Reposting a comment I left here [1] after realising it will be totally
eclipsed by this thread.
This "defence of" post [1] is absolutely cringe-worthy, both in the
poverty of its arguments and shameless apologetics. The arguments
basically say, for each terrible, insecure and dehumanising act X:
1) Don't worry about us doing X because soon everyone will be doing X.
2) Everyone can safely do X because some people are already doing X.
3) We'll all definitely get very rich from doing X but don't worry,
maybe some other people can get rich doing X2, X3, X4 too.
4) Please just ignore that X provokes visceral horror from everyone
who encounters it. The association with dystopia is
likely caused by those silly science fiction authors.
5) Don't worry about X creating a dystopian hell, because it will
preserve privacy (hint: privacy is not the only
dimension of human dignity and is barely relevant in
this case anyway)
6) The track record of the team making X is unquestionable. They are
already ball-deep in other projects of questionable merit to
society. The masterminds of X are not interested in extracting
profits from the project, they will have more than enough raw power
from controlling them.
They basically admit the whole thing is a scam to get people to accept
the dystopian bait - proof of person-hood - "The Worldcoin coin only
needs to retain value as an incentive to get people signed up".
I guess the problem, from a simple philosophers point of view is that
nobody who actually is a person needs or wants to prove that they are,
because that self-evidently constitutes what a person is.
But there are two other matters.
One is that the very definition of "proof of person-hood" implies
non-person-hood. That's the road that leads to the ovens at Belsen.
The other point is that the only excuse you'd ever have for a "proof
of person-hood" would be in a world where humans were so disconnected
and disempowered that they'd have to compete within systems with AIs
designed to be indistinguishable from people. And guess who is
building those?
Seriously, understand what iatrogenic means, and why a company that
wants to "change the world for the better" [2] by making the poison
and the antidote should worry you.
This "defence of" post [1] is absolutely cringe-worthy, both in the poverty of its arguments and shameless apologetics. The arguments basically say, for each terrible, insecure and dehumanising act X:
1) Don't worry about us doing X because soon everyone will be doing X.
2) Everyone can safely do X because some people are already doing X.
3) We'll all definitely get very rich from doing X but don't worry, maybe some other people can get rich doing X2, X3, X4 too.
4) Please just ignore that X provokes visceral horror from everyone who encounters it. The association with dystopia is likely caused by those silly science fiction authors.
5) Don't worry about X creating a dystopian hell, because it will preserve privacy (hint: privacy is not the only dimension of human dignity and is barely relevant in this case anyway)
6) The track record of the team making X is unquestionable. They are already ball-deep in other projects of questionable merit to society. The masterminds of X are not interested in extracting profits from the project, they will have more than enough raw power from controlling them.
They basically admit the whole thing is a scam to get people to accept the dystopian bait - proof of person-hood - "The Worldcoin coin only needs to retain value as an incentive to get people signed up".
I guess the problem, from a simple philosophers point of view is that nobody who actually is a person needs or wants to prove that they are, because that self-evidently constitutes what a person is.
But there are two other matters.
One is that the very definition of "proof of person-hood" implies non-person-hood. That's the road that leads to the ovens at Belsen.
The other point is that the only excuse you'd ever have for a "proof of person-hood" would be in a world where humans were so disconnected and disempowered that they'd have to compete within systems with AIs designed to be indistinguishable from people. And guess who is building those?
Seriously, understand what iatrogenic means, and why a company that wants to "change the world for the better" [2] by making the poison and the antidote should worry you.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30935213 [2] Anand Giridharadas. Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World