Podcasts about Public debate

Amy MacIver is joined by Tony Leon, former leader of the official opposition and chairperson of a communications firm, to unpack his latest opinion on the rise of gaslighting in South African politics. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Candidates Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel have differing views. So do voters.

Cape Town's water quality sparks public debate after concerning Project Blue Report - Professor Anthony Turton weighs in by Radio Islam

Gauteng's Water Crisis: DA Challenges Premier Lesufi to Public Debate by Radio Islam

Det er mange myter og fortellinger om Sverre Fehn og hans prosjekter. Men hvordan vet vi egentlig det vi vet om Norges mest kjente og inflytelsesrike arkitekt? Erik Langdalen og Mari Lending har skrevet boka Sverre Fehn, Nordic Pavilion, Venice, og i denne episoden snakker vi om Sverre Fehn og hvem han var, basert på de kildene som har dukket opp i prosessen med å skrive boka.  Sverre Fehn (1924–2009) var en av Norges mest innflytelsesrike arkitekter og en nøkkelperson i skandinavisk modernisme. Han er kjent for sitt arbeid som kombinerer modernistiske prinsipper med en dyp forståelse for landskap og historie. Fehn studerte ved Arkitektlinjen på Statens håndverks- og kunstindustriskole i Oslo og var en av de ledende figurene innen norsk arkitektur etter andre verdenskrig. Hans arbeid kjennetegnes av en subtil balanse mellom tradisjon og modernitet, og han brukte ofte naturlige materialer som tre og stein i sine bygg. Fehn vant Pritzker-prisen i 1997, som er en av de mest prestisjefylte utmerkelsene innen arkitektur. Han underviste også i mange år som professor ved Arkitekthøyskolen i Oslo. Gjennom sin karriere skapte Fehn en rekke ikoniske bygninger som fortsatt blir hyllet for sin tidløse kvalitet og innovative bruk av rom og lys. Mari Lending er professor i arkitekturteori- og historie, og blant grunnleggerne av OCCAS (Oslo Centre for Critical Architectural Studies). Hun var seniorforsker i Place and Displacement: Exhibiting Architecture og The Printed and the Built: Architecture and Public Debate in Modern Europe (begge NFR-finansiert). I det EU-finansierte HERA-prosjektet Printing the Past (PriArc) var hun ansvarlig for Images of Egypt, som resulterte i utstillingen ved samme navn på Historisk Museum, Oslo, høsten 2018 og boken Images of Egypt (Pax, 2018), med Tim Anstey og Eirik Bøhn. Hun er forfatter av monografien Plaster Monuments. Architecture and the Power of Reproduction (Princeton University Press, 2017), med Peter Zumthor, A Feeling of History (Zürich: Scheidegger & Spiess, 2018), og Sverre Fehn, Nordic Pavilion, Venice. Voices from the Archives, with Erik Langdalen (Lars Müller/Pax, 2021). Lending er magister i litteraturvitenskap med en avhandling om Marcel Proust (Universitetet i Oslo, 1997) og har sin doktorgrad fra AHO (2005). Fra 2005–09 arbeidet hun med postdokprosjektet Modernism on Display. Hun har vært gjesteforsker ved GSD, Harvard University, Columbia University og Yale School of Architecture. (Kilde: AHO.no). Erik Fenstad Langdalen er Professor og Instituttleder ved Institutt for form, teori og historie. Han er ansvarlig for skolens bygningsarv-program og underviser eksperimentelle masterkurs innen vern og gjenbruk med et fokus på «nyere fortid»: etterkrigsarkitektur, betongbyggeri og masseproduksjon mm. Hans arkitekturpraksis (www.eriklandalen.no) konsentrere seg om restaurering og gjenbruk av historiske trebygninger, og han er selv eier av en fredet gård på Dovre som drives som kultursenter (www.budsjord.no). Siden 1999 har han arbeidet med en rekke utstillinger, museer og boligprosjekter, og han vant nylig en konkurranse for Nasjonale turistveger i Lofoten. Erik Langdalen har sin diplom fra Arkitekthøgskolen i Oslo og en Master in Science in Advanced Architectural Design fra Columbia University GSAPP. (Kilde: AHO.no). Send en mail til podkast@lpo.no og følg oss gjerne på instagram 

James Lindsay has been smearing me publicly for months and I've finally had enough of his BS. Learn why I'm challenging him to a public debate based on our very real intellectual differences in this episode.You can find the full receipts for everything I say in this podcast here: https://karlyn.substack.com/p/james-lindsay-has-been-harassing This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit karlyn.substack.com/subscribe

We are proud to present Episode 5, of new Season 19 of Cheshire Matters, your favourite 'digital' pub with discussions from the 'quirky three', filled with satire, humour (and more than a dash of sarcasm) featuring your absolutely fabulous, amazingly brilliant, witty and ridiculously talented 'Ab Fab', the delicious, delightful and delovely digital pub landlord (with the great hair do) podcast host Jonathan Starkey, with regular panelists Trevor Nicholls (the Gazelle) and Mark Hartley (Stats Man).  The 'Flab Two' and Skinny Minny 'Stats' are here for another lively discussion. In this episode we discuss issues surrounding the threats to free speech by multiple Governments attacking platforms like Telegram and X, and direct challenges from the team at Cheshire Matters to all Labour Councillors and MPs in Cheshire to legitimate public debate regarding their support of their Leader Keir Starmer, Labour Policies and their effect upon the UK public. This is a must listen to for everyone worldwide but also residents in Cheshire, MPs, counils and Councillors in Cheshire and all other public officials (in case we don't survive another week in the UK). Hope all public officials in authority are enhanced DBS checked? Cheshire Matters will be checking up on you. You don't really know who in public office you can trust these days!!!!!!! Join us for our often humorous but sometimes serious commentary and insights on these subjects and more from the best digital pub with the best and most deliciously witty digital pub landlord in the UK (the guest panellists, apart from Stats and the Gazelle, are extremely minor entities along for the ride). Opening Music - Moving ON © and ℗ JMN 2015 Another absolutely brilliant (and we mean absolutely brilliant and better than anything else that jumps out of your phone from Cheshire and beyond) JMN production for Cheshire Matters. Disclaimer At the time of recording and publishing Cheshire Matters believes all information relayed to be correct to the best of our knowledge. Any information and opinions given are not intended to cause any non-trivial, psychological or physical harm to a likely audience.

Evan Mullen is a resident in the Department of Medicine at Stanford University. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. E. Mullen, E.J. Topol, and A. Verghese. Academic Freedom in America — In Support of Institutional Voices. N Engl J Med 2024;391:1-3.

Prof. Kim Byung-joo of International Relations at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies will tell us about the recent underwhelming presidential debate where incumbent President Biden struggled, former President Trump deflected key questions, and the impact on the polls remains uncertain.

Timisoara, a city in Romania, bolstered by winning a bid through the EU, took on a grand experiment. My guest Silvia Fierascu, a network science researcher among other roles, was a part of that project. In this episode, we explore how political vision, open-mindedness and principles drawn from network science brought community organizations together to strengthen and grow cultural cohesion. Working with organizations in a city with a population of 300,000, presented an opportunity to galvanize cohesion among cultural organizations that would normally compete for resources.Can cooperation be better than competition when it comes to growth?In the first 15 minutes we talked about: Cultural Impact: The focus is on prioritizing cultural development as a driver for economic growth, improving quality of life, and integrating education to cultivate future cultural consumers and producers.Institutional Support: The Center for Projects, an institution under the mayor's office, leads the program implementation. Principles vs. Beliefs: Principles, unlike beliefs, can be tested and are used to anchor actions and guide change, fostering collaboration and sustainability within the cultural ecosystem.Recognition and Respect: The follow-up plan emphasizes recognizing and respecting the contributions of individuals and organizations, planning together to give meaning and purpose to their efforts.Network Analysis: The methodology identifies key actors with significant influence over the ecosystem, fostering trust and collaboration for broader impact.Reflection for Growth: A key recommendation is for 2024 to be a year of reflection to learn from experiences, ensuring continuous improvement and sustainability of the cultural initiatives.Innovative Financing: Changes in cultural financing legislation made funding more sustainable and transparent, promoting collaboration and accessibility for vulnerable communities.Public Debate and Inclusion: Public debates around art and inclusive cultural events were new and significant interventions that fostered community engagement and collaboration among cultural operators.An individual's emotional and mental health is informed or influenced by the health of the people in the community so strengthening cohesion increases resilience.To connect with Silvia on LinkedIN: Silvia FierascuSupport this podcast with the Tips Jar!!Contact or follow host Dawna Jones on one or more of these channels:Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dawnahjones/Twitter: EPDawna_JonesInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/insightful_dawna/Navigating Uncertainty Newsletter: https://dawnajones.substack.com/Medium: @dawnajonesWebsite: https://www.dawnajones.comSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/insight-to-action-inspirational-insights-podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A brain-dead serial killer, Robert 'Willie' Pickton, is at the center of a controversial debate: should he be revived to face justice or remain in his vegetative state? Subscribe on your favorite podcasting apps: https://talkmurder.com/subscribeSupport us on patreon: https://patreon.com/talkmurderSee our technology: https://talkmurder.com/gearContent warning: the true crime stories discussed on this podcast can involve graphic and disturbing subject matter. Listener discretion is strongly advised.Fair use disclaimer: some materials used in this work are included under the fair use doctrine for educational purposes. Any copyrighted materials are owned by their respective copyright holders. Questions regarding use of copyrighted materials may be directed to legal [@] Talkocast.com

* Sheriff Mack and Sam Bushman Challenge Any Member of the Clown Media To An Open, Public Debate! * Sam Offers $1000 To Any Member of the dishonest Media Who Can Find Any Examples of Either Sam or Sheriff Mack Involved in Violence of any kind! * Shame! - RFK Jr.: “Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion.” * Tucker Carlson Interviews Biden Sexual Assault Accuser Tara Reade Who Moved To Russia Seeking Political Asylum. * Illegal Immigrants In Denver Issue 13 Demands Before They'll Leave Street Encampment For Shelter! * Book: Introduction to 5GW (The Citizen's Guide to Fifth Generation Warfare) - Ltg (Ret ) Michael Flynn and Boone Cutler. * 'Now I have no funds': Bank terminates account of conservative with no reason - WND.com * Rudy Giuliani, besieged by creditors, promised a bankruptcy court he would limit his spending and stick to a $43,000-a-month budget. * Steve Bannon's Appeal Rejected, Destined To Serve Prison Time!

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Can we build a better Public Doublecrux?, published by Raemon on May 12, 2024 on LessWrong. Something I'd like to try at LessOnline is to somehow iterate on the "Public Doublecrux" format. I'm not sure if I'll end up focusing on it, but here are some ideas. Public Doublecrux is a more truthseeking oriented version of Public Debate. The goal of a debate is to change your opponent's mind or the public's mind. The goal of a doublecrux is more like "work with your partner to figure out if you should change your mind, and vice versa." Reasons to want to do public doublecrux include: It helps showcase subtle mental moves that are hard to write down explicitly (i.e. tacit knowledge transfer. There's still something good and exciting about seeing high profile smart people talk about ideas. Having some variant of that format seems good for LessOnline. And having at least 1-2 "doublecruxes" rather than "debates" or "panels" or "interviews" seems good for culture setting. In addition to being "exciting" and "possible to learn from" to have public figures doublecrux, I think it'd also be nice from a culture setting standpoint. This is a place where people don't play rhetorical tricks to manipulate people - it's a place where people earnestly move towards the truth. Sidebar: Public Debate is also good although not what I'm gonna focus on here. I know several people who have argued that "debate-qua-debate" is also an important part of a truthseeking culture. It's fine if the individuals are trying to "present the best case for their position", so long as the collective process steers towards truth. Adversarial Collaboration is good. Public disagreement is good. I do generally buy this, although I have some disagreements with the people who argue most strongly for Debate. I think I prefer it to happen in written longform than in person, where charisma puts a heavier thumb on the scale. And I think while it can produce social good, many variants of it seem... kinda bad for the epistemic souls of the people participating? By becoming a champion for a particular idea, people seem to get more tunnel-vision-y about it. Sometimes worth it, but, I've felt some kind of missing mood here when arguing with people in the past. I'm happy to chat about this in the comments more but mostly won't be focusing on it here. Historically I think public doublecruxes have had some problems: 1. First, having the live audience there makes it a bit more awkward and performative. It's harder to "earnestly truthseek" when there's a crowd you'd still kinda like to persuade of your idea, or at least not sound stupid in front of. 2. Historically, people who have ended up doing "public doublecrux" hadn't actually really understood or really bought into the process. They often end up veering towards either classical debate, or "just kinda talking." 3. When two people are actually changing *their* minds tend to get into idiosyncratic frames that are hard for observers to understand. Hell, it's even hard for two people in the discussion to understand. They're chasing their cruxes, rather than presenting "generally compelling arguments." This tends to require getting into weeds and go down rabbit holes that don't feel relevant to most people. With that in mind, here are some ideas: Maybe have the double cruxers in a private room, with videocameras. The talk is broadcast live to other conference-goers, but the actual chat is in a nice cozy room. This doesn't fully solve the "public awkwardness" problem, but maybe mediates it a bit. Have two (or three?) dedicated facilitators. More Dakka. More on that below. For the facilators: One is in the room with the doublecruxers, focused on helping them steer towards useful questions. They probably try to initially guide the participants towards communicating their basic positi...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Can we build a better Public Doublecrux?, published by Raemon on May 12, 2024 on LessWrong. Something I'd like to try at LessOnline is to somehow iterate on the "Public Doublecrux" format. I'm not sure if I'll end up focusing on it, but here are some ideas. Public Doublecrux is a more truthseeking oriented version of Public Debate. The goal of a debate is to change your opponent's mind or the public's mind. The goal of a doublecrux is more like "work with your partner to figure out if you should change your mind, and vice versa." Reasons to want to do public doublecrux include: It helps showcase subtle mental moves that are hard to write down explicitly (i.e. tacit knowledge transfer. There's still something good and exciting about seeing high profile smart people talk about ideas. Having some variant of that format seems good for LessOnline. And having at least 1-2 "doublecruxes" rather than "debates" or "panels" or "interviews" seems good for culture setting. In addition to being "exciting" and "possible to learn from" to have public figures doublecrux, I think it'd also be nice from a culture setting standpoint. This is a place where people don't play rhetorical tricks to manipulate people - it's a place where people earnestly move towards the truth. Sidebar: Public Debate is also good although not what I'm gonna focus on here. I know several people who have argued that "debate-qua-debate" is also an important part of a truthseeking culture. It's fine if the individuals are trying to "present the best case for their position", so long as the collective process steers towards truth. Adversarial Collaboration is good. Public disagreement is good. I do generally buy this, although I have some disagreements with the people who argue most strongly for Debate. I think I prefer it to happen in written longform than in person, where charisma puts a heavier thumb on the scale. And I think while it can produce social good, many variants of it seem... kinda bad for the epistemic souls of the people participating? By becoming a champion for a particular idea, people seem to get more tunnel-vision-y about it. Sometimes worth it, but, I've felt some kind of missing mood here when arguing with people in the past. I'm happy to chat about this in the comments more but mostly won't be focusing on it here. Historically I think public doublecruxes have had some problems: 1. First, having the live audience there makes it a bit more awkward and performative. It's harder to "earnestly truthseek" when there's a crowd you'd still kinda like to persuade of your idea, or at least not sound stupid in front of. 2. Historically, people who have ended up doing "public doublecrux" hadn't actually really understood or really bought into the process. They often end up veering towards either classical debate, or "just kinda talking." 3. When two people are actually changing *their* minds tend to get into idiosyncratic frames that are hard for observers to understand. Hell, it's even hard for two people in the discussion to understand. They're chasing their cruxes, rather than presenting "generally compelling arguments." This tends to require getting into weeds and go down rabbit holes that don't feel relevant to most people. With that in mind, here are some ideas: Maybe have the double cruxers in a private room, with videocameras. The talk is broadcast live to other conference-goers, but the actual chat is in a nice cozy room. This doesn't fully solve the "public awkwardness" problem, but maybe mediates it a bit. Have two (or three?) dedicated facilitators. More Dakka. More on that below. For the facilators: One is in the room with the doublecruxers, focused on helping them steer towards useful questions. They probably try to initially guide the participants towards communicating their basic positi...

* Guest: Dr. Scott Bradley, Founder and Chairman of the Constitution Commemoration Foundation and the author of the book and DVD/CD lecture series To Preserve the Nation. In the Tradition of the Founding Fathers - FreedomsRisingSun.com * A sheriff, a felon and a conspiracy theorist walk into a hotel. They're there for the same conference - Lies Continue From NBC News. * The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is urging lawmen to form posses, seize voting machines and investigate baseless claims of voter fraud. * Sheriff Mack and Sam Bushman Challenge Any Member of the Clown Media To An Open, Public Debate! * Sam Offers $1000 To Any Member of the dishonest Media Who Can Find Any Examples of Either Sam or Mack Involved in Violence of any kind!

Today we welcome Lashae Simmons II, the founder of @Black Wall Street Muskegon, for an engaging discussion about the upcoming City Council Candidate Debate. Mark your calendars for Wednesday, April 10th at 6:00 PM, taking place at the Louis McMurray Conference Center in Muskegon Heights. Tune in live on 103.7 The Beat or stream through the Umoja Radio app. Don't miss out!

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Vaughn & Dr. Tankersley – The unflappable Jordan Peterson reached his limit as he uncharacteristically 'went off' on 'Destiny' - it was a moment to behold! In the course of the somewhat contentious debate, Jordan reached his limit when the fool was unfamiliar with and then dismissive of the abundant evidence about the excess deaths in the past 2-3 years...

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Vaughn & Dr. Tankersley – The unflappable Jordan Peterson reached his limit as he uncharacteristically 'went off' on 'Destiny' - it was a moment to behold! In the course of the somewhat contentious debate, Jordan reached his limit when the fool was unfamiliar with and then dismissive of the abundant evidence about the excess deaths in the past 2-3 years...

Has government and media propaganda been increasing in America or are we just more sensitive to it? Propaganda HAS increased.  We review how leaders used propaganda  to prod Americans into World War I and the backlash against it spurred the passage of the Smith-Mundt Act in 1948.  In 2012, during the Obama administration, many of the protections of this act were repealed, justified by the War on Terror. There have been proponents of propaganda in our own government for quite some time. How do we recognize it and become less vulnerable to it?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we discuss the press, periodicals and magazines in architectural history from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  Our contributors are:  Dr Anne Hultzsch is an architectural historian and leads the ERC-funded group ‘Women Writing Architecture 1700-1900' (WoWA) at ETH Zurich. With a PhD from the Bartlett, University College London, and a postdoc at AHO Oslo, she works on intersectionality in architectural history between ca. 1650 and 1930, exploring the histories of gender, print, perception, and travel. She is author of Architecture, Travellers and Writers: Constructing Histories of Perception 1640-1950 (2014) and has edited The Printed and the Built: Architecture, Print Culture, and Public Debate in the Nineteenth Century (with Mari Hvattum, 2018) and The Origins of the Architectural Magazine in Nineteenth-Century Europe (The Journal of Architecture, 2020).  Dr Lieske Huits, is a decorative arts historian and university lecturer at University of Leiden. Lieske's PhD, titled A New Visual Narrative of Nineteenth-Century Historicism, explored historicism and revival styles in the decorative arts and architecture of the nineteenth century, and the display of historicist objects in international expositions and museums of decorative arts.  For more information about the SAHGB, their programme of events, publications and grants and to join the society, see their website at https://www.sahgb.org.uk/

On The Alfred Daily Today:  Chatty Café Comes to Shaftesbury Shaftesbury What's Ons Dorset Councillor Calls for Public Debate on Dinah's Hollow Shaftesbury Town Council Agrees on Park Bench Policy Roadworks and Road Closures This Week Shaftesbury Charity Shop Bargains View from the Hill – Visitor from Algiers Outgoing Two Brewers Landlord Reflects on Three Challenging Years Dorset Council Chief Wants Powers to Tackle Unruly Councillors

Freedom of religion in Fiji sparks public debate

Session 3 chronicles the 19th century clash between scholars over the Codex Sinaiticus, pitting its defender Tischendorf versus Simonides, who claimed it as his forgery.

“Ray Epps Now Indicted” “Mentally Challenged Journalists” “Women No Longer Good Enough” “The Upcoming Biden Impeachment” 

Re-Educating Trans-Phobic Republicanshttps://www.audacy.com/989word The Charlie James Show Listen on Spotify : https://spoti.fi/3MXOvGP Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-charlie-james-show-podcast/id1547262821 Follow us on Social Media Join our Live Stream Weekdays - 3pm to 7pm Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/989word Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-2031096 X: https://twitter.com/989word Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/989word/ "Red Meat, Greenville." 09/19/23

Essay 89: Upholding the Principle of Free Civil Discourse and Public Debate Without Censorship by Gary Porter. Click here to explore our 2023 90-Day Study: First Principles of the American Founding.

Ranveer's Outfit by ‘Celio' - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/celioindia/ Website: https://www.celio.in/ YouTube: @CelioIndia Level Supermind - Mind Performance App को Download करिए यहाँ से

On this week's episode of The Van Maren Show, Jonathon discusses the current state of the cultural discussion on pornography and the possibility of its outright ban. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Summary of Argument: The public debate among AI experts is confusing because there are, to a first approximation, three sides, not two sides to the debate. I refer to this as a

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The "public debate" about AI is confusing for the general public and for policymakers because it is a three-sided debate, published by Adam David Long on August 1, 2023 on LessWrong. Summary of Argument: The public debate among AI experts is confusing because there are, to a first approximation, three sides, not two sides to the debate. I refer to this as a three-sided framework, and I argue that using this three-sided framework will help clarify the debate (more precisely, debates) for the general public and for policy-makers. Broadly speaking, under my proposed three-sided framework, the positions fall into three broad clusters: AI "pragmatists" or realists are most worried about AI and power. Examples of experts who are (roughly) in this cluster would be Melanie Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Kate Crawford, Gary Marcus, Klon Kitchen, and Michael Lind. For experts in this group, the biggest concern is how the use of AI by powerful humans will harm the rest of us. In the case of Gebru and Crawford, the "powerful humans" that they are most concerned about are large tech companies. In the case of Kitchen and Lind, the "powerful humans" that they are most concerned about are foreign enemies of the U.S., notably China. AI "doomers" or extreme pessimists are most worried about AI causing the end of the world. @Eliezer Yudkowsky is, of course, the most well-known to readers of LessWrong but other well-known examples include Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, and Stuart Russell. I believe these arguments are already well-known to readers of LessWrong, so I won't repeat them here. AI "boosters" or extreme optimists are most worried that we are going to miss out on AI saving the world. Examples of experts in this cluster would be Marc Andreessen, Yann LeCun, Reid Hoffman, Palmer Luckey, Emad Mostaque. They believe that AI can, to use Andreessen's recent phrase, "save the world," and their biggest worry is that moral panic and overregulation will create huge obstacles to innovation. These three positions are such that, on almost every important issue, one of the positions is opposed to a coalition of the other two of the positions AI Doomers + AI Realists agree that AI poses serious risks and that the AI Boosters are harming society by downplaying these risks AI Realists + AI Boosters agree that existential risk should not be a big worry right now, and that AI Doomers are harming society by focusing the discussion on existential risk AI Boosters and AI Doomers agree that AI is progressing extremely quickly, that something like AGI is a real possibility in the next few years, and that AI Realists are harming society by refusing to acknowledge this possibility Why This Matters. The "AI Debate" is now very much in the public consciousness (in large part, IMHO, due to the release of ChatGPT), but also very confusing to the general public in a way that other controversial issues, e.g. abortion or gun control or immigration, are not. I argue that the difference between the AI Debate and those other issues is that those issues are, essentially two-sided debates. That's not completely true, there are nuances, but, in the public's mind at their essence, they come down to two sides.To a naive observer, the present AI debate is confusing, I argue, because various experts seem to be talking past each other, and the "expert positions" do not coalesce into the familiar structure of a two-sided debate with most experts on one side or the other. When there are three sides to a debate, then one fairly frequently sees what look like "temporary alliances" where A and C are arguing against B. They are not temporary alliances. They are based on principles and deeply held beliefs. It's just that, depending on how you frame the question, you wind up with "strange bedfellows" as two groups find common ground on on...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The "public debate" about AI is confusing for the general public and for policymakers because it is a three-sided debate, published by Adam David Long on August 1, 2023 on LessWrong. Summary of Argument: The public debate among AI experts is confusing because there are, to a first approximation, three sides, not two sides to the debate. I refer to this as a three-sided framework, and I argue that using this three-sided framework will help clarify the debate (more precisely, debates) for the general public and for policy-makers. Broadly speaking, under my proposed three-sided framework, the positions fall into three broad clusters: AI "pragmatists" or realists are most worried about AI and power. Examples of experts who are (roughly) in this cluster would be Melanie Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Kate Crawford, Gary Marcus, Klon Kitchen, and Michael Lind. For experts in this group, the biggest concern is how the use of AI by powerful humans will harm the rest of us. In the case of Gebru and Crawford, the "powerful humans" that they are most concerned about are large tech companies. In the case of Kitchen and Lind, the "powerful humans" that they are most concerned about are foreign enemies of the U.S., notably China. AI "doomers" or extreme pessimists are most worried about AI causing the end of the world. @Eliezer Yudkowsky is, of course, the most well-known to readers of LessWrong but other well-known examples include Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, and Stuart Russell. I believe these arguments are already well-known to readers of LessWrong, so I won't repeat them here. AI "boosters" or extreme optimists are most worried that we are going to miss out on AI saving the world. Examples of experts in this cluster would be Marc Andreessen, Yann LeCun, Reid Hoffman, Palmer Luckey, Emad Mostaque. They believe that AI can, to use Andreessen's recent phrase, "save the world," and their biggest worry is that moral panic and overregulation will create huge obstacles to innovation. These three positions are such that, on almost every important issue, one of the positions is opposed to a coalition of the other two of the positions AI Doomers + AI Realists agree that AI poses serious risks and that the AI Boosters are harming society by downplaying these risks AI Realists + AI Boosters agree that existential risk should not be a big worry right now, and that AI Doomers are harming society by focusing the discussion on existential risk AI Boosters and AI Doomers agree that AI is progressing extremely quickly, that something like AGI is a real possibility in the next few years, and that AI Realists are harming society by refusing to acknowledge this possibility Why This Matters. The "AI Debate" is now very much in the public consciousness (in large part, IMHO, due to the release of ChatGPT), but also very confusing to the general public in a way that other controversial issues, e.g. abortion or gun control or immigration, are not. I argue that the difference between the AI Debate and those other issues is that those issues are, essentially two-sided debates. That's not completely true, there are nuances, but, in the public's mind at their essence, they come down to two sides.To a naive observer, the present AI debate is confusing, I argue, because various experts seem to be talking past each other, and the "expert positions" do not coalesce into the familiar structure of a two-sided debate with most experts on one side or the other. When there are three sides to a debate, then one fairly frequently sees what look like "temporary alliances" where A and C are arguing against B. They are not temporary alliances. They are based on principles and deeply held beliefs. It's just that, depending on how you frame the question, you wind up with "strange bedfellows" as two groups find common ground on on...

The Health Services Consultative Committee released its annual report a few weeks back which was mildly critical of the the Health Department. Outgoing Chair Andrew Cole in an interview about his Committee's report felt that the Health Minister tried to bully his committee. The Minister strongly refutes this allegation and describes the report as riddled with errors. In the meantime the broadcaster who interviewed the outgoing chair claims he's being threatened with lawyers letters. What is going on? Is the Minister being too robust in defending his Department or is he right to kick back at criticism?

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESCuban Missile Crisis Part Deux, Times Two: China puts troops in Cuba, Russia puts nukes next to NATO in Ukraine (2:58) BlackRock — war profiteering and buying politicians (8:42)The lost Titan sub — exploring the depths of reckless incompetence (19:29)What to Expect From Titan Sub Rescue The harrowing tale of the previous record for deep sea rescue of a stranded submersible — when CO2 is really a danger to life (39:07)"IdentityFinance" — all globalist organizations (IMF, BIS, UN, WEF, WHO) share a common goal of global ID and biometrics. It's central to Central Bank Digital Currencies CBDC (52:43)Hunter Bias: Taking Corruption Up a Notch to ELEVEN Most serious charges ignored and income tax charges even downgraded. Compare to treatment of Al Capone or a J6 granny with cancer who walked into their sacred temple to power, the US Capitol. Naked nepotism and corruption. Exactly what you'd expect from the Bidens. (1:08:16)The REAL corruption is with "We the People" who make excuses for criminal politicians if they're "on OUR side" (1:21:11)The weaponization of the IRS (and ATF, FBI, etc) (1:29:58)Tiny county makes TENS OF MILLIONS in outright theft called civil asset forfeiture (1:39:05)The real benefit of RFKj's campaign is right now — the PUBLIC DEBATE over jabs and "public health". The info is getting out there even though Biden won't debate. The mainstream media's juvenile propaganda is backfiring (1:49:39)Ben Shapiro, trying to claw back his lost credibility after SHILLING for the jabs for 2 years. (1:54:31)INTERVIEW When Driver ASSIST Becomes Govt INSIST Eric Peters, EPautos.com, is the issue emissions and safety? Government controls are not for your car…they're for you (2:02:12)Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESCuban Missile Crisis Part Deux, Times Two: China puts troops in Cuba, Russia puts nukes next to NATO in Ukraine (2:58) BlackRock — war profiteering and buying politicians (8:42)The lost Titan sub — exploring the depths of reckless incompetence (19:29)What to Expect From Titan Sub Rescue The harrowing tale of the previous record for deep sea rescue of a stranded submersible — when CO2 is really a danger to life (39:07)"IdentityFinance" — all globalist organizations (IMF, BIS, UN, WEF, WHO) share a common goal of global ID and biometrics. It's central to Central Bank Digital Currencies CBDC (52:43)Hunter Bias: Taking Corruption Up a Notch to ELEVEN Most serious charges ignored and income tax charges even downgraded. Compare to treatment of Al Capone or a J6 granny with cancer who walked into their sacred temple to power, the US Capitol. Naked nepotism and corruption. Exactly what you'd expect from the Bidens. (1:08:16)The REAL corruption is with "We the People" who make excuses for criminal politicians if they're "on OUR side" (1:21:11)The weaponization of the IRS (and ATF, FBI, etc) (1:29:58)Tiny county makes TENS OF MILLIONS in outright theft called civil asset forfeiture (1:39:05)The real benefit of RFKj's campaign is right now — the PUBLIC DEBATE over jabs and "public health". The info is getting out there even though Biden won't debate. The mainstream media's juvenile propaganda is backfiring (1:49:39)Ben Shapiro, trying to claw back his lost credibility after SHILLING for the jabs for 2 years. (1:54:31)INTERVIEW When Driver ASSIST Becomes Govt INSIST Eric Peters, EPautos.com, is the issue emissions and safety? Government controls are not for your car…they're for you (2:02:12)Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

A standalone Bill allowing for the use of facial recognition technology by An Garda Síochána will be brought forward later in the year. It's as Cabinet today approved legislation allowing body-worn cameras for gardaí, and the force will immediately begin procuring the devices, albeit without the ability to use facial recognition. Why the delay on that technology? Ossian Smyth, Minister of State for Public Procurement and eGovernment joined Kieran Cuddihy in studio to discuss…

In this episode, scholar and activist Professor Rosemary Dzuvichu discusses the absence of public debate on state torture in India, the murder of Thangjam Manorama, and the use of police violence at peaceful protests.‘In Perspective' is The Swaddle's podcast series where academics reveal little-known facts about Indian history, society and culture. Notes: 00:01:00:13- What are some of the major development challenges facing the Northeast today?00:05:21:13- What are the pitfalls of Northeast India becoming a buffer zone without being part of the development process? And what are some of the pitfalls of the way the Look East policy is playing out?00:09:05:01- Is there a lack of understanding of indigenous cultures of Northeast India? How does that play out in the Indian state's policies?00:15:48:19- How has the militarisation of Nagaland impacted women, and in turn the women-led civil social movements in the region? 00:20:12:17- Why does the responsibility of peacekeeping end up falling on women in Nagaland?00:22:36:19- How have questions around representation, such as reservation for women in municipal bodies in Nagaland, played out historically? 00:32:37:03- How do Naga women writers shape feminist perspectives on the region?

Unwed mothers and their children are ostracized by society and stigmatized by their own families. Many women and children end up in desperate situations. But a growing number of people are trying to end this dire situation, both in courts and in society as a whole. Many young people say its time for change. But there's still a long way to go.

Ever since the publication of her New York Times bestselling book, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (2020), Kristin Kobes Du Mez has been in the middle of intense public debates about faith, nationalism, and gender in American Evangelicalism. In our conversation, Kristin shares some of the story behind that story, reflecting on the role that historical research plays in public life — as well as the choices, controversies, and hopes that continue to shape her vocational journey. She also reflects on her calling as professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

It's been a long time. We shouldn't have left you. But we're back minus Daniel and featuring On3's James Fletcher (3 True Values podcast) and we're talking the complicated and curious case of Alabama forward Brandon Miller who is tied to a capital murder trial (as a witness) involving former Bama teammate Darius Miles. We dive into everything from the initial crime to the public revelation that Brandon Miller transported the eventual murder weapon and the various media reactions therein. We're back with a tough one.

Howie Kurtz on the Energy Department backing the COVID-19 lab leak theory, Chicago mayoral election maybe heading to a run-off and Commanders owner Dan Snyder making demands of other NFL owners. Follow Howie on Twitter: @HowardKurtz For more #MediaBuzz click here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode opens with President Richard Nixon's March 1974 visit to the Grand Ole Opry.  Nixon was there to open the brand new Opry House on its first night after moving from downtown Nashville's Ryman Auditorium. It is a symbol of the one section of the country that never wavered, as President Nixon's problems mounted. In the South, we don't cut and run, especially when it is a President that stood strong during war time as this President had done. Unfortunately, the public support was not translating to the Judiciary Committee's three influential Democratic Congressmen Representatives Walter Flowers of Alabama,  Ray Thornton of Arkansas, and Jim Mann of my home state of South Carolina. They were moving toward impeachment, undercutting the President's support in their states delegations. President Nixon sensing the momentum shifting away from him, reached out to Governor George Wallace of Alabama to see if he could not help him sway Walter Flowers, when Wallace refused, it was the moment President Nixon knew this fight was lost. He would lose the southern firewall that stood between himself and Impeachment.  The President was also having trouble holding his Republicans together as Representatives William Cohen, Tom Railsback, W. Caldwell Butler, and Lawrence Hogan had decided to side with the democrats. As we listen in on the debate in this episode, you will hear these men, as some struggle to vote their conscience, and some make their decision in  matter of fact fashion. You  will get to hear the moments of high drama and one speech that has been an enormous part of the history of the moment from Representative Barbara Jordan of Texas. Jordan's speech contained many charges, most notably  was that of Howard Hunt faking cables to embarrass the Kennedy Administration and involvement in the overthrow of the South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem.  While that charge of Hunt faking cables tying Kennedy personally to the assassination of Diem was faked, it was faked by a man who, as a member of the CIA, had seen the real ones that had tied Kennedy to the overthrow of the Diem Government.  A fact hidden from the public and Barbara Jorden for  years afterwards. This is but one of many examples of charges made that with time, unsealed documents, and an explosive set of Church Hearings in the United States Senate would later be proven untrue. All to late for Watergate and Richard Nixon. But the President did have defenders,   Representatives Charlie Wiggins of California and Charlie Sandman of New Jersey.  The case they made has, in reality, stood the test of time and you will hear it in this episode too. Plus we will dismantle the mythology of the Watergate debate that the defense case was dismantled by a hearing full of specific accusations concerning the President that overwhelmed his defenders and that President Nixon's attorney, James St. Claire, was actually able to perform a real defense of the President. Neither was true and you will hear it here for yourself.  Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

The Rings Of Power Peter Jackson Drama Gets Worse, Elon Challenges Twitter CEO To Public Debate, Kevin Smith Meltdown and More...

Elon Musk Challenges Twitters CEO to Public Debate on Fake Accounts and Spam BotsGalaxy Digitals Q2 Net Loss Tripled To $554.7 Million Amid Market TurmoilF2Pool co-founder responds to allegations it's cheating the Ethereum POW system

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZewX5xCVMs

Intro+voicer on first full day of deliberations in Johnny Depp-Amber Heard libel trial

Leslie Palti-Guzman exchanges with Dr. Benabbou Senouci, macro economist and professor in Oran's Ecoles Superieures d'Economie, Algeria. This episode in French, recorded on Apr. 29, 2022, discusses Europe's renewed interest in Algeria's hydrocarbons, and what is means for Algeria's economy diversification away from fossil fuels. We delve into Algeria's renewable and hydrogen goals. Benabbou is sharing his thoughts about his students' interest in energy transition. 

Three retired Marine Infantry Officers — Colonel Will Costantini, Colonel Jeff Kenney & Major Tim Lynch join host Mike McNamara for an hour of current events discussion every Thursday here on ALL MARINE RADIO. TODAY'S TOPICS: Jeff Kenney is absent today What is behind Secretary of Defense Austin's Call for a ‘Weakened' Russia? Washington Post Opinion: […]

Putin responds to Biden's threat, offers public debate Russian leader Vladimir Putin responds to Joe Biden's “killer” comments with an offer to a public debate.. To find out more, click to watch the video now! - To get your audiobook copy of #TheBigSilverShort go to: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/thebigsilvershortaudio/ To get the paperback version of “The Big Silver Short” go to: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08BFL34T9/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0 - To support the petition to ban #JPMorgan from trading in the #gold and silver #markets go to: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ban-jp-morgan-from-trading-gold-and-silver - To buy physical silver and get the best price in the country email: Arcadia@MilesFranklin.com Or call: 833-326-GOLD (4653) (you can also ask about their gold for silver swap program) - To buy or sell gold, #silver, #platinum, or #palladium through our #preciousmetals sponsor #MilesFranklin (who's offered to match or beat any price in the country) email: Arcadia@MilesFranklin.com Or call: 833-326-GOLD (4653) (you can also ask about their gold for silver swap program) - Click here to subscribe to Arcadia's Youtube channel: http://bit.ly/2t1HKOj - To support the show go to: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/supporttheshow/ -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOdnC87boxQ&t=2s Follow Arcadia Economics on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ArcadiaEconomic - For Arcadia's precious metals trading and option consulting, email: consulting@arcadiaeconomics.comSubscribe to Arcadia Economics on Soundwise

Rod and Karen discuss Coronavirus, Bath and Body works fires employee, JK Rowling signs cancel culture letter, public debate, Supreme Court says companies don't have to cover contraception for women, Bey's mom is fed up, woman points gun at black women, Kyle Queiro apologizes for Jill Scott comments and sword ratchetness. Twitter: @rodimusprime @SayDatAgain @TBGWT Email: theblackguywhotips@gmail.com Blog: www.theblackguywhotips.com Voice Mail: 704-557-0186