TBF, she fits the profile of someone hired to sus out bullshit, owing to her extensive experience in that field.

This is the kind of truth we overlook for the same reasons we teach action bias to leaders as a good thing while we study action fallacy as the reason why we choose bad leaders.

Such a ham handed way to convince players it's not about the destination...

Isn't part of the resistance that we don't believe that WE are cruel... So we accidentally give them leeway hoping for ourselves. If we just accept that we are sometimes we can accept that they are sometimes (well kind of a lot) and we'd all be better adjusted ppl too.

The only possible valid counter argument to this is that many were already... "Subcognitive" my "hope" is that the same percentage of people will be incurious as always. That this is all good because AI is exposing an age old problem and forcing us to face it.

I hear this and accept it. On a more philosophical note, does the lack of physical mechanics demand we assign less motive to an idea than a virus even if it behaves similarly?

I think the writing on Cambridge Analytica after the 2016 election counts.

I feel like if I wanted to turn the casual nerds, I would distort the stories they only paid partial attention to into the narrative I wanted them to follow. Not like this isn't happening all the time nowadays.

It's not a virus, but how much does this differ from the foods we eat driving us to eat more compulsively and do other things more compulsively as the population accumulates sickness and risk?