This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
Genuine question - how long do you think we should try to fix the issues before coming to the conclusion that they can’t be fixed through conventional means? Do you think we should resort to nonconventional resolutions at all, if the conventional ones cease to function or don’t yield results? If not, why not?
Nobody actually has an answer to that because there is no answer to it.
The system is so broken that there is no longer a way to fix it.
Any processes that could be implemented that have the potential to fix the issues comes from a broken system.
These processes would then be administered by the broken system.
Therefore no matter how good the process is, it will end up broken.
You may say that I am a hopeless person.
You may say that I am wrong and there is obviously something that can be done that has not yet been done.
I would say you are right, but experience indicates that although the possibility of reform exists, the capacity of the system to reform itself would be administered by a broken system.
Therefore even reform will end up broken and fail.
There was a reason why Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned. I’m just out here handing out rosin .
The system is only broken because humans are dicks to other humans
There is no fixing the human condition. Maybe when the computers become sentient they’ll not look too poorly on us.
I think we could be rehabilitated we just can’t be in charge of the rehabilitation
Humans could simply choose not to be evil.