They warned you: Someone allegedly used a politician's cloned voice to interfere with an election
www.techspot.com
The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office is investigating a robocall that went out to voters in the state telling them not to vote in the upcoming Democratic...

They warned you: Someone allegedly used a politician’s cloned voice to interfere with an election | It will most assuredly not be the last time this happens::undefined

  • Pxtl@lemmy.caEnglish
    111·
    10 months ago

    sounds dystopian.

    So does the total death of objective fact.

    An end to internet anonymity isn’t great, but given the alternative I’ll take it.

      • piratehat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        5·
        10 months ago

        Truth is never subjective. Truth is Truth. People have different opinions on where the truth lies but there’s is an objective reality to anything.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            10 months ago

            And I see you didn’t understand your philosophy 101 course.

            All the ideas we have about this stuff comes from a pre-science era and nothing we discovered backs up what they argued.

            That is why Plato can make up another dimension and a psychic connection, that is why Hume could pretend to not know what cause and effect was, that is why Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true…

            Something to consider for a moment. If you are really determined to maintain the stance that truth is subject that would mean this stance is subjective. Hence there must be exceptions, but your stance allows none. Any statement of the effect that statements are never fully true is going to produce contradictions.

            • Patch@feddit.ukEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true

              That’s not what Descartes said, by the way.

              “I think therefore I am” was all about “I know I must exist, because I’m here to think about it”. It wasn’t about “if I think something it must be true”.

              In Discourse he sets about trying to establish what things you can know for sure, vs which things are subjective (and could just be a trick of the mind or an illusion). He establishes the first principle that the one thing he knows is definitely true is that he is an entity that is capable of thought (because otherwise, who else is doing all this thinking?) and therefore at the very least he must exist, even if nothing else does.

              If you’re of the position that truth isn’t subjective, “Cartesian doubt” should be right up your alley. Trust nothing until you can prove it! Not a bad position for a philosopher to take.