Readit NewsI have seen this with several European friends who relocated to the US and found their relationship with alcohol turning dark.
My personal theory is that life in the states may be on average more stressful than in Europe, perhaps due to lack of healthcare, at-will employment, etc., and this life pressure causes people here to be more at risk of self-medication problem drinking.
When has the government ever wanted less surveillance power or less control over the internet.
1) Technology is bad
2) Technology is good
3) Technology causes social change (tech determinism)
4) Social forces shape technology (social constructivism)
5) Technology is an accelerant
Essentially all stories of technology and society fall into one of these narratives. The most rare is #5, yet as you argue in this case, it is probably the most realistic. Haidt should be aware of these and I also don't understand why he is going with #3.
Amazon isn't doing all that well recently, though (check $AMZN). And I'd argue that the product design on their biggest product, the e-commerce bit, is terrible. I know so many people, me included, who no longer buy entire categories of goods on Amazon because you simply can't trust the quality/authenticity of the goods anymore.
There won't be any human drivers, so they will all yield to me even if I treat them like slalom poles.
This thought experiment sounds like a performance art dream. Do you remember the artist who created a Google maps traffic jam in London by filling a wagon with mobile phones and walking slowly? Ref: https://www.simonweckert.com/googlemapshacks.html
Another thing: You can sabotage self-driving cars by putting traffic cones everywhere. Or sit in the middle of a major intersect with ten of your friends and read the newspaper (or pick your nose!). The passengers will be furious, and the self-driving cars won't know what to do.
Simple: I know that humans have intentionality and agency. They want things, they have goals both immediate and long term. Their replies are based not just on the context of their experiences and the conversation but their emotional and physical state, and the applicability of their reply to their goals.
And they are capable of coming up with reasoning about topics for which they have no prior information, by applying reasonable similarities. Example: Even if someone never heard the phrase "walking a mile in someone elses shoes", most humans (provided they speak english) have no difficulty in figuring out what this means. They also have no trouble figuring out that this is a figure of speech, and not a literal action.
This all seems orthogonal to reasoning, but also who is to say that somewhere in those billions of parameters there isn't something like a model of goals and emotional state? I mean, I seriously doubt it, but I also don't think I could evidence that.