It would be cool if we could just focus on climate change though. We didn’t need a another man made crisis to deal with. Imagine if a real natural disaster occurs within the next 5 years, like another Chernobyl. It will be pretty tragic for our species.
the thing is, there are several of such disasters happening every year because of climate change, and given that climate change is man-made, we can infer that those disasters are too. Pretty tragic for our species indeed, but even more tragic for the other species that live on this planet.
Sorry I do know what you mean. I meant a natural disaster unrelated to climate change. Such as huge earthquake.
I'm mostly trolling to stir the pot and see HN's response, and you don't disappoint. :) But since we're all speculating here, if I had to place my money on who will come out on top with AI, it would be the East. And by East, I specifically mean China. While the West is scrambling to limit the pace of AI development, no such regulation exists in China. There have certainly been regulations to limit the power of Chines…
Are there any regulations on AI in the US? I’m not aware of any.
> An autocracy has more power and influence to direct its resources in a single direction much more efficiently than any democratic government.
Fortunately, because it’s an autocracy, there is no way to know if it is the right direction, until it fails.
I find their salaries posted really odd. They offer $112,000 - $198,000 a year for this position, which requires some pretty wild math competency, electrical engineering, simulations experience, and security clearance: https://jobs.lever.co/anduril/b78e5e78-f09f-4be8-995c-71ead3... Or you can write React and TypeScript for $160,000 - $240,000 a year https://jobs.lever.co/anduril/610cb495-bfd9-4a0c-8c55-a2756a...
Embedded devs make less money than front end devs. Might not be reasonable or fair but it isn’t unique to this company.
A lot of people similarly claim that the 2020 election was stolen, aided and abetted by a criminal conspiracy. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't agree with those claims, and it wouldn't stem from a skepticism of the base notion that "people with power commit crimes openly and with impunity". In any case, even when illegal government programs exist it's again unclear to me what sort of due diligen…
Yes some people claim things that aren’t true. Others, conversely, make true statements. I am pleased that all in this discussion have now demonstrated such a rigorous grasp of the obvious. To your more specific point, my first recommendation for government contractors who wish to avoid being labeled as a “criminal organization” would be to avoid repeatedly and blatantly committing crimes.
Yes, well, I still can't help but find it odd that such "blatant" crimes are apparently the reach of the legal system. My prior under the circumstances is that the claims are overblown, eg. "Iraqi soldiers are murderers" or "all contractors that aided the US intelligence apparatus belong to criminal organizations".
Palantir is a solution provider for my company [Airbus]. We are reasonably satisfied with the product they provide us. Not being politically involved, and as a European not really aware of the action of Palantir in the US, could you elaborate on the « nastiness » of that Palantir?
It should be considered part of the US military industrial complex and people largely object to it for the same reasons they would object to Raytheon or Lockheed Martin being involved with something. Palantir obviously operates on a different layer, but it still provides support for the military operations of the US. Of course that should not be controversial for Airbus, which themselves operate military industry and…
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with being part of the military-industrial complex - as recent developments have shown, defence industry is a fundamental need for any modern society including democratic ones, and we're voting to increase funding for military personnel and hardware (part of which gets bought from the US), and getting volunteers from all fields of technology involved in applying hardware and software for military needs (e.g. adapting consumer drones for dropping grenades, working on software tools for artillery coordination, etc), thus effectively becoming part of the military-industrial complex - and I consider that not only morally permissible, but even morally imperative to support the resistance against Russian invasion of Ukraine not only with words and humanitarian aid, but with actual military-industrial effort. Building weapons of war is not evil, because resisting evil requires them, and blocking the building of weapons does not make you a good person - it makes you a bystander, and being a bystander to evil is not neutral, but harmful.
The people scared of the AI doom are so funny to me because the idea is highly speculative, when there's climate change happening under our noses and nobody says we should stop anything...
Palantir's AI calculated this comment to be the ideal way to derail this conversation. 1. This article has nothing to do with climate change, so why is such a comment the top reply? 2. "nobody says we should stop anything [to address climate change]" is a flagrant lie. You guys are being baited.
1. because it made people think and reply
2. if it was not obvious, my comment was sarcastic. Of course there are people who care about both, what surprises me is all this fanfare from CEOs about something so speculative that is completely science fiction right now, when the existential threat is here and now, and very few seem to point at some urgent solution like, IDK, stopping using fossil fuel in 5 years? We have about a decade to fix this [1] and the progress so far has been, at best, lacklustre [2].
It should be considered part of the US military industrial complex and people largely object to it for the same reasons they would object to Raytheon or Lockheed Martin being involved with something. Palantir obviously operates on a different layer, but it still provides support for the military operations of the US. Of course that should not be controversial for Airbus, which themselves operate military industry and…
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with being part of the military-industrial complex - as recent developments have shown, defence industry is a fundamental need for any modern society including democratic ones, and we're voting to increase funding for military personnel and hardware (part of which gets bought from the US), and getting volunteers from all fields of technology involved in applying hardware and softwa…
Seeing actual footage from Ukraine, actually has made me extremely uncomfortable working for a company, which produces equipment for that conflict.
But maybe I am one of those insane people who doesn't want to see people slaughter each other. It seems like once there was "the right" enemy people actually are very much in favor of foreign military adventures and war. Pretty pathetic.
Yes some people claim things that aren’t true. Others, conversely, make true statements. I am pleased that all in this discussion have now demonstrated such a rigorous grasp of the obvious. To your more specific point, my first recommendation for government contractors who wish to avoid being labeled as a “criminal organization” would be to avoid repeatedly and blatantly committing crimes.
Yes, well, I still can't help but find it odd that such "blatant" crimes are apparently the reach of the legal system. My prior under the circumstances is that the claims are overblown, eg. "Iraqi soldiers are murderers" or "all contractors that aided the US intelligence apparatus belong to criminal organizations".
This conversation is really confusing.
Has there ever been an era in American history where there aren’t private entities with high government officials as allies who engage in organized criminal activity to further our international trade interests while avoiding consequences?
This is missing a key argument from the AI-cautious, which is that we shouldn't "pause AI development", but rather "pause public deployment". The case for only pausing the public deployment solves the "China problem" because we could continue development. On top of that, it would be harder for China to fast-follow if there isn't any public deployment of what is being researched and built. edit: I'm realizing there ma…
Isn't pausing public deployment essentially the same as pausing development, given that it cuts of the company's revenue from their research? I'm sure some will continue. But way less.
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with being part of the military-industrial complex - as recent developments have shown, defence industry is a fundamental need for any modern society including democratic ones, and we're voting to increase funding for military personnel and hardware (part of which gets bought from the US), and getting volunteers from all fields of technology involved in applying hardware and softwa…
Seeing actual footage from Ukraine, actually has made me extremely uncomfortable working for a company, which produces equipment for that conflict. But maybe I am one of those insane people who doesn't want to see people slaughter each other. It seems like once there was "the right" enemy people actually are very much in favor of foreign military adventures and war. Pretty pathetic.
I understand that the attitude towards overseas "military adventures" can reasonably be quite different, but coming from that region, I feel that it's morally good (not even acceptable/neutral) to volunteer and join the army, risking your life to defend your people with force of arms that may involve killing of enemy soldiers. And since that is morally okay, for the person who actually is pulling the trigger - then there's nothing wrong also for those manufacturing a more effective gun/vehicle/drone/etc for that soldier.
There is valid criticism for some of these military-industrial companies lobbying for various horrible historical acts to improve their business, and that obviously is immoral - but that's not immoral because they make weapons but because of these specific acts which put them in the exact same position as United Fruit Company, which caused violent conflicts to benefit their banana business.