-government-is-the-problem/ I am not asking myself what my pathway to super wealth is, I am asking myself why am I risking living in a part of the world that is potentially collapsing in debt. In that regard I stick with my family who still perceive the West as a land of opportunity. That crumbling feeling beneath my feet accompanies the context of artificial intelligence adding to economic destabilization. China ironically is making moves that look impressive https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-06/china-is-quietly-setting-global-standards and also dangerous https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-26/china-s-global-ambition-could-split-the-world-economy and it is a one party state that spares very little thought for intellectual property. Artificial intelligence is in that context a massive land grab for China and so that debt aspect to America is very much the bridge that connects macro-economics to developments in advanced technologies.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

3 anni fa #10

#9
I dont disagree with your synopsis of status but do differ within its cause. Wealth is fleeting and yes it appears that wealth is flowing in a direction. But your thoughts assume that this is static. Its dynamic. 2 generations from now the wealth will be redistributed to new names or squandered. What will remain the same is the cause of the mess we find ourselves. We have lossy the sancitity of the individaul through identity politics. No one needs saving from wealth but rather requires a hard look at opportunity access. In the attempt to save any class of people short of the wealthy we will embark on a self destructive journey. We will rip ourselves a part from the inside. The world is at our feet. It is ours to seek opportunity and grow within from where we are. There is no better position to start from. Government is not the answer but rather the problem. We keep wielding the government into solution that only robs the individaul of their opportunity. Government continues to hand out solutions while regulating self sustaining opportunity just out of reach. No it will not be wealth that brings us to the darkness it will be the death of the individaul sacrificing for the group. Again this is history refreshing itself in new cloths. Does enough wealth exist for everyone? If you think that wealthy folks stole it all, then you have your answer. If you answer the question in the affirmative, then you must ask what is keeping you from it? One answer leads to opportunity the other to self destruction.

Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

You've all raised some valid points and I thank you all for your contributions. Before this conversation takes an even darker turn, I'd like to point out that there are ways around these issues (as I describe in length in my video). Solutions related to policy, design, and even the way AIs model the data they are given, can help thwart all of the issues we can foresee. After all, AI tech is an extension of human cognition, so it can at the very least help us understand ourselves better and through improving this tech, improve our inherent mental limitations in the process.

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

3 anni fa #8

#7
Whether the half of the half of citizens that choose to vote want or don't want the elite to have tools, the reality is that the elite have more tools than they know what to do with and so the election of Trump has not changed that fundamentally. The metric that tells us this is the mortgaging of debt economies. This is not FDR creating a New Deal and putting money into the system to revive it, or the Fed going to Obama about the necessity of the bail out, this is moving large wads of money from public hands into private hands, with the same trickle-down Reaganite belief in place. On top of this cake now comes another delicious layer of a new elite emerging and so we are entering a new epoch or era - and the beginnings or birthing pains of transformations in society are invariably dark and dangerous times. As the pain is realized and the darkness leads to light, order emerges from this chaos. If our face fits, we are aligned with winning constituency and clique and we engage massive acts of conformity, one can get through this - but it does represent a period of darkness and uncertainty for many others. For sure I would love to be inside my own gated community and find a path of immunity from these changes - but the grim picture I paint is the temporary dark cloud these times bring. Whenever nations are in a period of debt that weighs heavy on its citizens, the tipping point comes in war and crisis. From this destruction comes a new period of stability and with it new laws, regulations and ways of order that have adjusted to the transformation. We are in the middle of turbulence but so were people at the beginnings of moments of change. For some there will be opportunity in the chaos, but it does not change the reality of how we descend into dark ages. It is not quite the Hindu explanation of kali yuga, but does have that look about it.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

3 anni fa #7

#5
The speed of stupid seems to always out run thought. Moore's Law may be meeting its end within chip design but it is continuing within stupid and may under represent the creation process.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

3 anni fa #6

#4
Subliminally you paint a very grim picture of the future choices. Myself, i share your sentiments. I see several major fronts happening outside of AI that will clear the path for its evolution. Individaul rights are being subverted for the collective of the state along with any abilities to confront the machine once it has taken hold. But i would say that the future does hold the choice. A path whereby we consider the sustainability of human race and one where we control it according to the elite. I believe we have plaid this game in our past:) It didnt end well for millions. One of the huge omissions of our time is the belief that evil exists. Evil has been reduced to the DSM5 or whatever version they are on. Psychology knows full well that malevolence lies within each of us, and once tapped evil is what emerges. With this in mind i would say that technology serves both good and evil. But begs the question should we advance with technology that potentially gives evil the hand that destroys what we live as good? Nuclear weapons? The elites as you refer to them are those who have stamped out evil and now they will serve up the good. My question is how do i survive this with my family and community? My belief is this question, through osmosis, placed Trump in office. Your comment and other issues like the choice we face, motivated a crowd that sees the impending choice and doesnt want the elite to have the tools. Or take away their ability to confront the choice.

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

3 anni fa #5

Dorothy Cooper

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

3 anni fa #4

#3
AI alone is not the challenge, the challenge is the associated developments in synthetic biology https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dna-life-form-new-a-t-c-g-x-y-scripps-research-institute-synthetic-semi-a7544056.html and that middle area that is the connecting bridge between these developments. We should be less worried about a jobless future as much as becoming slaves to an artificial kingdom. We have driverless trains https://www.wired.co.uk/article/thameslink-trains-self-drive-programme-tfl-city-govia but it is always the unintended consequences that eventually become intended by some group or another and weaponizing driverless vehicles of any sort is a real possibility https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/16/google-fbi-driverless-cars-leathal-weapons-autonomous and bad actors will not need a crew or flight training for that. Add the desire for an elite mind to create something that has never existed before as is illustrated by the synthetic biology story, then the cause for creating even more controlled digital class structures exists in the elite mind. The all seeing and all knowing kind of control is what will drive us to the dark ages, for people will voluntarily choose to go dark in order to reassert their freedom from the rapidly emerging co-developments in technology and biology.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

3 anni fa #3

#2
Bravo. You stated this eloquently and succinctly. My daughter climbed in our car, which does not have a back up camera, and began to drive several yards before she realized she was looking at the AC controls and not seeing what was behind her. Whatever AI shows up we will become dependent upon what it does for us. What should we take from self dependence and hand over to AI? Within this concept it is not typically a single task we hand over, but rather our faith in AI develops to a point that we don't think about the exercise of self awareness, in the contextual area, until AI comes to tell us we should. We can see the AI of the industrial revolution and how it supplanted workers and then put them back to work in more skilled fields. This brought on an explosion of population as we could produce food through better chemicals, machinery and management. We are now very dependent at a grand scale to this process. God helps us if its disrupted. Will the AI of the future enslave us within our own stupidity that if it were to fail it would send us to the stone age again.

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

3 anni fa #2

For me the interesting part of AI is a variation on the existing class structures in our society namely - the rise of the digital elite (a small group of people who actually understand AI), the users of AI (which I refer to as the digital middle class) and the used (what was working class but now should be described as the contingent class). Safety at the higher order of the digital elite has to be managed by digital elites who have the consciousness that I have to refer to as safety intelligence. Safety at this level of thinking is strategic and it can only be a safety intelligence if the AI work creates a more intelligent future. Otherwise it is what makes the digital elite different from the traditional elite. The traditional elite relied on philosophical ideas to create their elite position in society, but the digital elite are using science and technological prowess. There is still a philosophical basis to it because what is not safety intelligence is the traditional philosophy of nihilism. The nihilistic tendencies of the digital elite may well include unintended consequences but do not include safety intelligence. The prowess that the digital elite have to shape a virtual evolution, creates a new frontier where Darwin and physical evolution used to be, what we therefore are facing up to is a wholly new type of evolution that is man-made. As we play with the very fabric of being and life, which essentially means that knowing that the digital elite are literally harbouring god like powers is what safety intelligence should be predicated upon. Yet in the name of innovation the dangerous risk is that scientific practice trumps having the safety net of a philosophical safety intelligence. The only times scientific practice trumped philosophical practice was in dictatorship - such as NAZI science experiments.

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

3 anni fa #1

For me the interesting part of AI is a variation on the existing class structures in our society namely - the rise of the digital elite (a small group of people who actually understand AI), the users of AI (which I refer to as the digital middle class) and the used (what was working class but now will the contingent class). Safety at the higher order of the digital elite has to be managed by digital elites who have the consciousness that I have to refer to as safety intelligence. Safety at this level of thinking is strategic and it can only be a safety intelligence if the AI work creates a more intelligent future. Otherwise it is what makes the digital elite different from the traditional elite. The traditional elite relied on philosophical ideas to create their elite position in society, but the digital elite are using science and technological prowess. There is still a philosophical basis to it because what is not safety intelligence is the traditional philosophy of nihilism. The nihilistic tendencies of the digital elite may well include unintended consequences but do not include safety intelligence. The prowess that the digital elite have to shape a virtual evolution, creates a new frontier where Darwin and physical evolution used to be, what we therefore are facing up to is a wholly new type of evolution that is man-made. As we play with the very fabric of being and life, which essentially means that knowing that the digital elite are literally harbouring god like powers is what safety intelligence should be predicated upon. Yet in the name of innovation the dangerous risk is that scientific practice trumps having the safety net of a philosophical safety intelligence. The only times scientific practice trumped philosophical practice was in dictatorship - such as NAZI science experiments.

Altri articoli da Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

Visualizza il blog
1 settimana fa · 5 min. di lettura
Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

Data Management Best Practices for Modern Backend Data Security

Source: pixabay.com (after some processing work)Th ...

2 mesi fa · 2 min. di lettura
Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

Censoring Platforms

Source: pixabay.com · This article was inspired by ...

2 mesi fa · 3 min. di lettura
Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

Cognitive Dissonance and What We Can Do about It

Source: pixabay.com · What Cognitive Dissonance Is ...