October 31st, 2026 LisV
Some content is hurtful. Not always meant as such.
If you just went to a funeral, an algorithm could recommend you a funeral song without trying to. Bad combinations are possible, does not mean bad combinations are always intended.
If the content didn’t exist beforehand – able to be used out of context is unlikely, less likely, or not possible. With 8 billion plus people, there might be content that can be misused, misunderstood, misrepresented.
Not all content for all people. Not all content for all people at all times.
I genuinely don’t believe all content used against me has been done on purpose. People that have used content against me, in an evil way, likely don’t know about all the combinations that I have experienced just by chance. Straw that broke the camel’s back is more likely with 8 billion plus people, does not mean that is what is meant.
Imagine people watch who takes communion crackers and who does not. Which denomination served the communion cracker? Taking a communion cracker means guilty of something, needs repentance for something? Combination is not all pretty, watch let, not all watch get.
Reasons for content created can be theorized, conjectured. Not really interested in real reasons, full context has potential to be turned up. Rubs me the wrong way equals don’t have to listen can be turned up, turned up for good reasons, does not equal it is always wise not to listen.
Making Peace requires work. Slow to forgive is not all forgive going forward. F let on my support has been around for a while. My support out less means others support out is less. Combo with less forgiveness not all pretty. Judge when teaching throughput, teaching throughput that you have invested in, you know isn’t ideally getting through?
Take AI for example – new tech that has potential to change the World and cure cancer. Yet also has potential to make mistakes – mistakes that could be very costly. Cars and airplanes, similar tech – adds allot of value to the World – also brings car crashes, airplane crashes, and bombs that would otherwise have not existed.
People might see progress as too expensive – can’t really blame them for such – yet more vulnerable, easier to take over hasn’t really worked out well for less oppression in history, less imperialism. Easy to forgive on design that ideals some people and not others? Likely not always.
Human life does not have to be ideally protected to grow forward, to grow progress – not all pretty. If all lives had to be protected for progress, USA would still be under British rule? The price of progress, less oppression, less slavery, design that enables better experience and travel like cars and airplanes – comes at a price. If all my family died in a car crash, or an airplane crash – I likely might have a different view on the price of progress, the cost of progress. Not to be confused with I want my family lost to know the cost, know the price.
Who knows, maybe the person that had the perfect words for me died years ago, in a car crash, or an airplane crash. True loss unknown, true price unknown – does not equal, no price.
Really kind of feels like a bad deal, investment in engineering is partial investor in death. Saves tons of lives yet, the lost ones, the unknown costs, it hurts.
Writing books, writing and communication in general – likely the knowledge in a library has the ability to save many many lives – and likely is responsible for some deaths. Even if one writes about Peace and Harmony, Forgiveness and Love all day long – one could theoretically take the negative. Intent does not always line up with propagation – is kind of a gross dynamic. We know books could be used for evil, yet the potential for good is why we don’t burn books, don’t burn libraries.
If I was running a library, would I use AI to read through all the books, find the ones with the most risks for taking lives, and remove them in advance? I get capacity to determine which books are on the shelves, and which ones are not? Yet even estimating for risk might lead to reduced Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, access? Depends on the person reading seems apt, a vampire book is just a story – or in the hands of a psychopath something awful in combination?
Can’t blame people for wanting to reduce evil. Yet where should evil be reduced? At the writer level, at the reader level, at the societal level? Slippery slope… try to guesstimate how expensive content is and why, without also looking at all other parts of society. Desire for less evil could be a front, a ruse, a way to consolidate power – possibly to push self or others to more amicable tasks. Choosing what content people get, what they have access to and when is IBD in by design, possibly not all value added.
There are likely books in the World that could make my life exponentially better and easier, there are also likely books that could make my life worse. Yet I generally place my bet on most content is good, will be value added. Even if I don’t think the content is good, I might have the wrong context, I might understand the words in a different way based upon cybersecurity, who owns the dictionaries at that point in history.
Like this document, meant to be value added to The World during tough times, yet will it deliver? If not does the reader have the right context, have similar comprehension and experiences? Will it hit home or will it miss the mark? All that before cybersecurity problems, less than ideal transmissions, typos, even losses due to glasses, under sight or oversight.
Reader might not understand I write this under oppression, under reduced support, robbed, on the side of the road.
Die ice get. 3 words – might be read heard in different ways. Dye instead of Dye? Paint a story as all ice, all lite, cool, calm in The Texas heat? Ice like diamonds? Die get a story that is polished and shines brilliantly like diamonds? A new supercar – you want the ice, the diamonds, not the reminders car crashes are real, engineering losses are a part of the way this world works?
Just because the more real version might be more true, doesn’t necessarily mean it sells better. Reminding the good, leaving out the bad, a form of grace – might mean the diamonds, the ice shines brighter. More sold on is good, as long as seat belts and less risk is inspired?
More ice get. Supercars, more ice and diamonds, without all the non ideal deaths and car crashes – a simple ask with a benevolent, all loving God? More ice get might actually be more lives saved, more support added? Everyone needs reminders Tornados kill, are a reason to stockpile and be less generous?
More ice get is not all save the environment might not be the pitch I want to hear being sold a supercar? Might be some ground for amplify comprehension of both?
