A Inteligência Artificial entra num bar apinhado.

Por detrás do balcão, alguém lhe pergunta: "O que vai tomar?"

Ela responde: "O mesmo que toda a gente."

The most important change in the expressive environment can be boiled down to one idea: it is no longer speech itself that is scarce, but the attention of listeners. Emerging threats to public discourse take advantage of this change. As Zeynep Tufekci puts it, “censorship during the Internet era does not operate under the same logic [as] it did under the heyday of print or even broadcast television.” Instead of targeting speakers directly, it targets listeners or it undermines speakers indirectly. More precisely, emerging techniques of speech control depend on (1) a range of new punishments, like unleashing “troll armies” to abuse the press and other critics, and (2) “flooding” tactics (sometimes called “reverse censorship”) that distort or drown out disfavored speech through the creation and dissemination of fake news, the payment of fake commentators, and the deployment of propaganda robots. As journalist Peter Pomerantsev writes, these techniques employ “information . . . in weaponized terms, as a tool to confuse, blackmail, demoralize, subvert and paralyze.”

The First Amendment first came to life in the early twentieth century, when the main threat to the nation’s political speech environment was state suppression of dissidents. The jurisprudence of the First Amendment was shaped by that era. It presupposes an information-poor world, and it focuses exclusively on the protection of speakers from government, as if they were rare and delicate butterflies threatened by one terrible monster.

But today, speakers are more like moths—their supply is apparently endless. The massive decline in barriers to publishing makes information abundant, especially when speakers congregate on brightly lit matters of public controversy. The low costs of speaking have, paradoxically, made it easier to weaponize speech as a tool of speech control. The unfortunate truth is that cheap speech may be used to attack, harass, and silence as much as it is used to illuminate or debate. And the use of speech as a tool to suppress speech is, by its nature, something very challenging for the First Amendment to deal with. In the face of such challenges, First Amendment doctrine seems at best unprepared. It is a body of law that waits for a pamphleteer to be arrested before it will recognize a problem. Even worse, the doctrine may actually block efforts to deal with some of the problems described here

 

Sources:

https://knightcolumbia.org/content/tim-wu-first-amendment-obsolete

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

 

(Clickar na imagem para aumentar)

Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?

Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?

 

Ivan Istochnikov, o tema desta fotografia, era um cosmonauta soviético que desapareceu em 1968 durante uma missão espacial a bordo da nave Soyuz 2. Foi apagado da história oficial porque as autoridades não conseguiram explicar o seu desaparecimento. Este relato foi resgatado do esquecimento pelo jornalista Mike Arena, que teve acesso a documentos desclassificados da antiga União Soviética.

Podemos realmente sempre acreditar no que nos dizem ou vemos? O homem da fotografia não é Istochnikov, mas Joan Fontcuberta, fotógrafo e criador desta história fabricada do cosmonauta russo desmaterializado. Há décadas que Fontcuberta questiona o facto de a fotografia provar que algo é real. Ele questiona esse conceito universal através de obras que desafiam a credibilidade dos seus espectadores. Assim, a fotografia é mostrada como uma ficção em pose de verdade (fotoficção), uma ferramenta de autenticação das invenções de um autor. Um assunto a sofrer duma exponencial actualidade fruto da dita "inteligência artificial".